Speak lovingly of Mary

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have the EO - and OO to back me up...so i would lie to say it was my own understanding and argument.

Yeah, those would be good backups to have since they also go by oral traditions.

Btw, I have never heard of J Spong until someone put up a lecture by him. How do Catholics and Protestants/Orthodox view him?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7262607
Lecture by John Shelby Spong
A vary Intersting lecture.

Warning. Long video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZM3FXlLMug​

Your thoughts.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I understand all too well, CJ.
You, unlike 1500 years of Christians - need it in writing.

Well, if you are to insist the Scripture AND Tradition support it, then you need to show that both of them support it. I'm not sure how you intend to do that other than referencing something written.

And, my friend, I'm not asking for anything that I don't expect you to ask of the Mormon or Protestant - something other than, "but this is what I choose to believe" or "But this is what my specific particular denomination says."



Now, of course, ANYONE can say, "But the Apostles all taught that Mary was 15 feet tall and lived entirely on tacos - they just never mentioned a thing about that - nor did anyone else, but that proves everyone believed it!" Now, if that rubric is acceptable to you - then I have a whole other direction for our conversation (especially vis-a-vis LDS doctrine), but I suspect it's not.

Furthermore i already provided the scriptures...that were a prophecy to her.

No. Of course, what you shared is an imputed viewpoint. The text said nothing of the sort.

But you need to show me what it is Christ taught for 40 days after He rose.

IF your view now is that these Marian Dogmas were taught by Jesus to the two men on the road to Emmaus, then the "burnen of proof" is on you to so document. Otherwise, one can equally say (using the rubric you seem to now be promoting) that Jesus told these two men all about his future coming to the Americans and His founding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I have the EO - and OO to back me up...so i would lie to say it was my own understanding and argument.

Actually, neither has the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
And neither regards the Assumption of Mary as Dogma.

And, does't the Mormon have the LDS to back him up? Doesn't the one advocating a symbolic 'presence' of Christ in the Eucharist have a number of denominations in agreement with her? Is your rubric that if someone agrees with self, that makes it infallible/apostolic dogma and in affirmation of Scripture AND Tradition?








Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[simonthezealot]

Yeah, those would be good backups to have since they also go by oral traditions.

Btw, I have never heard of J Spong until someone put up a lecture by him. How do Catholics and Protestants/Orthodox view him?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7262607
Lecture by John Shelby Spong
A vary Intersting lecture.

Warning. Long video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZM3FXlLMug​

Your thoughts.

He's a heretic, so i've been told.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I did support it, both in scriptures and the ecf writing, CJ.

Didnt you see them?

 

[jckstraw72]

Spong is off his rocker. He does not hold Christian beliefs at all.

 

[WarriorAngel]

IF your view now is that these Marian Dogmas were taught by Jesus to the two men on the road to Emmaus, then the "burnen of proof" is on you to so document. Otherwise, one can equally say (using the rubric you seem to now be promoting) that Jesus told these two men all about his future coming to the Americans and His founding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The burden of proof, dear friend, is on you.
You need to disproove Tradition, and the ecf writings.

You need to show me historically where this is to mean Christ and not Mary.



And why do you continue to reference LDS...?

LDS werent here at the beginning. So they are moot point.
LAST TIME I am going to say that.

Just because they immitate the Church in heirarchy and tradition, doesnt mean they have anything to do with the deposit of faith laid down by Christ.

IF you continue to reference them, then i will suggest Muhammad, like many Protestants came up with the idea that the Christian Church [Catholic] was insufficient in truth and so therefore Muhammad being here 1st already beat the protesters to the punch, so maybe they have it right.

 

[jckstraw72]

IF you continue to reference them, then i will suggest Muhammad, like many Protestants came up with the idea that the Christian Church [Catholic] was insufficient in truth and so therefore Muhammad being here 1st already beat the protesters to the punch, so maybe they have it right.

ouch. and they are both book-based religions!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

ouch. and they are both book-based religions!

Can I help it if the Jews and Muslims don't read the book of Revelation?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7261511

Jeremiah 17:10 I YHWH, searching heart, examining the affections/kidneys and giving to man Ways of him, as fruit of his doings. [Reve 2:23]

Reve 2:23 And the offspring of her I shall be killing in death, and shall be knowing all the Out-Calleds that I am the One searching kidneys and hearts and I shall be giving to Ye each according to the works of Ye. [Jeremiah 17:10]

 

[sunlover1]

All this discussion about gates and wombs leads me to John 10:9 where Jesus says He is the gate (womb). Using a consistent hermeneutic (for which the RCC is hardly notorious) one might infer that Jesus is a womb and enjoys frequent sex as his flock goes in and out.

