Speak lovingly of Mary

[Chickapee]

Awesome LLlofJesus .................. 189 pages !!!!!!!!!!!! oh my goodness ! I had no Idea

 

[Chickapee]

So... that would mean that through Christ Mary was not a "slave" to marital vows.... We can also claim that Mary was never "officially" married under the law and again the Bible does not confirm that marriage... As per her vow that she knows no man...

"for I know no man...."

Hi Philothei ,

I believe Paul is speaking Spiritually here, being metaphorical,

not literally of Mary 's living in this world but ,
being allorgorial in nature , Paul explains the mystery of the Church /woman in Gal 4 wonderfully ,

Mary was an example for us to see the Christ Child /man child

come into the world Jesus Christ name meaning ''saviour annointed ''

she was pure a VIRGIN PAUL SHOWS HERE

2Cr 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband,

that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ.
paul is speaking to the church of Corinth ,,

males and females alike [ it is within us spiritually speaking ]

going on to say But I fear, lest by any means,

as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty,

so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
the seed of Christ[WORD OF GOD ]

is planted in your mind to grow in truth and grace as Paul shows us here or is corrupted by the serpents subtil lies .

Mary is the shadow/ hidden Truth of good things to come

in the Light or /Knowledge of Gods will/desire we will see Him and be like Him

we read this in the gospels of Matt & Luke
we shall be spiritually born

in the same like manner by the Holy Spirit and the Christ seed THE

[WORD OF GOD ] inncorruptible / never see death ,decay destruction


1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God,

and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;

for we shall see him as he is.And every man that hath this hope

in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

these are the saints/ holy ones new creatures in Christ

babes in Christ FROM A VIRGIN/PURE UNDEFILD /CLEAN
not yelling hon , just excited to share this great news!

I sure hope this helps a bit more on explaining it more throughly

God love ya ..c

 

[Chickapee]

Is this not the whole basis of the Marian doctrines? The flesh... Jesus tells us that the flesh profits nothing... So why would Mary need to be PV if it profits nothing?

hI mamaz
I believe Mary represents the clean soul Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.


"to make great" (megas), is translated "to magnify" in Luk 1:46
Greek for G3170
μεγαλύνω Transliteration

megalynō

Pronunciation

me-gä-lü'-nō (Key)

Part of Speech

verb


Root Word (Etymology)

from G3173
​

TDNT Reference

4:543,573​

Vines

View Entry​

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to make great, magnify
a) metaph. to make conspicuous
2) to deem or declare great
a) to esteem highly, to extol, laud, celebrate
3) to get glory and praise

reveling in this hidden mystery the TRUTH
of Gods love and grace to us
peace in Him C ..

 

[Chickapee]

So... that would mean that through Christ Mary was not a "slave" to marital vows.... We can also claim that Mary was never "officially" married under the law and again the Bible does not confirm that marriage... As per her vow that she knows no man...

"for I know no man...."

ps sis , Jesus said in several places ''tell no man ''
why is that ?
to me it was the carnal mind cannot comprehened the things of God , and caused blasphemy of God s holy ways among the unsaved
Just some more thoughts on the secrets of the gospel
peace c

 

[narnia59]

Is this not the whole basis of the Marian doctrines? The flesh... Jesus tells us that the flesh profits nothing... So why would Mary need to be PV if it profits nothing?

No, the whole basis of the Marian doctrines is the nature of Christ.

You did not answer my questions though. Do you believe Jesus was speaking about his flesh profiting nothing?

And does that mean that nothing of the flesh is consequential? For that appears to me how you are interpreting the statement.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

ps sis , Jesus said in several places ''tell no man ''
why is that ?
to me it was the carnal mind cannot comprehened the things of God , and caused blasphemy of God s holy ways among the unsaved
Just some more thoughts on the secrets of the gospel
peace c

Blasphemy.........stoning.......

John 10:33 Answered Him, the Judeans saying, "About a good work not we are Stoning Thee; but about blasphemy; and that Thou, being a man, are making thyself a God/Elohiym/qeon <2316> ".

Reve 16:21 And Hail great as talent-weight/talantiaia <5006> is descending out of the heaven upon the men. And blaspheme the God the men out of the blow of the Hail, that great is the blow of Her, tremendous.

 

[Thekla]

hI mamaz
I believe Mary represents the clean soul Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.


