Speak lovingly of Mary

[MamaZ]

Uphill Battle,

I forgot also to add: Christ's witness from the cross, in giving Mary to the care of someone NOT her son. Unless she was an adultress, this would be false witness.

Still judging according to the flesh I see. for the truth of the Matter is at the time of Christ death His fleshly brothers were not His Spiritual brothers and We are shown through scripture that we are not to recoginze anyone by the flesh. Mary was also a believer and therefore joined to John according to the Spirit as being brothers and sisters in the site of God.

 

[lionroar0]

Not taking one's family to an apostlic mission is quite a different thing than being celibate, as was previously stated. I do not know about Orthodoxy, but celibacy in the Catholic church is defined as being strictly unmarried. If one defines celibacy as having a family but not taking them on an apostlic mission then one is on a very slippery slope in comparing Mary's family life (or lack thereof) to that of the apostles.

That is not quite accurate. Celibacy of the clergy is defined as being strictly unmarried.

http://www.kofc.org/publications/ci...subSecNum=2&headernum=3&ParNum=2349&ParType=a

he various forms of chastity
2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has "put on Christ," 135 the model for all chastity. All Christ's faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity. 2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single." 136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others.... This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church. 137​

2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.


Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Still judging according to the flesh I see. for the truth of the Matter is at the time of Christ death His fleshly brothers were not His Spiritual brothers and We are shown through scripture that we are not to recoginze anyone by the flesh. Mary was also a believer and therefore joined to John according to the Spirit as being brothers and sisters in the site of God.

gnosticism. Emphasising(sp?) the spirit to the point of ignoring the body.

Peace

 

[Thekla]

Still judging according to the flesh I see. for the truth of the Matter is at the time of Christ death His fleshly brothers were not His Spiritual brothers and We are shown through scripture that we are not to recoginze anyone by the flesh. Mary was also a believer and therefore joined to John according to the Spirit as being brothers and sisters in the site of God.

It seems you are still misunderstanding me

It is not a matter of what the Christians would think, but the society.

If most of Jerusalem was aligned to Christ at the time of the crucifixion, why did the Apostles go into hiding ? And if most of the society was aligned with Christ/Christian after the resurrection, why were they arrested, persecuted, and why was their property seized (per the epistle of James) ?

Those who were persecuted for being Christian were Christian. Why would Christ witness that Mary was an adulteress, so that she would be persecuted as an adulteress when it was not true ?

Did Christ EVER bear false witness ?

 

[bbbbbbb]

hi, bbbbbbb,

actually, I think the rhetorical turn employed by Christ (in the use of mother, adelphos, adelphi) broadens the terminolgy, but fails to retrospectively narrow the use of adelphos. We can only have one birth-mother - with whom we share blood, whose womb (mitra - H/Koine Greek) we inhabit for a time. Yet Christ says we may all be His mother ?

Relationship with God is one of the overiding themes of both testaments (OT and NT). So, Christ says relationship; remember: suyenis, adelphos, etc. all refer to not only kin, but also the like-minded, countrymen, tribe etc. The Jews were "related" to God, of God, without regard to narrow descriptive (mother, brother, cousin, etc -- only tribe or countrymen remains as an accurate descriptive). With the coming of Christ, God is available, is to be known to all nations/ethnoi. All can become "of His people".



Again, Christ does not provide information to narrow the terminology; given the cultural realities of household composition, any number of relationships could have existed in the group described as adelphos. Only one could be described as mother.

Hi Thekla,

You certainly make some interesting points here. As you noted, the Bible is replete with descriptions of relationships with God. In the Old Testament it was very much a legalistic type of relationship. God was the creator of Adam (man) and therefore the father of all mankind. He was also the father of Abraham, Isaac, and the patriarchs. However, the concept of a personal. intimate relationshio with God as a loving Father was a very radical concept brought to the theological table by Jesus Christ. The Pharisees were horrified that He, being a man, could call God His Father. Not only that, but that He taught His disciples to pray, Our Father . . . Christ very much drew back the veil of separation between man and God so that He could, in truth, relate to believers as He did His own mother and brothers and sisters. To distance that close relationship as being a relationship between cousins or kinsmen brings it closer to the Old Testament mentality. I believe that Christ intentionally meant brothers and sisters and used his own brothers and sisters as well as his mother for his analogy.