Does make sense when you put it that way.

I agree with CJ, that WA et. al. should honestly and simply state that what they believe concerning the Marian dogmas of the RCC are just that - dogmas propounded by the RCC for its members

I think everyone would agree with that.

and which have no foundation in the Bible, in the lives of the Apostles, nor in recorded history prior to A.D. 150.

I think that everyone would agree with that too, because the argument
is that it was passed down orally.
That and the fact that your post was ignored.
The ignored posts are usually filled with too much
truth for anyone to respond to, OR way out in left
field. But remember, Mary adoration is a very big
part of some people's lives... and is it hurting anything
if they adore her?

If it bothers you that these dogmas are foundationless, then you might seriously and prayerfully reconsider your beliefs

Are those beliefs harmful though?
I mean, I know that I have some
erroneous beliefs because now and then
God will show me where I was mistaken.
RARELY (Joke)
So my point is that we can only believe
what we believe, and at what point does
that belief change from a harmless wrong
understanding, to dangerous or heretical?

Just Musing
sunlover

 

[Rick Otto]

But remember, Mary adoration is a very big
part of some people's lives... and is it hurting anything
if they adore her?

It depends. Are they adoring her, or their fantasy of her?

So my point is that we can only believe
what we believe, and at what point does
that belief change from a harmless wrong
understanding, to dangerous or heretical?

Presenting a distortion of the truth is always tempting danger.
Imagine a spaceship captain imagining 1 degree of extra trajectory is better.
It won't make much difference until he's a long way off and over a distance of say, 2000yrs, he could end up several light years away from his intended destination.

 

[Rick Otto]

And why do you continue to reference LDS...?

Because they use the exact same method of affirming their dogmas.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Because they use the exact same method of affirming their dogmas.

From what I have seen, they get more support from non-Christians than the Catholics do.

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=76

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7261510&page=6
Are Mormons Christians?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I did support it, both in scriptures and the ecf writing, CJ. Didnt you see them?

No.

I saw one quote from Scripture that had nothing to do with any Marian dogma, with a dogma imputed into it (in spite of the verse's actual words) - but only the view imputed related to any Marian dogma, not the verse.

And you quoted someone from the 4th century who shared that imputed dogma. Hardly qualifies as an ecf or to any support - it's just someone who used the same imputing rubric.

But I'm very open to the corpus of Scriptures and even Catholic Denomination "Fathers" that knew Mary or any Apostle who did that states:
1. Mary was immaculately conceived.
2. Mary had no sex ever.
3. Mary's body was assumed into heaven upon her death (or undeath - depending on the version you embrace)

I think you said you embrace the Rule of Scripture AND Tradition - so you need something from both Scripture and an Apostle or the consensus of EARLY RCC "Fathers" - unless you have shifted to "Scripture OR Tradition" in which case either will do, unless you have shifted to NEITHER Scripture or Tradition in which case you have no substantiation and insist that you need none (in which case, we have a separate discussion ahead of us).



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IF your view now is that these Marian Dogmas were taught by Jesus to the two men on the road to Emmaus, then the "burnen of proof" is on you to so document. Otherwise, one can equally say (using the rubric you seem to now be promoting) that Jesus told these two men all about his future coming to the Americans and His founding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The burden of proof, dear friend, is on you.
You need to disproove Tradition, and the ecf writings

No, of course not.

The "burden of proof" rests on the one making the point, not on others to disprove it. I could state, "There are 2.4 billion little fuzzy creatures living on the Moon of Endor" - now, my friend, I'm SURE it's not your position that that is dogmatic, infallible Truth - unless you can PROVE it false (good luck, LOL!). Or one could say that Mary was 15 feet tall and had pink hair, surely it's not your position that such is DOGMA - the highest level of certainty and importance - unless you can prove it false! Or one could say that Jesus came to the Americas and established here His Church and that's irrefutable, dogmatic TRUTH unless you can prove He didn't. I KNOW you don't believe that statements are dogma unless proven to be false. I know it.

The RCC has DOGMAS of:
* Mary Had No Sex Ever
* Mary was Immaculately Conceived
* Mary was Assumed into Heaven upon her Death (or was it her Undeath?)

The "burden of proof" for these rests with the denomination that insists they are dogmas. I don't have to "disprove" it any more than you have to disprove that God the Father has a Father or that we'll give birth to spirit children on other planets - and such is DOGMA until you can.


