Speak lovingly of Mary

[Thekla]

We are in agreement! It is pointless to imagine that the genesis of every Marian doctrine is in scripture when the scripture clearly and plainly attests to the fact the Mary and Joseph were married (i.e. Joseph kept Mary a virgin and (carnally) knew her after the birth of Jesus) and that Jesus thus had (named) brothers and sisters.

So, what is your point other than the fact that you willfully choose to dispense with the plain word of God and insert imaginative interpretations for your prooftexts?

please provide the passage citation stating that Mary and Joseph were married.

 

[katholikos]

please provide the passage citation stating that Mary and Joseph were married.

Yes.

I would also like to see the passage where Mary actually gives birth to another child besides Jesus.

 

[sunlover1]

Yes they do. You are just reading them wrong. That is the bane of Sola Scriptura.

.

Not to sound sceptical but.. how do you know it's
her that's reading them wrong and not you?

 

[MamaZ]

Thing being with all of this is that scripture has to be reasoned away when trying to imput the marian doctrines. When one does not have that dogma to stick to in fear of not sinning against the church it all reads in scripture as it should. For they eye witness account of those who Knew Jesus and his family state very plainly this.
Mat 13:54 He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?
Mat 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Mat 13:56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not to sound sceptical but.. how do you know it's
her that's reading them wrong and not you?

I can answer that one easily. I am reading them wrong because I don't have Tradition telling me first what to believe. If I only had Tradition we could all dispense with that nasty thing called the Scripture which just keeps getting in our way.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

and how much of OT scripture quoted in the NT would have been otherwise "obvious" ?
The Psalm quote used by Peter in reference to Judas and his replacement, the extensive use of the language of Genesis (light and life) used by John ? The OT contained veiled language and "typos"; the NT uses the OT as both direct meaning (as in Paul's reference to Abraham) and as typos. The Lukan passages concerning Mary use typos and rare language to connect her to the Ark of the covenant - in translation the references are paled, but it is inacurate to claim this denotes absence of the typos itself.

As far as the Mary of the NT/NC, how come she couldn't also be a typo of the Miriam in Exodus?

Afterall, they are singing the Song of Moses in Revelation as the Hebrews did after YHWH drowned the Egyptians in the Red Sea

Exodus 15:1 Then sang Mosheh and the sons of Yisra'el this song unto YHWH, and they spake saying,--"I will sing to YHWH for He is exalted exalted,--The horse and his rider hath He cast into the Sea.
21 And Miriam is responding to them: "Sing ye to YHWH that to be triumphant He is triumphant Horse and his rider He heaved into Sea.

Revelation 15:3 and They are singing the Song of-Moses, the bond-servant of the God, and the song of the Lamb-kin, saying,

 

[sunlover1]

I can answer that one easily. I am reading them wrong because I don't have Tradition telling me first what to believe. If I only had Tradition we could all dispense with that nasty thing called the Scripture which just keeps getting in our way.

OOPs, called ya a she.


I can't dispense with checking stuff first against
Scripture. It was good for the Bereans and so I
figure it's good for me, ...
I am discouraged when fellow Christians dis that
practice, mocking it as though it were a 'bad' thing.
It's a very very GOOD thing because the entrance of
His word brings light, and that's what we need, His
Word to light our path. So anywho.. that's why
Im here
that and for the fun naturally!

Nice to meet you bbbbb, sir
sunlover

 

[MamaZ]

Same with Joseph and Mary being married. We see that Joseph did as the Lord commanded him but he kept Mary a virgin until the birth of Jesus. But with the marian doctrines this also has to be explained away saying they really did not get married. But yet the eye witness account of those who knew them in their own home town tell us that They believed Jesus to be the carpenters son and also that His mother was Mary and knew his brothers and sisters..

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes.

I would also like to see the passage where Mary actually gives birth to another child besides Jesus.

yep, we all know that they were just betrothed and an angel in a dream told Joe to quietly divorce Mary after she had her baby so he did and disappeared off the record - not!