"to make great" (megas), is translated "to magnify" in Luk 1:46
Greek for G3170
???????? Transliteration

megalyn?

Pronunciation

me-gä-lü'-n? (Key)

Part of Speech

verb


Root Word (Etymology)

from G3173
​

TDNT Reference

4:543,573​

Vines

View Entry​

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to make great, magnify
a) metaph. to make conspicuous
2) to deem or declare great
a) to esteem highly, to extol, laud, celebrate
3) to get glory and praise

reveling in this hidden mystery the TRUTH
of Gods love and grace to us
peace in Him C ..

Hey, Chickapee

welcome to the thread ! Thank-you for your contribution here.

I just wanted to comment a bit:

"Then God formed man out of the dust from the ground, and breathed in his face the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

In the EO we consider man, the living soul, to be a person comprised of "all the parts we can describe". So we understand that the term soul can refer to either an aspect of the human, or the complete human. I thought to describe this, as I don't know how others may understand "soul".

In the verse you cite ("My soul magnifies ...) spoken prophetically (ie,' in' the Holy Spirit) we understand her soul to be her complete person. This of course includes the body, as is evidenced by the Incarnation, the fruit of her womb, the God-man Jesus Christ.

 

[Chickapee]

Hey, Chickapee

welcome to the thread ! Thank-you for your contribution here.

I just wanted to comment a bit:

"Then God formed man out of the dust from the ground, and breathed in his face the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

In the EO we consider man, the living soul, to be a person comprised of "all the parts we can describe". So we understand that the term soul can refer to either an aspect of the human, or the complete human. I thought to describe this, as I don't know how others may understand "soul".

In the verse you cite ("My soul magnifies ...) spoken prophetically (ie,' in' the Holy Spirit) we understand her soul to be her complete person. This of course includes the body, as is evidenced by the Incarnation, the fruit of her womb, the God-man Jesus Christ.

Thank you Thekla , for recieveing me !



I can certainly understand that Jesus Christ being the fruit of all goodness , Thanks for the info , and I can agree
because In the beginning Gen 1 God made Adam/man male and female
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

hidden before she /Eve [mother of all the LIVING] come out of his side/RIB to be known /revealed
the 3 parts being spirit /soul and body

soul in Gen 2 Gen 2:7And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
nephesh Hebrew 5315
from H5314 NAPHASH[to take a breath , refresh ones self ] verb
feminine noun
1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
b) living being
c) living being (with life in the blood)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual
e) seat of the appetites
f) seat of emotions and passions
g) activity of mind
1) dubious
h) activity of the will
1) dubious
i) activity of the character
1) dubious

I have done some studies that have blessed my socks off lol , and glad to share them bits and pieces with whosoever will eat with me ...

God bless you and yours C

 

[Chickapee]

Blasphemy.........stoning.......

John 10:33 Answered Him, the Judeans saying, "About a good work not we are Stoning Thee; but about blasphemy; and that Thou, being a man, are making thyself a God/Elohiym/qeon <2316> ".

Reve 16:21 And Hail great as talent-weight/talantiaia <5006> is descending out of the heaven upon the men. And blaspheme the God the men out of the blow of the Hail, that great is the blow of Her, tremendous.

Great example Brother ,Thank you ! In His peace C

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Here it is: Mary was a Perpetual Virgin.
It's about MARY.
It's about PERPETUALITY.
It's about SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.
What part of that entirely escapes you?

No, the teaching is about Christ.

Unless the EO teaches that Mary and Jesus are one and the same person and that Jesus gave birth to Himself, then your statement is absurd.

Great. The Mormon faith that CHRIST founded the LDS is one you regard as accountable and you appoint yourself to arbitrate the matter and you dismiss it because it's not about Christ. Then (without even taking a breath), you state that the Catholic and Orthodox faith that MARY never had sexual intercourse is not accountable and MUST be dogmatically correct because it's about Christ. Odd. Very odd.

I'm not arbitrating. I did not say Christ rejects it. I say I reject it.

1. So you reject something without any arbitration? Without any evaluation, consideration or process whatsoever (not even the flipping of a coin), you just say "I reject it?" Wow.

2. So much for your point that what matters is faith, not epistemology. In your process, it appears what is dogma is whatever ... well, there is no process at all and obviously faith doesn't matter, either.

