Speak lovingly of Mary

[Thekla]

In the passages under discussion Christ did not turn all relationships into sonship by adoption, but drew a close analogy between Hiw own family relationships and that with God and those who hear and obey Him. Other passages, as in John 1:12 make the point concerning sonship by adoption. The similarities between these passages are undeniable, but they are similarities and are not the direct teaching of the passages.

we again agree on many points, and I agree that the familial sense is stated in the present, to those present, by Christ. But before the resurrection, we have the suyennis of the OT - like Lot and Abraham, where the relationship of God and Abraham results in Lot's rescue. In this sense (pre-resurrection) the broader sense of relationship (suyennis, overlapping with adelphos) is implied in parallel to the OT relationship. The keys here is relationships - plural. The use of mother and adelphos points (even in the narrow use of the word) to a variety of relationships (as mother and adelphos are not overlapping).

 

[Philothei]

Thanks again for your excellent reply, Thekla.



In the passages under discussion Christ did not turn all relationships into sonship by adoption, but drew a close analogy between Hiw own family relationships and that with God and those who hear and obey Him. Other passages, as in John 1:12 make the point concerning sonship by adoption. The similarities between these passages are undeniable, but they are similarities and are not the direct teaching of the passages.

this is irrelevant to the discussion and red herring. Christ gave his mother to be taken care of by John as the gospel says she "stayed at his home" so there is not way it talks "spiritually" only but factual... Christ fullfilled his own comamndment of "honoring his own mother"

 

[Uphill Battle]

Proof please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_St_James

within context it means celibacy... no doubt about it. Those days that is what it meant ... you are judging by today's standards..

it's refreshing to know that whenever someone asks for verification of what is claimed in a text, inevitabely, they will tell you you are judging by wrong standards.

It cannot be wrong since the Liturgy of James notes the same.. It does not matter if it is not cannonical.. .since it wintness to the PV ....You would not mind to use it if it was agaisnt it...but again double standards...what is new...

false dilemma. The documents do NOT state what I believe, so it makes no difference. I base what I believe from the bible. so stating that I'd use something extrabiblical as neccessary proof is also false.

and yes, it can be false. Saying "Item A must be true because Item B agrees with it" logically ignores the fact that both item A, and item B, could both be completely wrong. BTW, do you know what pseudopigraphical means? It means someone writes a work, and claims to be someone else. whoever wrote it was pretending to be someone they are not. What makes the work trustworthy again?
I want to see you finding anything written contrary to her EV of the first century.....

Prove it just talk is cheap.....

evidence, it appears, is cheap too.

 

[Philothei]

Jesus stands by His word.. So therefore when Jesus gave Mary to John He was indeed giving her to His brother according to the Spirit which is where Gods kingdom is from.. James and those at that time were only fleshly brothers. The true brothers and sisters and mothers are those according to the Spirit. When one can get out of this humanistic view and really start to look at this in the Spirit Can one understand that we stand on Christ and Him alone and Not Mary and Jesus.

she went with John to his home...he took care of her...Christ was honoring the commandment. This shows how Christ honored his mother in finding her a placement. You are reading something else in it that simply is not there....

 

[bbbbbbb]

And you talk as a New testametn scholar? Your interpretation is an exegesis while Jerome's is not . Your opinion is also the "wisodom of man" or are you God?

Probably not (at least the last time I checked) But then, I rather doubt that Jerome claimed to be God either,

Do you know the difference between eisegesis and exegesis? Exegesis is deriving an interpretation from the text and context of scripture. Eisegesis is starting with an interpretation or belief and finding texts which support that belief. In the Ezekiel passage at hand one cannot find any mention of women, virgins, sexual organs, or anything remotely related to the dogma of perpetual virginity. Instead, we find mention of a gate in the east wall in a book that has dozens of statements about gates, primarily related to the Temple. One can just as validly claim that the verse in question can properly be interpreted as being the gate of the lips of a believer being sealed from vain and profane speech and thence tie it to James 3:1-12 and to the New Testament understanding of the Christian being the temple of God. Who is to say which interpretation is correct? They both use the same hermeneutic.

