Speak lovingly of Mary

[MamaZ]

Scripture cannot be broken nor added to for it to be truth. For Jesus tells us that scripture cannot be broken. We also see in scripture that Gods word is Perfect therefore needing no other tradtion added to it. It is pure and has been tested and blessed are we who put our trust in Him. Tradtion is just a way for men to believe what they want to and say that is it holy tradtion when in fact it is just men adding to scripture and leveling it with scripture and saying it is truth when the scripture never in no way ever tells us tradtion is truth.

 

[Thekla]

Tradtion is just a way for men to believe what they want to and say that is it holy tradtion when in fact it is just men adding to scripture and leveling it with scripture and saying it is truth when the scripture never in no way ever tells us tradtion is truth.

this seems to be your Tradition

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And you quoted one person from the FOURTH 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.

I quoted Rufinus who shows us that Ezechiel is regarding her perpetual Virginity.

That's what I said.

No, this mysterious individual from the fourth century didn't "show us" anything at all, nor did he substantiate anything at all. He imputed a view into the same verse that you did. Nice, but reveals only one thing: there's someone else in the world that did what you did. Now, how does that substantiate the dogma? What does it have to do with Mary? Or her sex life? Or her body after her death (or undeath)? Or her conception?

Among other scriptures that testify to her.

Actually, so far, you haven't given any Scriptures that so much as even mention her.

Nor have you quoted anyone from the Apostolic Age (first Century) or anyone who ever so much as even met Mary (or any one who ever did) or even a Catholic Denomination's "Father" from before 150.




Now these two points are critical only because you seem to think these dogmas have some basis in reality and that you've stated that your Rule is Scripture AND Tradition - thus you need both. IF your rule was Scripture OR Tradition then all you'd need is the Scripture OR something from your specific denomination's "Fathers" that knew Mary (or someone who did). Of course, if your Rule is NEITHER Scripture OR Tradition, then you need neither (which, so far, is what you've provided) but if that is your rule, we have a discussion awaiting us as soon as GT reopens ,




Thank you for this respectful and helpful discussion


God's richest blessings to you, my friend!


- Josiah





.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Well, if you think the 4th century is so far out there...but you instead rely on 19th and 20th century 'experts' or those who claim they know better...its in the realm of irony.

What is the difference CJ?

Perhaps many centuries difference?

What do you say?

Who would be holding the truth PROPORTIONATELY?
The one who was a father of the ONLY and early Church...and I say ONLY because all three of the one Church was NOT yet in schism.
OR someone who has decided for themselves in the 19th or 20th centuries?

It makes more sense to adhere to the Tradition that was passed on from the teachings of Christ thru His Apostles before He ascended and noting NOT one of the Apostles wrote the teachings of those 40 days - but instead left it unwritten...
Than to say...follow anything stemming from more recent times that have absolutely NO historical teachings or backings in any way.

Even Luther adhered to her perpetual virginity. As did Calvin and Zwiglie.

So what we have here is a case of modern day philosophy that has nothing - nada - zip to back itself up with historically.

And you denigrate the ecf's?

Ironic, i would think.

 

[WarriorAngel]

While I am on the subject - i am interested in a protestant telling us what the Apostles learned those 40 days with Christ.

Apparently He stayed to teach them the OT - and to hand out the precepts and doctrines He not only wanted held to, but would not be reduced or removed because His Advocate would always be with them.

Now barring that promise from God... and the fact He said He would be with them, and He sent His Holy Spirit...
ALL protecting the truths He deposited...and the gates wouldnt prevail [et al]

Where does scriptures tell us that Christ would disparage or abandon His Church?

I would like the teachings you all say are in written form.
Its no where - its no where in scriptures.

The Apostles knew - but they didnt make a record...not one record of what Christ said to them those 40 days.

SO could anyone please give us His actual teaching of that time...


WHEN you can proove that - i will listen.
As it is, i am prone to follow the Traditions of that teaching within the Church...and no where else from men of modern times.

GIVE me history of your ideas...
Where do they come from? What early Christian mimics the modern day teachings?

Show me proof and evidence that the early Church [Christians] say just what you say - and mean what you mean.

 

[Komnenos]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sQs0MUuJKKI&feature=related

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well, if you think the 4th century is so far out there...but you instead rely on 19th and 20th century 'experts' or those who claim they know better...its in the realm of irony.

Lost me, my friend. What 19th or 20th Century "expert" did I quote to say that Mary DID have sex, at least once?

It makes more sense to adhere to the Tradition that was passed on from the teachings of Christ thru His Apostles before He ascended and noting NOT one of the Apostles wrote the teachings of those 40 days - but instead left it unwritten...