And I remind you, you haven't shown that these 3 dogmas were taught in ANY church prior to 100 AD or even 200 AD. You haven't shown that they are Apostolic Tradition at all. Much less that they are true.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[lionroar0]

Because they use the exact same method of affirming their dogmas.

not really

Peace

 

[Thekla]

just curious:

why 200 AD ?

oh well - this is ten years shy of your criteria, ( and the mid third c. "prayer" found in Egypt is also too late)-but,fwiw:

Hippolytus was a scholar, bishop, and martyr, who lived in or near Rome and wrote in Greek; he was martyred in A.D. 235. He is considered to be one of the most important witnesses as to how the early church worshipped.
This is a brief excerpt (ca. A.D. 210) regarding the Blessed Theotokos:
But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, . . . the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man (Against Beron and Helix, Frag VIII).

from here: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos

 

[sunlover1]

It depends. Are they adoring her, or their fantasy of her?

Let's say they're adoring her, just for argument's sake.
(It almost has to be their/our fantasy of her tho, none
of us knew her or even a lot about her)

Presenting a distortion of the truth is always tempting danger.
Imagine a spaceship captain imagining 1 degree of extra trajectory is better.
It won't make much difference until he's a long way off and over a distance of say, 2000yrs, he could end up several light years away from his intended destination

This is an excellent illustration and I hope it blesses
other's as it has me. I often use a similar analogy
with my kids only replacing boats for spaceships.
So far it's been futile though. Just kidding lol. But
raising teens is becoming a real challenge amen?

And you quoted someone from the 4th century who shared that imputed dogma. Hardly qualifies as an ecf or to any support - it's just someone who used the same imputing rubric.

But I'm very open to the corpus of Scriptures and even Catholic Denomination "Fathers" that knew Mary or any Apostle who did that states:
1. Mary was immaculately conceived.
2. Mary had no sex ever.
3. Mary's body was assumed into heaven upon her death (or undeath - depending on the version you embrace)

I think you said you embrace the Rule of Scripture AND Tradition - so you need something from both Scripture and an Apostle or the consensus of EARLY RCC "Fathers" - unless you have shifted to "Scripture OR Tradition" in which case either will do, unless you have shifted to NEITHER Scripture or Tradition in which case you have no substantiation and insist that you need none (in which case, we have a separate discussion ahead of us).

 

[WarriorAngel]

No.

I saw one quote from Scripture that had nothing to do with any Marian dogma, with a dogma imputed into it (in spite of the verse's actual words) - but only the view imputed related to any Marian dogma, not the verse.

And you quoted someone from the 4th century who shared that imputed dogma. Hardly qualifies as an ecf or to any support - it's just someone who used the same imputing rubric.

But I'm very open to the corpus of Scriptures and even Catholic Denomination "Fathers" that knew Mary or any Apostle who did that states:
1. Mary was immaculately conceived.
2. Mary had no sex ever.
3. Mary's body was assumed into heaven upon her death (or undeath - depending on the version you embrace)

I think you said you embrace the Rule of Scripture AND Tradition - so you need something from both Scripture and an Apostle or the consensus of EARLY RCC "Fathers" - unless you have shifted to "Scripture OR Tradition" in which case either will do, unless you have shifted to NEITHER Scripture or Tradition in which case you have no substantiation and insist that you need none (in which case, we have a separate discussion ahead of us).



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah




.

I quoted Rufinus who shows us that Ezechiel is regarding her perpetual Virginity.
Among other scriptures that testify to her.







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.

 

[Thekla]

It depends. Are they adoring her, or their fantasy of her?

Presenting a distortion of the truth is always tempting danger.
Imagine a spaceship captain imagining 1 degree of extra trajectory is better.
It won't make much difference until he's a long way off and over a distance of say, 2000yrs, he could end up several light years away from his intended destination.

dunno about others, but in the EO what is seen from the outside as "Marian dogma" is actually Christological in content; what we know of anything results from knowing Christ. It all refers back to Christ, who is the center. The icon that - around here - is typically understood as an icon of the Theotokos is actually the icon of the Incarnation; an event of universally important salvific 'history', Emmanuel.

you can take the Bible as your only source - as it is written - but account for what stands at the center of its interpretation. Are you of the Alexandrian or Antiochian school of interpretation

 

[Thekla]

Because they use the exact same method of affirming their dogmas.

and the same way we affirm the authenticity of New Testament writings for which there are no extant originals