3. So much for your whole point that it's true if it's Christ-centered and false if it isn't. The LDS dogma about Christ founding His Church is Christ-centered, the dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever is Mary centered.


The dogma of Mary the Perpetual Virgin is about Mary. It's that Mary never had sexual intercourse. That's the teaching. I'm not sure what part of that totally escapes you. I don't know why you seem to insist on not talking about it.



.

 

[Philothei]

Just some more thoughts on the secrets of the gospel

that sounds like a conspiracy theory...... I do not believe that is what Christ refered to. Rather He was talking about "things" that would have provoked the Jews to capture him "earlier" than when the time had come...thus he kept things secret.... The Gospel has no secrets and it is open to all.....

The passage is perfect example of Christ 'establishing" a new covenant and a new standard with his incarnation.... Welcome BTW.

 

[Philothei]

1. So you reject something without any arbitration? Without any evaluation, consideration or process whatsoever (not even the flipping of a coin), you just say "I reject it?" Wow.

2. So much for your point that what matters is faith, not epistemology. In your process, it appears what is dogma is whatever ... well, there is no process at all and obviously faith doesn't matter, either.

3. So much for your whole point that it's true if it's Christ-centered and false if it isn't. The LDS dogma about Christ founding His Church is Christ-centered, the dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever is Mary centered.


The dogma of Mary the Perpetual Virgin is about Mary. It's that Mary never had sexual intercourse. That's the teaching. I'm not sure what part of that totally escapes you. I don't know why you seem to insist on not talking about it.

where is your proof then that Mary "was not" Ever Virgin? You said earlier that you are not sure either way..... or you canged your mind??? Was she or not EVer Virgin? We offered you the proof that though the Greek Language translation it can mean she was EV... I am still waiting for your theory as to why she was not....

 

[Philothei]

We have:

1. Language in the Gospel about "until" can be translated "for ever" at the Annunciation scene.
2. Brothers can mean cousins or even close relatives, thus Christ had no siblings.
3. "I know no man" Mary's own words that mean she knows no man for ever period
4. The 1st century liturgy of St. James commomerates her as "Ever-virgin"
5. Christ at the cross tells John to take care of his mother ....that would mean Mary had no other children because according to Jewish custom she would be in their care.
6. The Protoevangelion talks about Mary as an Ever Virgin
7. The Fathers of the Church who (put together the bible) also talk about her as Ever Virgin
8. We have a tradition of 2,000 years and the decisions of our councils confirming her Ever virginity.
9. No where in the Bible there is a specific point to the event of Mary being married to Joseph only betrothled.
Jewish custom did not require a wedding ceremony and it could or could not have taken place....

 

[Thekla]

Unless the EO teaches that Mary and Jesus are one and the same person and that Jesus gave birth to Himself, then your statement is absurd.​

Paul teaches: "do you not know that you are the temple of the Holy Spirit".
Christ teaches: "the kingdom of God is within you".

In Mary, these teachings were not metaphor, but actual as we confess that she bore the God-man, Jesus Christ, 2nd person of the Holy Trinity. She assented that her flesh become His in the Incarnation.

Christ is the Temple, and this He taught. Mary is a temple, spiritually, metaphorically and actually (in the flesh). For another to reside in the temple, the Bible teaches, is an abomination. To be the one who gives the Temple over to another is forbidden. We confess that Christ is truly God. Mary heard and kept the word of God and bore the Logos in her womb. Her flesh, by her assent, no longer belonged to her, but to Christ.

1. So you reject something without any arbitration? Without any evaluation, consideration or process whatsoever (not even the flipping of a coin), you just say "I reject it?" Wow.

Yes, you say that.
You hold, from what I've read, as your "ground of arbitration" the intellectual praxis of discovery in text (Bible). In this text, with intellectual support, the "Christ of Arius", the "Christ of Nestorius", the "Christ of the Gnostics", the "Christ of the Mormons". Are all these "your Christs" ? Do you worship all of them, or some of them, or one of them ? To use the Bible alone with your practice is an arbitrary process, for many "Christs" can be found in that manner.

2. So much for your point that what matters is faith, not epistemology. In your process, it appears what is dogma is whatever ... well, there is no process at all and obviously faith doesn't matter, either.