MAYBE... Except, you haven't shown that Christ taught this. You haven't shown that even ONE of the Apostles taught this. All you've shown is that one person in the 4th century imputed this view into an entirely unrelated verse written 600 years earlier - just like you did. And you've admitted you have nothing but absolute silence and void to support this DOGMA of "Mary Had No Sex Ever" and we're all suppose to be convinced by your admission that you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to offer.

So what we have here is a case of nothing - nada - zip to back itself up with historically.

Ironic, i would think.

Me, too...



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=sunlover1;Let's say they're adoring her, just for argument's sake.

Ok. Then we shift critical focus to appropriate expression to prevent impiety thru lack of restraint.

(It almost has to be their/our fantasy of her tho, none
of us knew her or even a lot about her)

I agree.

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?

Thank you, and yes it is a character building experience, amen.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sQs0MUuJKKI&feature=related

I like Greek music better than Italian for some reason. I also like putting music to verses

Hebrew 12:18 For not ye have come toward to being handled a mountain, and to having been kindled to fire, and to murkiness, and to darkness and to tempest. [REVELATION 8]
19and of a trumpet blaring and to sound of declarations, of which the ones hearing refused no to be added to them a Word.
20 For not they carried out the being cautioned and if a wild-beast may be touching the mountain it shall be being stone cast or a dart shot thru it.
21And thus fearful the appearizing, Moses said 'Terrified I am and in trembling'.

"HILL WHERE THE LORD HIDES"

http://www.yamelo.com/videoclip/c0_34995_chuck_mangione_hill_where_the_lord_hides.html

 

[Komnenos]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NmqSBuEJMPY


Psalm 135

 

[sunlover1]

Ok. Then we shift critical focus to appropriate expression to prevent impiety thru lack of restraint.

Thank you...
How might you define those perimeters?

I like Greek music better than Italian for some reason. I also like putting music to verses

Hebrew 12:18 For not ye have come toward to being handled a mountain, and to having been kindled to fire, and to murkiness, and to darkness and to tempest. [REVELATION 8]
19and of a trumpet blaring and to sound of declarations, of which the ones hearing refused no to be added to them a Word.
20 For not they carried out the being cautioned and if a wild-beast may be touching the mountain it shall be being stone cast or a dart shot thru it.
21And thus fearful the appearizing, Moses said 'Terrified I am and in trembling'.

"HILL WHERE THE LORD HIDES"

http://www.yamelo.com/videoclip/c0_34995_chuck_mangione_hill_where_the_lord_hides.html

OH yeah, I love Chuck!
Feels so Good is my absolute favorite.

How do you like this?
Another excellent piece of genius.
Bon Apetit'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHjLZeQ_mFw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEfWxm4UXy0&feature=related

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

OH yeah, I love Chuck!
Feels so Good is my absolute favorite.

How do you like this?
Another excellent piece of genius.
Bon Apetit'

I have a few albums of him. This is actually an all time favorite song of mine which I put with these 2 verses

Ezekiel 38:22 "And I will bring him to judgment with pestilence and bloodshed; I will rain down on him, on his troops, and on the many peoples who with him, flooding rain, great hailstones, fire, and brimstone. [Revelation 16:21 and 20:9]

Reve 20:9 And they ascended on the breadth of the land and they surround the camp of the holy-ones and the city, the having been loved. And descended fire out of the heaven and it devoured them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JGGKOjF8FU&feature=related

 

[WarriorAngel]

Lost me, my friend. What 19th or 20th Century "expert" did I quote to say that Mary DID have sex, at least once?











MAYBE... Except, you haven't shown that Christ taught this. You haven't shown that even ONE of the Apostles taught this. All you've shown is that one person in the 4th century imputed this view into an entirely unrelated verse written 600 years earlier - just like you did. And you've admitted you have nothing but absolute silence and void to support this DOGMA of "Mary Had No Sex Ever" and we're all suppose to be convinced by your admission that you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to offer.






Me, too...



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah

Besides the assumptions we see in the last few centuries that she had sex by the mere mistranslations of the Bible - no where is this in history - BUT perpetual virginity is indeed in history.

IF this 'gate' is not the foreshadow of Mary...as you presume to tell us...then please tell us why a gate [inanimate obkect] is held to a higher regard than the flesh and womb He came from?

What does the gate signify?

Did God literally walk thru it and so they wrote it?
Did they see Him enter in by it?

Ezekiel was a prophet which means he foretold of events - he prophecied the events to come.

The entire passage about the gate was a prophetic foreshadow of the events of the Savior to come.
That God would enter the world...
AS ARE ALL the prophetic events.

The gate signifies that where God enters...whereso it be it by a gate or His Mother NO ONE else will tread. He is the sole Entity to enter by those means. PERIOD.
[she is the gate however, because she is the one who brought our Lord to the earth. He entered thru her]

YOU Have NO proof whatsoever to provide us of anything historical that says otherwise.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I think any language is beautiful.
Thanks for the posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQVz6vuNq7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Qu15k24SA&feature=related

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ezekiel was a prophet which means he foretold of events - he prophecied the events to come.