 

[Rick Otto]

she went with John to his home...he took care of her...Christ was honoring the commandment. This shows how Christ honored his mother in finding her a placement. You are reading something else in it that simply is not there....

You forgot to use one of these:

" "

 

[Philothei]

it's refreshing to know that whenever someone asks for verification of what is claimed in a text, inevitabely, they will tell you you are judging by wrong standards.

lol...no judge the whole of NT according to your standards and John the Baptist was what?

Wikkepedia does not verify to that document....lol... You really gave a laugh. The text dates 60 AD. And it is verified by scholars as such. If you can disprove it please give me the exact doc that does that... not some vague site like wikkipedia... I am not a elementary school student you know...

false dilemma. The documents do NOT state what I believe, so it makes no difference. I base what I believe from the bible. so stating that I'd use something extrabiblical as neccessary proof is also false.

Good that you base all you believe in the Bible and the Bible is based on oral tradition...

and yes, it can be false. Saying "Item A must be true because Item B agrees with it" logically ignores the fact that both item A, and item B, could both be completely wrong. BTW, do you know what pseudopigraphical means? It means someone writes a work, and claims to be someone else. whoever wrote it was pretending to be someone they are not. What makes the work trustworthy again?

Since A bible is written and compiled by B and C the liturgy of James is written by B and canonized by B why accept only A since the "sources were common" to A and C...mathematically does not even make sense... The same "group of beleivers" put together the worship and the Bible and at the same time.

I want to see you finding anything written contrary to her EV of the first century.....

Still want you to find a doc of the first centuray that would disprove the Liturgy of James...trully ....

 

[Philothei]

Probably not (at least the last time I checked) But then, I rather doubt that Jerome claimed to be God either,

Do you know the difference between eisegesis and exegesis? Exegesis is deriving an interpretation from the text and context of scripture. Eisegesis is starting with an interpretation or belief and finding texts which support that belief. In the Ezekiel passage at hand one cannot find any mention of women, virgins, sexual organs, or anything remotely related to the dogma of perpetual virginity. Instead, we find mention of a gate in the east wall in a book that has dozens of statements about gates, primarily related to the Temple. One can just as validly claim that the verse in question can properly be interpreted as being the gate of the lips of a believer being sealed from vain and profane speech and thence tie it to James 3:1-12 and to the New Testament understanding of the Christian being the temple of God. Who is to say which interpretation is correct? They both use the same hermeneutic.

no I do not knwo ....doh....Last time i checked I was a native Greek ...nice insult though... and getting you nowhere...too...

typologies exist such as the "red sea" the opening and closing, the ark of covenant, and also many many others... They are "prefigurments" of the incarnation of Christ in the Old Testament... They all agree to the same conclusion that Mary was and remained virgin prior to the miraclulous birth and after something that ONLY God can do. The same in Ezekiel and the same in the Red sea the way it opened up only for the Isrealites and then closed again...Since you do not see the parallels then you deny the typology of the incarnation in the Bible... Do you see what you are doing?

Thus you "cut off" the typology that exists between the two covenants and denying that the New covenant is the continuation of the Old Covenant thus denying that Christ is True God...

 

[Thekla]

to provide a 1st century example of either the Liturgy of St. James OR the NT writings is presently impossible ...

so if validation is provided only through extant examples from the 1st century, we are left without a NT.

 

[Uphill Battle]

to provide a 1st century example of either the Liturgy of St. James OR the NT writings is presently impossible ...

so if validation is provided only through extant examples from the 1st century, we are left without a NT.

I'm not neccessarily looking for a 1st century example. 9th, is stretching it.

but this comes close.

Earlier still is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John xviii. 31-33, 37 f, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130, showing that the latest of the four Gospels, which was written, according to tradition, at Ephesus between AD 90 and 100, was circulating in Egypt within about forty years of its composition (if, as is most likely, this papyrus originated in Egypt, where it was acquired in 1917). It must be regarded as being, by half a century, the earliest extant fragment of the New Testament.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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...