So, Joseph didn't know Mary (his betrothed) until after she gave birth to Jesus? That must have been a real eye-opener for him in the stable of Bethlehem. A few minutes after the birth of Christ he rubs his eyes and says, "Who are thou, most blessed among women." Mary, dolefully gazing at her first-born, sayeth unto Joseph, "I am Mary, thy betrothed. Fear not, nor be dismayed for thou shalt not be a husband unto me. Go thy way in peace, my beloved one." So Joseph departed with the shepherds, leaving Mary and Jesus to bask in the light of the glorious star. - not!

How about this one? Joseph proposed to Mary and most assuredly knew who she was. When he discovered that she was with child he decided to divorce her quetly, but an angel revealed to him in a dream that the child was divinely conceived and that he should not divorce her, but marry her. After she gave birth to Jesus, he knew (carnally) Mary his wife and they had additional sons (which are named) and daughters - an ideal Catholic family, not the disfunctional nuclear family of the twentieth century. This sure sounds much more believable, not to mention scriptural, than the other two scenarios. Oh, and by the way, Joseph is recorded as having made the trip with Mary and Jesus to Egypt and back, was there when Jesus taught the rabbis in the temple at age 12 and was known to all as being the proud father (not biological) of Jesus when he engaged in His ministry at about the age of 30. Very interesting life for a bloke who never married Mary.

Now, the proof of course is that we need movies or videotapes showing Joseph and Mary in the very act, but even then we can't believe them to be true, can we? I suppose that Mary will just have to come back to us and tell us herself. Oops, that won't work either, as Jesus pointed out in the story about Lazarus and the rich man.

Believe what you will. In due time, we will all find out the truth.

 

[bbbbbbb]

OOPs, called ya a she.


I can't dispense with checking stuff first against
Scripture. It was good for the Bereans and so I
figure it's good for me, ...
I am discouraged when fellow Christians dis that
practice, mocking it as though it were a 'bad' thing.
It's a very very GOOD thing because the entrance of
His word brings light, and that's what we need, His
Word to light our path. So anywho.. that's why
Im here
that and for the fun naturally!

Nice to meet you bbbbb, sir
sunlover

No problem, sunlover. I have been called much worse things. Without a good avatar like yours it is easy to make that mistake.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about searching the scriptures.

 

[MamaZ]

Same as with the queen of Heaven. Assumption has been put on this title because Jesus is the King. Thing being is Mary is not from Heaven. Jesus is. So how can Mary a human being be the queen of someplace she is not from? She was not born by the Holy Spirit so how can she be the queen of Heaven? She was an earthly being created out of man and woman. Jesus was a heavenly being created by the Holy Spirit to dwell on earth in order to save His people from their sins.

 

[bbbbbbb]

As far as the Mary of the NT/NC, how come she couldn't also be a typo of the Miriam in Exodus?

Afterall, they are singing the Song of Moses in Revelation as the Hebrews did after YHWH drowned the Egyptians in the Red Sea

Exodus 15:1 Then sang Mosheh and the sons of Yisra'el this song unto YHWH, and they spake saying,--"I will sing to YHWH for He is exalted exalted,--The horse and his rider hath He cast into the Sea.
21 And Miriam is responding to them: "Sing ye to YHWH that to be triumphant He is triumphant Horse and his rider He heaved into Sea.

Revelation 15:3 and They are singing the Song of-Moses, the bond-servant of the God, and the song of the Lamb-kin, saying,

Interesting point, LLoJ. As you may know, Mohammed confused the two and called Mary (the mother of Jesus) the sister of Moses (Miriam) because the two names are identical in Arabic, as well as Hebrew.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, it does not plainly attest to that. The only thing that attests to that is your erroneous 21st century interpretation of the Sacred Texts.

The bane of Sola Scriptura strikes again.

Nah, this is not my erroneous 21st century interpretation. I had this from the frist time I actually read the New Testament in 1970, which is probably before you were born. Even more interesting is the fact that folks had this view long before it jumped off the pages of scripture into my lap. Yes, indeedy, the bane of the Bible not only struck me, but countless others before my time, like the poor benighted Bereans in the book of the Acts.