 

[bbbbbbb]

She is called "equal to the Apostles" as other women did .... too Thekla was an Apostle as well as Mary Magdalene...what ? we discriminate against women disciples now? I think not.. If not with a big A we are all apostles since baptism does enforce to us that calling of Apostleship.

I agree that all believers in Christ are disciples, but not Apostles. As I am sure you know the Greek word for apostle means one sent forth (for a particular purpose). It is one among several spiritual gifts given to the Church by God. Indeed, we might say there are apostles today who are sent forth as missionaries, but not all believers are sent forth in that manner. I hope this is not a mere matter of semantics between us because I think we are in agreement on this aspect of the discussion.

My basic point is that Mary, as well as the other 120 or so in the upper room and the 3,000 that came later that eventful day, did not receive any less or any more of the Holy Spirit than the others. So, to assert that she engaged in celibacy because of her sharing in apostleship is incorrect.

 

[Thekla]

Hi Thekla,

You certainly make some interesting points here. As you noted, the Bible is replete with descriptions of relationships with God. In the Old Testament it was very much a legalistic type of relationship. God was the creator of Adam (man) and therefore the father of all mankind. He was also the father of Abraham, Isaac, and the patriarchs. However, the concept of a personal. intimate relationshio with God as a loving Father was a very radical concept brought to the theological table by Jesus Christ. The Pharisees were horrified that He, being a man, could call God His Father. Not only that, but that He taught His disciples to pray, Our Father . . . Christ very much drew back the veil of separation between man and God so that He could, in truth, relate to believers as He did His own mother and brothers and sisters. To distance that close relationship as being a relationship between cousins or kinsmen brings it closer to the Old Testament mentality. I believe that Christ intentionally meant brothers and sisters and used his own brothers and sisters as well as his mother for his analogy.

the rhetorical turn employed by Christ in the use of "adelphos" narrows its future (towards the spiritual, post-resurrection, as attested in the epistles) use, not its use contemporary to the event from which its is drawn; it is prospective, not retrospectively narrow.

As for the OT sense of relationship, please excuse me for disagreeing. The relationship with God experienced by Adam, Moses and others was deeply personal. The Law, imo, was formative, developmental in skopos, and relational - it "fenced off" the Jews as the people of A God (as opposed to gods), and served as an instructive and developmental tool (much as happens in the parent child relationship). As Paul notes (as in our previous discussion on the matter), the Law is the tutor, not the teacher.

Note also that in the OT, the Law created the "suyenis" of God (tribe, kin, etc), a meaning included in the broad definition of adelphos. "And they said, believe (trust) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31 Abraham also had a deeply personal relationship with God; it was through his pleas with God that Lot (his adelphos/nephew LXX) was spared from the destruction. In the NT (Acts, above) we see the notion of oikos/suyenis/adelphos maintained; in Christ, we have no discreet relationships (mother,and all meanings of adelphos), but all are offered sonship in Christ - spiritually ALL relationships are collapsed into one term: SONSHIP through adoption.

And the mystery that Paul teaches, is that the oikos/suyennis is now extended to ALL the ethnoi/nations, not just the Jews.
The scandal of "Our Father" is both that 'our' extends beyond the Jews, and that the Father is not 'mine' (hence particularized relational terms like mother collapse in the face of sonship through Christ realized in the oikos of His body).

In short, in the passage under discussion Christ turns all relationships (broad adelphos, mother, etc) into sonship by adoption through Himself.
As it is said, God has no grandchildren, just children.

 

[Rick Otto]

Uphill Battle,

I forgot also to add: Christ's witness from the cross, in giving Mary to the care of someone NOT her son. Unless she was an adultress, this would be false witness.

You seem to forget His transendance of cultural norms:
Matthew 12:48 KJV
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

 

[Philothei]

You seem to forget His transendance of cultural norms:
Matthew 12:48 KJV
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

But Mr. Otto .... still that does not explain why his brother and sisters were not present.... And we know that his "brother" became the first Bishop of Jerusalem....why would any of the siblings present?

And again if that was so obivious did Christ needed to repeat it to his mother? Like she was so...out of the loop she did not know that John was her "son"? All this time and he had to repeat it....and also how do you explain that in the following verse it says:

25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Why would John take her to his home if Christ meant it "spiritually" and not in the physical sense???

