Speak lovingly of Mary

[Uphill Battle]

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...

read the link I just posted. It shows evidence of the scriptures within the first century, and shortly after.

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

the term? Who gives a rip about the term?

call it the Godhead. Call it the Trinity. Call it the three-in-one. I don't care about a term.

and since it's detailed in scripture fairly well, (linked that too! betcha didn't bother to read it!) I can live with it just fine. I don't have to have someone tell me what to believe, to have confidence in my God.

 

[Thekla]

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.

No, that is my intention; integrity demands consistency. The standard must be applied to all, not selectively, in order to be a standard. The failure to apply the standard to your own Bible betrays a "tradition" behind your assertion.

 

[Thekla]

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.

this document fails to prove that the NT we read is the same as the NT writings of the 1st century; this is your standard per the Liturgy of St. James. Both fail the test for the standards you maintain.

Further, the document does not deal with oral culture; long-count and other means of retaining history were valid until recently.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I give.

I've given all I intend. continued obfuscation will not serve any purpose.

 

[Uphill Battle]

and no, I just seek something that proves the claim that it existed AT ALL in 60 AD. something that cannot be done. that is the claim, after all.

 

[katholikos]

ANYONE who thinks they are seeing visions of a woman who died 2000 years ago are delving into occult practices...

Can we judge how God chooses to speak to us, and which vessels He chooses to speak through?

...The mulsims are slowly warming up to it because they like that....

They are also Monotheists, and they profess faith in the God of Abraham. Does that mean that all Christans are "delving into occult practices" because they profess the same?

 

[MamaZ]

Can we judge how God chooses to speak to us, and which vessels He chooses to speak through?
They are also Monotheists, and they profess faith in the God of Abraham. Does that mean that all Christans are "delving into occult practices" because they profess the same?

Do they? Do they confess Christ? For He is the God of Abraham..

 

[Kristos]

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.

Hi UB,

CCEL is great. Do you see them as a trusted source of information? Just wondering because almost everything I posted is from CCEL. I think the translator notes from Philip Schaff were especially interesting. Most of the time he gives a scholarly, objective review of the subject. In this case, he seems pretty clear that when taken as whole these apocryphal writings give us a fairly accurate view of christian beliefs in the first centuries. Is that 60AD? Maybe not, but it's close.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't care who it was the posted it, really. The same information is available on numerous sites.

 

[Rick Otto]

Can we judge how God chooses to speak to us, and which vessels He chooses to speak through?
They are also Monotheists, and they profess faith in the God of Abraham. Does that mean that all Christans are "delving into occult practices" because they profess the same?

No, we can't judge if by that you mean "condemn", but yes we can judge if by that you mean "discern".
No, it means they are deceiving at least themselves about being monotheistic.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Originally Posted by 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.


​

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, practices, 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?
THAT is the issue.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Thekla]

I am asking that you apply to yourself the standards you apply to others for verification.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I am asking that you apply to yourself the standards you apply to others for verification.

As I am to you. If you reject all the things Mormons claim about Joseph Smith because only a few hundred actually affirmed these things when Joseph Smith was still alive - that's not substantiation that it's true, you insist, then I'm at a loss to understand your point that one person who never so much as met Mary or anyone who ever had DOGMATICALLY KNOWS exactly how often Mary and Joseph had sex so that it provides substantiation. If you reject that the LDS's rather self-serving "interpretion" of some verses (for example, about "other sheep") is not dogmatically certain because it is the view of the LDS, then I'm a bit at a loss to understand your point that one denomination's rather self-serving "interpretation" of some verses (church = RCC, etc.) is DOGMATIC substantiation that self is correct in the interpretation of self, as arbitrated by self. In this thread, I have requested a level of substantiation FAR, FAR lower and easier than the you seem to be asking of others - in fact, I've asked for only 5 people (they can even be heretics) who knew Mary who stated that she never once had sex. Just 5. They don't even need to be credible, they can be known liars, I just asked for 5 that knew her. Hey, I'll make it easier, how about 2 that knew Mary. Just 2. They can be lying heretics if that's all you've got, but just two who are of the opinion that Mary had no sex ever - I'll entirely drop ANY substantiation at all, just two people who knew Mary who specifically state that in their own (even often wrong) opinion, that Mary had no sex ever. Can you do that? Is that "bar" too high for a DOGMA - a matter of greatest certainty and importance? Do you accept that as verification of dogmas from others? I will for you - if you've got it.



Does it matter? Yes.
This is DOGMA in your specific denomination.
If a story is unsubstantiated, then it's a rumor and the spreading of rumors is a sin.
This is a HIGHLY personal, private, intimate (and completely moot) topic, one that has a huge potential for offensive and pain to one we love, adore, esteem and revere - our Mother. TRUTH about her should matter to all.






.

 

[Thekla]

The LDS, in the EO view, hold theology deemed heretical in the Ecumenical Councils; their appaeal to their own tradition is moot, as their theology, according to the EO, is awry. You are perfectly welcome to call their tradition suspect as you are ours; this does not adress the fact that you hold the NT valid on tradition, ie. absent evidence of authenticity.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The LDS, in the EO view, hold theology deemed heretical in the Ecumenical Councils

I'll take that as a "no."
You don't have the "verification" (as you call it) that you require of others.


Thus, according to the RCC (and I know you aren't Catholic), it is a rumor.
And the spreading of a rumor is a sin.
Thus, we not only have a HUGE potential for pain and embassassment from Our Blessed Lady (and thus her Son), but also of sin on the part of those spreading this extremely intimate, personal story about her.






.

 

[Thekla]

I would ask that you not claim to speak on my behalf.

 

[lionroar0]

I'll take that as a "no."
You don't have the "verification" (as you call it) that you require of others.


Thus, according to the RCC (and I know you aren't Catholic), it is a rumor.
And the spreading of a rumor is a sin.
Thus, we not only have a HUGE potential for pain and embassassment from Our Blessed Lady (and thus her Son), but also of sin on the part of those spreading this extremely intimate, personal story about her.


.

Nor should you speak for a whole body of belivers.

Peace

 

[Kristos]

Theotokos, save us.

 

[WarriorAngel]

you only got this out of a writing that has not even been cannonized or can be authenticated as truth. We do not see any of this written in the scripture. James was not even a believer until after Christs ressurection.

James who??

 

[NoDoubt]

James who??

Guess you don't know then.