It's 4th century at the very earliest.
I realize that those that use it claim it goes back to 60 AD but there is ZERO evidence of that; the oldest extent of it is from the 9th Century and references to it go back no earlier than the 4th century (and we don't know if those references are to what we have from the 9th century).

What I asked for is a "level" of substantiation FAR lower than you will permit or accept from others. Just 5 (that's all, not everyone as has been claimed, just 5 of them) who knew Mary (or Joseph) and who state specifically that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. They can be heretics if you like, they can be entirely incredible if you must, but just 5 from before 100 AD that personally knew Mary and specifically substantiate this story/report about this supremely private, personal, intimate aspect of Our Blessed Lady.





.

 

[Thekla]

I'm not neccessarily looking for a 1st century example. 9th, is stretching it.

but this comes close.

Earlier still is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John xviii. 31-33, 37 f, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130, showing that the latest of the four Gospels, which was written, according to tradition, at Ephesus between AD 90 and 100, was circulating in Egypt within about forty years of its composition (if, as is most likely, this papyrus originated in Egypt, where it was acquired in 1917). It must be regarded as being, by half a century, the earliest extant fragment of the New Testament.

but the fact of the matter is this information fails to substantiate the NT writings (with, perhaps, the exception of John 18: 31-33)

 

[Thekla]

Please substantiate the authenticity of the NT writings using the standards you require of the Liturgy of St. James and the teaching of aieparthenos of Mary.

 

[Uphill Battle]

so then, you see no difference between the earliest extant copy of the 9th century... and the earliest extant fragments in the years following the end of the 1st, and more full extant shortly after?

my.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Please substantiate the authenticity of the NT writings using the standards you require of the Liturgy of St. James and the teaching of aieparthenos of Mary.

it's already been done by others. I doubt it's worth my efforts to repeat theirs... given that it would be automatically rejected anywho.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Please substantiate the authenticity of the NT writings using the standards you require of the Liturgy of St. James and the teaching of aieparthenos of Mary.

It seems nearly impossible to keep you on topic...
This is the MARIOLOGY and HAGIOGRAPHY forum.
HERE we discuss Mary and the Saints.
And the dogmas, praxis, etc. surrounding them.

IF you want to address the issue of the NT Canon, there are other forums and threads for that. IF you want to discuss the Trinity, there are other forums and threads for that. But what you are making abundantly obvious to all is that you evidently need to constantly change the topic, evade the issue, switch subjects, all revealing your empty hand.

Our discussion is about the DOGMA of 3 denominations (of the 30,000 Catholics claim exist) that it is the highest level of certainty and importance that Mary never had sex. Not once, ever, nope, no.
You claim this aspect of her supreme privacy and intimacy is a dogmatic fact of the highest level of importance and certainty.
Thus, you must have some substantiation.
If you don't, then this is a rumor. However well intended.
The Catholic Catechism states that to spread a rumor is a sin.
Thus, the important issue of this thread: is such LOVING?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Thekla]

We believe the NT to be authentic for the same reason we believe the teachings on Mary to be authentic; if you wish to challenge our means of authentication, in the interest of (your) integrity, you should apply the same standard to your tenents, ie. that the NT is authentic.

Anotherwords, live up to your own standards first.

 

[Uphill Battle]

my standards: be in the bible to be a neccessary belief.

that's it.

calling my integrity in to question only seeks to poison the well.

 

[Philothei]

it goes back to 60 AD but there is ZERO evidence of that;

You do not have evidence to tthe opposite thus all documents hardly go back to the 60 Ad with "evidence" there goes your bible...

Find me biblical texts that have "evidence" to 1st century AD... 100% and then I will believe you...

UB: then you have nowhere to believe about the term Holy Trinity ONLY the baptist description at best ...Hope you can live with that.

 

[Uphill Battle]

as for SOME of the reasoning:
http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_04.htm

you can read it if you wish. I'm not going to bother posting any of it, it would be a waste of time.

it's one of the reasons why the NT can be viewed as authentic.

the Marian documents that have been forwarded do not meet this criteria.