Does not make sense but a good efford nevertheless....

 

[Rick Otto]

But Mr. Otto .... still that does not explain why his brother and sisters were not present.... And we know that his "brother" became the first Bishop of Jerusalem....why would any of the siblings present?

And again if that was so obivious did Christ needed to repeat it to his mother? Like she was so...out of the loop she did not know that John was her "son"? All this time and he had to repeat it....and also how do you explain that in the following verse it says:



Why would John take her to his home if Christ meant it "spiritually" and not in the physical sense???

Does not make sense but a good efford nevertheless....

Good questions!
Women were socialy valued closer to property than men, therefor they were considered less threatening, but his brothers were likely to be on a hit list. I could excuse his sisters for not wanting to witness the cruelty as easily as I could imagine their husbands forbidding them to attend.

I don't imagine that it was "so obvious".
Likely her other sons had to remain in hiding for the most part, to avoid arrest, rendering them unable to provide a safe house of their own.

 

[Thekla]

You seem to forget His transendance of cultural norms:
Matthew 12:48 KJV
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

no, I haven't forgotten (its the passage under discussion in the above post); though I wonder what your comment is in reference to ...

 

[Thekla]

Good questions!
Women were socialy valued closer to property than men, therefor they were considered less threatening, but his brothers were likely to be on a hit list. I could excuse his sisters for not wanting to witness the cruelty as easily as I could imagine their husbands forbidding them to attend.

I don't imagine that it was "so obvious".
Likely her other sons had to remain in hiding for the most part, to avoid arrest, rendering them unable to provide a safe house of their own.

The care of Mary, should she have other sons, would have been clear (not even a subject for discussion) were she not an adultress. The purpose for overiding a "default decision" would be: adultery, false witness, no other sons. You do mention "spiritual affiliation", but again, that position would require Christ to imperil His mother without her consent (hence, the false witness issue).

As for your asessment of the absence of "adelphi", there were mostly women there; I think you underestimate the strength of women, and the effect of love (if not for Christ, then for one's mother). Seriously ! And again, Mary's adelphi - Mary - was there; again, indication of a broad use for adelphos.

 

[Thekla]

As for the issue of safe house: per the witness of the epistle of James/Iakovos and others, NO Christian household was "safe". Why would John's be ? If that was the issue, why leave Mary in Jerusalem at all ?

 

[Philothei]

Good questions!
Women were socialy valued closer to property than men, therefor they were considered less threatening, but his brothers were likely to be on a hit list. I could excuse his sisters for not wanting to witness the cruelty as easily as I could imagine their husbands forbidding them to attend.

I don't imagine that it was "so obvious".
Likely her other sons had to remain in hiding for the most part, to avoid arrest, rendering them unable to provide a safe house of their own.[/quote]

Mary of Cleopas was not "advised" by her DH not to attent? And why not others? Only John was there though.... Imagining does not help ...the fact remains that no other siblings showed up and according to Jewish customs...a brother to take care of his mother was an obligation. If they were "hiding" then still Jesus would not have a reason then to "assign" his mother to another disciple who was also "under scrutiny" as he was also another disciple... does not really makes too much sense...

John was also another disciple..... Thus no too much sense to what you propose either...

edit : Sorry Thekla did not read your post it seems we came to the same conclusion though

 

[lionroar0]

From the Liturgy of St. James.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0717.htm

You who art the only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal; who submitted for our salvation to become flesh of the holy God-mother, and ever-virgin Mary; who immutably became man and was crucified, O Christ our God, and by Your death trod death underfoot; who art one of the Holy Trinity glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us.

XXXV. Hail, Mary, highly favoured: the Lord is with You; blessed are you among women, and blessed the fruit of your womb, for you bore the Saviour of our souls.


Commemorating our all-holy, pure, most glorious, blessed Lady, the God-Mother and Ever-Virgin Mary, and all the saints that have been well-pleasing to You since the world began, let us devote ourselves, and one another, and our whole life, to Christ our God:

Peace

 

[Philothei]

From the Liturgy of St. James.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0717.htm

You who art the only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal; who submitted for our salvation to become flesh of the holy God-mother, and ever-virgin Mary; who immutably became man and was crucified, O Christ our God, and by Your death trod death underfoot; who art one of the Holy Trinity glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us.