I stated: not any faith, but faith in the God-man, Jesus Christ.
Not the "Christ of Arius" et al. The only dogma that is "whatever" is the one that comes from a false "Christ". The false "Christ" can be found epistemologically too, as history witnesses.

3. So much for your whole point that it's true if it's Christ-centered and false if it isn't. The LDS dogma about Christ founding His Church is Christ-centered, the dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever is Mary centered.

Christ centered ... you seem to think that the name "Christ" and an argument from the Bible makes the "Christ" true. There is only one who is the true Christ, a person. Not "any Christ that can be found epistemologically in the text". Here again you exhibit the standard of secular humanism. Anthropocentrism.

The dogma of Mary the Perpetual Virgin is about Mary. It's that Mary never had sexual intercourse. That's the teaching. I'm not sure what part of that totally escapes you. I don't know why you seem to insist on not talking about it.

I'm not talking around it .
You won't consider that any teaching can reflect anything but your opinion and measure; anthropocentrism, not Christocentric. You insist on yourself, your parents, the average married couple, the average human, etc as the standard for who Christ is, how He is understood, how the Incarnation is understood, His effect on Mary, and what she exhibited about Him in bearing Him.​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

where is your proof then that Mary "was not" Ever Virgin?

1. When did I EVER post that She is not a perpetual virgin?
You quote snippets from my posts, but I'm not sure you read them.


2. As you know, the one with the position has the "burden of proof." In this case, you have a very clear position: Mary had no sex ever, and to a very high level: doctrine. The "ball" is entirely in your court (you and others here do seem AMAZINGLY determined and focused to not accept it, however, so far for over 180 pages!!!! Gotta give you credit for that!)


3. I reject your position that something is infallible dogma unless it can be proven to be false. Consider the following: "There are 6 million furry brown dogs living on the Moon of Endor!" "Mary had pink hair and loved fish tacos!" Can you prove those statements are false? Well, by your rubric, THEREFORE, they are dogmas. I hope, someday, you'll acknowledge the absurity of this rubric that Catholics and Orthodox have been using and promoting for 180 + pages in this thread.

We offered you the proof that though the Greek Language translation it can mean she was EV... I am still waiting for your theory as to why she was not....

1. Hum, perhaps. But then I never said that she COULD NOT be a perpetual virgin. With God, all things are possible (Luke 1:37). But the RCC and EO do NOT say that it's POSSIBLE that Mary was a perpetual virgin, they both state that She was. Apples and oranges. Is it POSSIBLE that there is life somewhere else in our solar system? Sure. Is that the same thing as stating that it is the highest level of certainty and importance that there IS life somewhere else in our solar system? Nope.

2. You seem to be forgetting AGAIN that of the 30,000 denominations Catholics insist exist 29,998 have no dogma, doctrine or even an official opinion on how often Mary had sex. Only two denominations have an official view on this - and neither of them have a THING to do with what is POSSIBLE. They both state that Mary was a perpetual virgin. One has dogma and as I understand it, the other as doctrine. The "ball" so to speak is in YOUR court - not in the court of the other 29,998.



.

 

[MamaZ]

The flesh profits nothing.. So therefore Mary being a PV would profit nothing.. For PV is of the flesh only.. Spiritually she was Born again.. God is her Father Jesus is her brother... She is his mother according to the flesh.. This is why Jesus tells us that all those whom do the will of God is His mother brother and sister.. For it is in the Spirit..

 

[Philothei]

But then I never said that she COULD NOT be a perpetual virgin.

But if you have no position either way then why are you arguing against one of the positions actually you should argue both...that is that we do not know...That actually would be the more "epistemologically" correct way to go.....

 

[Philothei]

So...if you sit on the fence for the double nature of Christ...And let's say you do not know for sure if he is God-man then does this have to do with your own idea of salvation....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But then I never said that she COULD NOT be a perpetual virgin.

But if you have no position either way then why are you arguing against one of the positions actually you should argue both...that is that we do not know...That actually would be the more "epistemologically" correct way to go.....

I'm not arguing AGAINST any position regarding how often Mary had sex.
Or for.
YOU ARE.


AGAIN, there are only two denominations on the planet with a position on this.
ANY position.
One of them is yours.





.

 

[Philothei]

1. When did I EVER post that She is not a perpetual virgin?

You did say it is a rumour...did you? Thus you do not believe it cause there was no proof...