Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Rather as Jesus said, we should give honor to anyone who hears the word of God & keeps it
Josiah said:Here's your former position, as stated in # 68, "How ever the Dogma that is being questioned is mentioned by the Church fathers and is in Scripture.
Our friend WarriorAngel posted in # 91, "It's right there in Scripture!Now you seem to be saying that it's NOT in Scripture.
Josiah said:I disagree with you that the Catholic Denomination uses it's own Tradition AND Scripture.
Here's a classic example of the real rubric of "My Tradition OR Scripture." Because, as you've noted, it's not using Scripture here - just it's own very late Tradition. OR not AND
Josiah said:
The very same Tradition that brought you the Bible, Brought us the Dormition/Assumption of Mary.
Nope but you keep on trying though if it pleases you.Josiah said:]So, you admit that this rumor doesn't come from Scripture or Mary or any Apostle or any earliest Catholic Denominational "Fathers." We agree on that.
I already went thru the Immaculate Conception [as per my last post] IF you read it ...You said it is "in Scripture."
WarriorAngel said, "It's right there in Scripture!"
When such was asked for..... well..... the obvious happened.
You've not noted any Apostle who taught the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary or that Mary Had No Sex Ever.
So, IMHO, you not only do NOT embrace Scripture AND Tradition or Scripture OR Tradition but rather NEITHER Scripture OR Tradition.
.
I already went thru the Immaculate Conception [as per my last post] IF you read it ...
She was pre saved - therefore she was spotless.
As for her perpetual virginity...
I am now going to show you the foreshadowing of God's words to her virginity.
Ezechiel 44
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.
The gate is Mary's womb. NO man shall open it, and no man shall pass through it. FOR the Lord God shall enter into it.
Its pretty sufficient to explain the prophecy of Mary.
God is a jealous God and He wont allow any man to go there where He enters. [He entered the world]
The Greek word kecharitomene has fascinated people since ancient times, and for a number of reasons. What does it mean? How do we best translate it into other languages? What might it imply, beyond simple meaning, about Mary? This article will focus primarily on the first two questions: considering the meaning of the Greek word and its translation into English. The third question could not be fully answered without considering the larger scriptural context of the words of Gabriel, traditional Christian understanding and mariology, etc.
So what does kecharitomene mean?
direct address
When Gabriel appears to Mary, the first words he says to her are "Chaire, kecharitomene!" [Caire, kecaritomene!]. Chaire (which means both "rejoice" and "hail") is the salutation, like the word "hello" in "hello, Cathy!" The word that follows, kecharitomene, is the direct address. In the previous example, the name "Cathy" is the direct address. A direct address is usually a name or title (or pronoun taking the place of a name or title) which represents the identity of the person being spoken to. Gabriel identifies Mary with a single term: not the name "Mary," but the word kecharitomene. Here, a common translation problem occurs. Gabriel only uses one word to refer to Mary, but most English translations do not. One particularly bad translation renders kecharitomene as "highly favored daughter." Kecharitomene is extended from one word to three. The direct address in the translation is "daughter," a word which does not appear in the Greek at all (as will be shown below). "Daughter" is then modified with a relevant word. This doesn't really do kecharitomene justice. The same is true of translations which make the direct address "you" or "one" and modify it with adjectives or appositive phrases. .
etc see link.
Its not the fault of the [Catholic] Church that what is there cannot be seen.
Um, CJ God wasnt referring to a gate - it was a conceleaed prophecy to Mary.
Think about that, my good and respected friend.....
When Jesus said, "I have other sheep" the LDS says He stated that they were American Natives - you just cannot "see" it because... well.... um..... it's not there, Jesus never said it.
Friend, if it's not there, then it's not there. ANYONE (and I do mean that) can say "it's there - invisibly - and my eyes (exclusively) can "see" invisible words."
John 10 16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.
IE, the other sheep shall be brought into His Church - ie, the gentiles.
LDS's prophets [John Smith] has been prooven false because as i said this before - the golden scrolls he saw and translated are all false.
Archeology cannot find one thing from any of the tribes or ppls he mentioned.
So science doesnt see it either CJ.
Meantime, archeology can proove the Church's existence.
I love archeology CJ...dont you.
Then why did He specifically say, "THIS gate....?"
Why does the Catholic Church insist that on this particular DOGMA, God "concealed" the Truth by misleading words? How does that reveal that this Dogma is taught in Scripture - rather than "concealed" by misleading words or invisible words?
[/size]
[/size]
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
.
Why does He say to kill the unblemished lamb and smear the blood over the houses CJ?
Why does He say in OT [manna] and NT to eat the bread from Heaven, CJ?
Why does He say like Jonah He will be gone 3 days..?
Why does He say to the Pharisees that the prophets spoke of Him but they couldnt see it?
Why is the OT so concealed CJ?
Why did the Apostle Peter say we cannot understand the OT and need [an authority] to disclose it?