XXXV. Hail, Mary, highly favoured: the Lord is with You; blessed are you among women, and blessed the fruit of your womb, for you bore the Saviour of our souls.


Commemorating our all-holy, pure, most glorious, blessed Lady, the God-Mother and Ever-Virgin Mary, and all the saints that have been well-pleasing to You since the world began, let us devote ourselves, and one another, and our whole life, to Christ our God:

Peace

So that document is around since 60 AD and probably we have what? a thousand faithful praying this Litrurgy in Jerusalem? Well, those are more than the 5 "witnesses" that CJ ever wanted....

Sometimes you should think of what you wish for ...for you might get it all...and more...

This Liturgy that was first put together by a "brother" of Christ who also verified the Ever-Virginity of "his mother"? No, it was not his mother or then St. James would be lying... and that cannot be true as he was one of the first to accept the faith. and his calling to serve Christ....

Enjoy

Thanks Lionroar

 

[lionroar0]

So that document is around since 60 AD and probably we have what? a thousand faithful praying this Litrurgy in Jerusalem? Well, those are more than the 5 "witnesses" that CJ ever wanted....

Sometimes you should think of what you wish for ...for you might get it all...and more...

This Liturgy that was first put together by a "brother" of Christ who also verified the Ever-Virginity of "his mother"? No, it was not his mother or then St. James would be lying... and that cannot be true as he was one of the first to accept the faith. and his calling to serve Christ....

Enjoy

Thanks Lionroar

Any time. YW

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

It seems you are still misunderstanding me

It is not a matter of what the Christians would think, but the society.

If most of Jerusalem was aligned to Christ at the time of the crucifixion, why did the Apostles go into hiding ? And if most of the society was aligned with Christ/Christian after the resurrection, why were they arrested, persecuted, and why was their property seized (per the epistle of James) ?

Those who were persecuted for being Christian were Christian. Why would Christ witness that Mary was an adulteress, so that she would be persecuted as an adulteress when it was not true ?

Did Christ EVER bear false witness ?

Christ did not walk by what the society thought. It does not matter if the culture was aligned to Christ or not. Christ did not walk nor make any choices according to the culture. He made righteous choices only according to truth. For only the Father did He serve. In His time of torture and death for us not even his fleshly brothers or sisters were there. John the one friend that stuck close to Him in the time of Death was whom Jesus gave Mary's care to. Praise God for that. The Apostles scattered because they did not fully understand yet that Christ was going to raise from the dead. Read the very context of the written scripture. It explains it all in His very own word. Jesus bore no false witness to anyone. Mary being a human being and having sons and daughters who at the time were unbelievers was to be cared for by John. Simple. You put too much on tradtion and tradtion and truth don't always go hand in hand. This is exactly what Jesus said when He spoke ,you hold the tradtions of man and nullify the scriptures. He also tells us you err not knowing the scripture.

 

[MamaZ]

Mary was in the upper room with the believers. We do not read that Jesus brothers were there.

 

[Thekla]

Christ did not walk by what the society thought. It does not matter if the culture was aligned to Christ or not. Christ did not walk nor make any choices according to the culture. He made righteous choices only according to truth. For only the Father did He serve. In His time of torture and death for us not even his fleshly brothers or sisters were there. John the one friend that stuck close to Him in the time of Death was whom Jesus gave Mary's care to. Praise God for that. The Apostles scattered because they did not fully understand yet that Christ was going to raise from the dead. Read the very context of the written scripture. It explains it all in His very own word. Jesus bore no false witness to anyone. Mary being a human being and having sons and daughters who at the time were unbelievers was to be cared for by John. Simple. You put too much on tradtion and tradtion and truth don't always go hand in hand. This is exactly what Jesus said when He spoke ,you hold the tradtions of man and nullify the scriptures. He also tells us you err not knowing the scripture.

yes, MamaZ, I understand that; Christ did not care to serve society or "traditions of men".

But show me where He ever imperiled someone with the society against their will.

And show me where He ever gave false witness about someone.

Of course we must know the scriptures -- that is why it is important to read the Luke passages we mentioned, and all passages, carefully.