Yeah, Ezekiel is a pretty Kewl book.

Ezekiel 47:12 And on the river, he shall grow up on bank of him from this and from this every of tree for food not shall decay leaf of him and not he shall come to end fruit of him for months of him he shall make firstfruit that waters of him from the sanctuary they are going forth and becomes fruit of him for food and leaf of him for healing

Revelation 22:2 in midst of broadplace of her, and of the river hence and thence, a wood of Life doing fruits, twelve according to a month each rendering the fruit of it, and the leaves of the wood are into a healing of the nations;

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7259006&page=11
The useless (?) tree of life

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Lost me, my friend. What 19th or 20th Century "expert" did I quote to say that Mary DID have sex, at least once?











MAYBE... Except, you haven't shown that Christ taught this. You haven't shown that even ONE of the Apostles taught this. All you've shown is that one person in the 4th century imputed this view into an entirely unrelated verse written 600 years earlier - just like you did. And you've admitted you have nothing but absolute silence and void to support this DOGMA of "Mary Had No Sex Ever" and we're all suppose to be convinced by your admission that you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to offer.






Me, too...



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah

Besides the assumptions we see in the last few centuries that she had sex by the mere mistranslations of the Bible - no where is this in history - BUT perpetual virginity is indeed in history.

Lost me again, my friend. Where did I say that Mary had sex? Where did ANY denomination proclaim The Dogma of "Mary Had Sex?" You're losing me, my good friend....

No, the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER is not history. It's a viewpoint. And there's zero evidence that Jesus taught it. There's zero evidence that Mary taught it. There's zero evidence that ANY Apostle taught it, knew about it, or could have cared less about it if they did. And there's no evidence that ANYONE who knew Mary or knew Jesus or knew ANY of the Apostles knew about this, cared about this, or so much as heard the rumor. This is an opinion about her sex life, it's not "history."

IF this 'gate' is not the foreshadow of Mary...as you presume to tell us...then please tell us why a gate [inanimate obkect] is held to a higher regard than the flesh and womb He came from?

What does the gate signify?

Is this "bait and switch?" It's not up to me to state what ELSE Ezekiel might have meant, it's up to you to substantiate that he clearly means the vagina of Mary. My own personal nondogmatic view is that "this" probably means this - not Mary. And that "gate" probably means "gate" - not vagina. But that's just me. YOU are the one stating that the words of Ezekiel 44:2 gives evidence that Mary Had No Sex EVER. It's YOUR argument, not mine. It's YOUR job to substantiate it, not mine.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hey CJ. Could you possibly get rid of a lot of those seperations between sentences in yer post as they make it rather lenghthier than the post itself and makes my scroll wheel work harder LOL. Thanks.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hey CJ. Could you possibly get rid of a lot of those seperations between sentences in yer post as they make it rather lenghthier than the post itself and makes my scroll wheel work harder LOL. Thanks.

The "separations" are quotes from the original poster. The "quote" function of the "new" CF only gives the LAST post, not the sequence. Quite annoying, actually.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Says who? Please provide evidence.

Peace

Horsepuckey. You know what evidence exists. Simply because you cover your ears and say "lalalalalala!" doesn't mean it isn't there. The evidence for the Trinity exists in the bible. Whether you want to play word games or not (it doesn't say trinity, so it can't be from the bible! bwahahaha!) doesn't dissuade that one iota, it only points out the glaring error of your argument.

And I'm still waiting for biblical evidence of the Trinity.

The thing is we are not SOLA SCRIPTURA.

We don't measure ourselves by the Bible alone like non apostolics do. So please stop using an edited measuring stick to measure the CC.

Peace

true enough. Often times you ignore the bible completely.

Just for the record: We trust in Jesus and honor His mother for having giving birth to God.

The ones that denigrated His mother to a mere vessel will also have to stand in front of His great white throne and have to explain to Him why they did not trust in Jesus and honor His mother like He did.

Peace

the difference being, of course, that you consider NOT thinking of Mary as a finger width less than God Almighty, as denigration, whereas we think that considering her a very special lady is sufficient enough to "honour" her. You point to anything less than the hyperdoulia as denigration. which isn't so, of course, it's just narrowmindedness.

 

[lionroar0]

the difference being, of course, that you consider NOT thinking of Mary as a finger width less than God Almighty, as denigration, whereas we think that considering her a very special lady is sufficient enough to "honour" her. You point to anything less than the hyperdoulia as denigration. which isn't so, of course, it's just narrowmindedness.

I would agree that she is a very special lady. And I know that there are non-catholics that do honor her during the Nativity, because she gave birth to Jesus our God.

There are those that do consider her a vessel and not the Mother of God. This is the denigration of which I speak of.

Peace