Why did the Eunich need help from Philip?
Because the OT had to be disguised [so to speak] as well as His parables, so that ALL would be fulfilled.
IF Christ's death and Resurrection and His life were visible and easy to see...who would dare to crucify God otherwise?
Thats why everything was hidden.
And this gate was a direct reference to Mary!
As with all things, if she was visible, then her Son would not have been crucified.
And scriptures were always in 'parable/paradox' form so no one could understand them and let His death come to pass.
Ya see?
It was only after 40 days with the Apostles after the Resurrection did He actually explain it all.
And guess what, the OT is not very often referenced in the NT because the Apostles taught orally what it meant.
I gave the scriptures, and in that i could give them ...is from Tradition. Whether or not you want to believe it is up to you CJ.
Here is the thing...
You
cannot say the Catholic - Eastern Orhtodox - Coptics do not have these things in scriptures [altho all closely relate to the same final outcome even if they hold to the understanding of the final outcome differently] and instead you should openly admit you do not follow them in that way.
You cannot state per fact that the scriptures do not exist because i showed you where they do.
But you can disagree based on your understanding contrary of the Traditional teachings of these scriptures.
See what i mean.
Otherwise saying i cannot proove it with scriptures is utterly wrong, because i just did.
You however; can only assert that you do not think the translation is the same according to how you perceive them.
John 10 16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.
IE, the other sheep shall be brought into His Church - ie, the gentiles.
LDS's prophets [John Smith] has been prooven false because as i said this before - the golden scrolls he saw and translated are all false.
Why is the OT so concealed CJ?
Why did the Apostle Peter say we cannot understand the OT and need [an authority] to disclose it?
Why did the Eunich need help from Philip?
Because the OT had to be disguised [so to speak] as well as His parables, so that ALL would be fulfilled.
IF Christ's death and Resurrection and His life were visible and easy to see...who would dare to crucify God otherwise?
Thats why everything was hidden.
And this gate was a direct reference to Mary!
As with all things, if she was visible, then her Son would not have been crucified.
And scriptures were always in 'parable/paradox' form so no one could understand them and let His death come to pass.
Ya see?
It was only after 40 days with the Apostles after the Resurrection did He actually explain it all.
And guess what, the OT is not very often referenced in the NT because the Apostles taught orally what it meant.
That must be a favorite verse for the Orthodox as you also used it hereEZK44:2
2Then said the LORD unto me, "This gate shall be shut. It shall not be opened and no man shall enter in by it, because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut.
I say GIVE THE LAND BACK TO THE INDIANS!!!Friend, you entirely missed my point....
The LDS says that the text says that Jesus will embrace the American Natives. They can "see" the "invisible words" Jesus MEANT to say but.... um.... didn't.
So where we may doubt something, and it is true, we should reflect on the fact we may make an error and that error could could cause others to stumble.
That is a possibility.And I'm also sure you don't question any statement made by any Fundamentalist or 'Evangelical' Protestant in any sense lest he/she MIGHT be correct or you MIGHT cause them to "stumble."
My unseparated sister in Christ, the point of discussion here is not what we choose to believe. I'm discussing the point if whether this dogma is in Scripture and earliest Tradition.
You gave no Scripture(s) about any Marian dogma. Obviously.
You gave a view imputed into a text via pure eisegesis - as anyone can do with any text. Apples and oranges, as I'm certain you agree. Yes, we ALL KNOW that this is the view of the Catholic Denomination - that's not the issues before us, but rather is it the teaching of Scripture? Do the Apostles (and those 3 ECF who knew at least one) teach this? ANY view can be imputed INTO any text - as we all know, especially if one is going to argue that God was being misleading by what He wrote or that the teaching is "there" in "invisible words" only self can "see." Are you understanding my point of view here? See, my respected friend, I 100% confident you'd not accept that rubric from me or from a Mormon or JW so I'm 100% confident you don't expect me to do so.
Now, IF you want to change you position and state, "This is an article of faith I choose to embrace - I do not argue that it comes from Scripture AND Tradition, I do not argue that it comes from Scripture OR Tradition - it comes from neither, but I choose to accept it nonetheless." Friend, you'll get points from me for honesty, anyway, LOL.
Friend, OBVIOUSLY, you didn't "prove" anything at all - or even reference anything of any relevance whatsoever. Obviously. What you gave is a verse that you imputed with an entirely foreign meaning (quite difficult given the words actually there and the context of them). What you gave is your view IMPUTED into a chosen Scripture. Eisegesis (and entirely baseless at that), not exegesis.