 

[MamaZ]

Gosh way before for we see that even in the OT we see the truth of Christ being written from the very pages of Genesis..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Interesting point, LLoJ. As you may know, Mohammed confused the two and called Mary (the mother of Jesus) the sister of Moses (Miriam) because the two names are identical in Arabic, as well as Hebrew.

Intesting. The greek word used for the "mary" is almost like the Hebrew word for Miriam spelled backward.

I may just start putting the names of people the way it is in the greek as I do with Hebrew names in the OT/OC.

Mark 6:3 "Not this is the artificer/tektwn <5045>, the son of Mariam/mariaV <3137>, and brother of iakwbou, and iwsh, and of iouda, and simwnoV? and not are His sisters here toward us"? And they were offended in Him.

04813 Miryam {meer-yawm'}

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel

The ancient Churches have always known and believed she remained a virgin...
​

How did they know?

The same way they knew which books to canonize into the NT, by the tradition handed down to them

The truth is, the whole Bible is "Tradition." The stories of Adam & Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc. were all written down thousands of years after the fact. The books of the NT were not canonized until hundreds of years after their writing.

The Bible is Tradition put down in writing. So, your question "How did they know" could apply to ANY Christian truth, and the answer will always be the same: TRADITION

Epistles are not tradition.
When something becomes "It is written", it is no longer tradition.
& "Tradition" doesn't answer the question "How did they know?" it merely answers the question."What did they choose to believe?"
I am asking how did they know what to choose to believe"?
Tradition has to start somewhere even if it goes wildly off track.
Where did the tradition that she was PV begin? In the religiously vain imagintion of nearby wannabees with a hyper-piety agenda.
That would aid in the Nicolaitin agenda of dividing the Body of Christ into leaders & followers.

 

[katholikos]

Same as with the queen of Heaven.....

When will you guys ever learn that the only way to understand this stuff is to understand Jewish culture. The only way to read the Scriptures "in context" is to read them in the context of Jewish culture. And, in Jewish culture - and the culture of that region at that time - the mother of a King was always the queen, the "Gabirah" - Queen Mother.

Epistles are not tradition.
When something becomes "It is written", it is no longer tradition.

You don't get it. The "Tradition" lay in knowing which of those writings were inspired and which were not. There is gobbs of stuff that is "written." We quote ECFs all the time. But the decision in the 4th century regarding which 27 books were inspired was based on apostolic Tradition.

 

[Thekla]

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel

The ancient Churches have always known and believed she remained a virgin...
​

How did they know?

Epistles are not tradition.
When something becomes "It is written", it is no longer tradition.
& "Tradition" doesn't answer the question "How did they know?" it merely answers the question."What did they choose to believe?"
I am asking how did they know what to choose to believe"?
Tradition has to start somewhere even if it goes wildly off track.
Where did the tradition that she was PV begin? In the religiously vain imagintion of nearby wannabees with a hyper-piety agenda.
That would aid in the Nicolaitin agenda of dividing the Body of Christ into leaders & followers.

Absent written evidence, your statements qualify for your definition of tradition

 

[MamaZ]

When will you guys ever learn that the only way to understand this stuff is to understand Jewish culture. The only way to read the Scriptures "in context" is to read them in the context of Jewish culture. And, in Jewish culture - and the culture of that region at that time - the mother of a King was always the queen, the "Gabirah" - Queen Mother.

This may be the very reason that Jesus said My kingdom is not of this world. Even the very culture of Judiasm is not Gods Kingdom. Judiasm is made up of tradtion that even Jesus rebuked. This is why alot of the Jewish leaders rejected Christ. For Christ did not follow after their culture nor their traditions. Therefore they aimed to kill Him.


You don't get it. The "Tradition" lay in knowing which of those writings were inspired and which were not. There is gobbs of stuff that is "written." We quote ECFs all the time. But the decision in the 4th century regarding which 27 books were inspired was based on apostolic Tradition.

So was the donkey also a successor when He spoke for God?

 

[katholikos]

So was the donkey also a successor when He spoke for God?

That wasn't necessary.
And I find it a bit offensive