What you gave is a verse written 600 years before the birth of Our Blessed Lady that SPECIFICALLY states, "THIS gate..." not "Mary's womb." Thus, the verse doesn't say ANYTHING about Mary, sex, wombs, Joseph, frequency of sex, etc. Obviously. A view is being IMPUTED INTO the text, not taken from the text. Friend, as you know as well as I do, anyone can do that with anything and any verse. All it signifies is that the view is being imputed into the text. That's it. That's all. It might be a correct view, it might be an errant view, but it's not what the text is saying it's what is being imputed into it. Apples and oranges. (My Rx, spend a few months with a Mormon apologist - a really good one - you'll learn to spot this really quickly, LOL).
Friend, I'm NOT saying ANY of these Marian DOGMA of the Catholic Denomination are wrong (or right). I suppose I am challenging the Catholic Denomination's insistence that they ARE dogmas - the highest level of certainty and importance. If I'm going to be anathematized as a heretic (and TECHNICALLY, I'm not), then something more than "but I really, really think it's true - I do, I do!" might be good. You agree? DOMGA should require more than "but I choose to regard it as true and you as a heretic" - whether that be a Mormon or a Catholic or a JW or a Lutheran, IMHO. I'm sure we disagree.
Thank you!
Pax
- Josiah
(Waiting - not so patiently - for GT to reopen.)
As i showed here the Tradition [the understanding of scriptures as taught since the beginning] so the CC, EO, AND OO all uphold this.[/color][/size][/b]
And here is a writing of the early Church father
CHURCH FATHERS: Oration on Simeon and Anna (Methodius)
You are the circumscription, so to speak, of Him who cannot be circumscribed; the root Isaiah 40:1 of the most beautiful flower; the mother of the Creator; the nurse of the Nourisher; the circumference of Him who embraces all things; the upholder of Him Hebrews 1:3 who upholds all things by His word; the gate through which God appears in the flesh; Ezekiel 44:2 the tongs of that cleansing coal; Isaiah 6:6 the bosom in small of that bosom which is all-containing; the fleece of wool, Judges 6:37 the mystery of which cannot be solved; the well of Bethlehem, 2 Samuel 23:17 that reservoir of life which David longed for, out of which the draught of immortality gushed forth; the mercy-seat Exodus 35:17 from which God in human form was made known unto men; the spotless robe of Him who clothes Himself with light as with a garment. You have lent to God, who stands in need of nothing, that flesh which He had not, in order that the Omnipotent might become that which it was his good pleasure to be. What is more splendid than this? What than this is more sublime? He who fills earth and heaven, Jeremiah 23:24 whose are all things, has become in need of you, for you have lent to God that flesh which He had not. You have clad the Mighty One with that beauteous panoply of the body by which it has become possible for Him to be seen by my eyes. And I, in order that I might freely approach to behold Him, have received that by which all the fiery darts of the wicked shall be quenched. Ephesians 6:16 Hail! hail! mother and handmaid of God. Hail! hail! You to whom the great Creditor of all is a debtor. We are all debtors to God, but to you He is Himself indebted.
For He who said, Honour your father and your mother, Exodus 20:12 will have most assuredly, as Himself willing to be proved by such proofs, kept inviolate that grace, and His own decree towards her who ministered to Him that nativity to which He voluntarily stooped, and will have glorified with a divine honour her whom He, as being without a father, even as she was without a husband, Himself has written down as mother. Even so must these things be. For the hymns which we offer to you, O you most holy and admirable habitation of God, are no merely useless and ornamental words. Nor, again, is your spiritual laudation mere secular trifling, or the shoutings of a false flattery, O you who of God art praised; you who to God gavest suck; who by nativity givest unto mortals their beginning of being, but they are of clear and evident truth. But the time would fail us, ages and succeeding generations too, to render unto you your fitting salutation as the mother of the King Eternal, 1 Timothy 1:17 even as somewhere the illustrious prophet says, teaching us how incomprehensible you are. How great is the house of God, and how large is the place of His possession! Great, and has none end, high and unmeasurable. For verily, verily, this prophetic oracle, and most true saying, is concerning your majesty; for you alone hast been thought worthy to share with God the things of God; who hast alone borne in the flesh Him, who of God the Father was the Eternally and Only-Begotten. So do they trulybelieve who hold fast to the pure faith.
Rufinus: about 307-309 AD he died. So this was written prior to that date. Maybe 280 AD plus.
CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on the Apostles' Creed (Rufinus)
The words of the Prophets concerning Him, A Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son, are known to all, and are cited in the Gospels again and again. The Prophet Ezekiel too had predicted the miraculous manner of that birth, calling Mary figuratively the Gate of the Lord, the gate, namely, through which the Lord entered the world. For he says, The gate which looks towards the East shall be closed, and shall not be opened, and no one shall pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel shall pass through it, and it shall be closed. What could be said with such evident reference to the inviolate preservation of the Virgin's condition? That Gate of Virginity was closed; through it the Lord God of Israel entered; through it He came forth from the Virgin's womb into this world; and the Virgin-state being preserved inviolate, the gate of the Virgin remained closed for ever. Therefore the Holy Ghost is spoken of as the Creator of the Lord's flesh and of His temple.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?