There's something about Mary.......

[Anglian]

And abandon all Christian scriptures because they do not mean what they say they mean but mean the opposite....at east that is what our Apostolic "friends" would have us believe. That Jesus left us with uncomplete Christianity that needed the additions of Marian veneration that grew over time.

The proof is the Proto of James. It proves that Oral beliefs changed from the Aposotlic Matthew beliefs of which Mary had relations with Joseph. To the newer but "sexier" beliefs that Mary was a sinless ever virgin. But all I hear in return is "don't listen to what the text says listen ot what we tell you it says".

No, Jesus left us with a Church. That Church established how we worshipped Him; it established the living traditions from His time; it established which books were the real word of God. If you trust its book, is it not illogical to deny the rest of the tradition of the early Church?

I know you are insisting that you alone can translate St. Mattehw's 'heos'; others, Greek speakers, have tried to correct you, but you insist on your view, even against that of the Greek-speaking Fathers.

We are sinners, if we insist on our own understanding, who knows where we shall end up?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Because in the scriptures we do not see anything on the Marian doctrines. In fact we see that those to who worshiped or held high the queen of heaven in the scriptures and Gods anger against this. Now what makes one think that He would change His mind about this? God changes not.

We can go round one more time

The Bible did not exist in the first three centuries of the Christian era; Marian veneration did.

In the fourth century the Church which had inherited the tradition of intercessory prayer and Marian veneration also established which of the books it had inherited were the genuine word of God.

How likely is it that it would have practiced things which it thought its own book forbade?

Your very late, man made tradition is the only changed thing from the early Church, and since I agree that God does not change, I think it highly unlikely that He changed His mind. Indeed, I suspect it is highly unlikely that the second person of the Trinity thinks slights on His mother's honour are part of the Christian tradition.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

The very same Spirit that wrote the Scirptures lives and teaches us today.. Tradition teaches well this is what has been done in the past.. and because they did it then it must be okay to do it..

Dear MamaZ,

When you respond in brown inside the body of my text, the quotation function does not reproduce your points, so I have to go back and rescue them if I am to respond. If you put an 'end quote' bracket after each of my paragraphs, it makes things easier

You write:

What creed did the Apostles adhere to?

Oddly enough the one which bears their name.

When we take what the writings say and match them up with what tradition says we have a problem. For what is being preacticed and taught cannot be found in the writings of the Scriptures.. Where is the Creed that the Apostles themselves wrote?

But this is to insist on a methodological error. You take it for granted that everything had to be written in the NT. Where in the NT is this stated? This is something no one insisted upon until the sixteenth century. Now, either everyone before that was wrong, or a small group of people are now the only ones to have it right.

We only know which books are to be in Scripture because of the other writings which survive from the first few centuries. The Didarche contains some of the earliest directions which survive from the Apostles. The notion that, in an oral culture, everything would have been written down in 27 books is to import into the past our own values and standards. In addition to the Apostles' Creed and the Didarche we have dozens of writings from the Apostles and their successors. Do you really think that nothing which comes from those who knew the Apostles has any value for us?

I believe that the creeds are summaries . I also believe in one Church which is the body of Christ made of every nation and tongue..

The Church has always known that the Creeds are the essential articles of faith; we know this because they come from the Apostles and their successors.

You go on to add:

They did not have the cannon as we do today but they sure had the OT and the writings of the Apostles.. So when the Apostles taught they would take what was being taught to the OT scriptures which testify of Christ and Gods covenants.

What makes you think that the Apostles had the writings of the Apostles? As St. John did not write his Gospel until all the other Apostles were dead, that cannot be so. The Jews, of course, deny what you say about the OT. It was the early Christians who read it as we do - another Tradition we both follow
You add:

These books that you speak of are the written letters that the Apostles were sending to the Body of Christ as they also taught in person.

Indeed. No one has said otherwise. But how do we know that these, and these alone, are the letters? The earliest surving copies of the Bible have other letters in them. If you are going to follow the earliest Bibles, you would need to add these letters to your Canon; why don't you? Again, because you, like me, accept the Tradition of the Church that there are only 27 genuine books in what we call the NT. Like me, you follow Tradition
You go on to say:

This marian veneration does not come from the writings of the Apostles.. In fact God was very angered when others lifted up a woman as queen of heaven.. God does not change.. For He is the same today Yesterday and Forever..We read this in the OT scriptures.. So we understand that since there was no writings from the Apostles for this and that God was not pleased with those who did this very thing in the scriptures why would one believe that all of a sudden God changed His mind?

There is much that does not come from the writings of the Apostles because those writings were never meant to tell us everything we ought to do in worship; if they were, where does it say so? Christ's Church, the same which was inspired to know the Scriptures we use, was also inspired to practice Marian veneration; I do as Christians always have. You prefer a later tradtion and justify it by the standard of that later tradition - that everything is in the Bible. Yet, when asked where in the Bible it states what books are to be in the NT, you never answer, saying you know by the Spirit. I aks not that, but where in the Bible it states which books are to be in it?

If your method is correct, you can show me the error of my ways by showing where the Bible tells us what is to be in it. If you cannot show that, then insisting that everything must be in the Bible - except what should be in the Bible, shows the illogicality and flaws in your method.

We have added nothing to the fullness of the early Church; you have chosen a tradition which has thrown away much of the practice of the early Church.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

What evidence would you like? Chrysostom? Pope Leo I? Clement of Alexandria? Proterius of Alexandria? Victor? Athanasius? Columbanus? Melito? Polycarp? Polycrates? Irenaeus? 325, 341, 363 Councils? And least we forget, Scripture?

Meta-narratives, God changes not, God is in control, God will not be mocked, God will not share His glory, for our God is a consuming fire.

Dear Standing Up,

I am not quite following what it is you are trying to tell me here, or in the previous posts.

I cited, as Pligrim has, evidence to show how ancient Marian veneration is. You seem not to like it for some reason.

The point is very plain. No one can show us when Marian veneration was first practiced; that argues for antiquity. No one can show it ever to have been a controversial idea (unlike even the Trinity), which are argues for its orthodoxy; and no one can show where any churches did not practice it, which argues for catholicity.

Catholic, orthodox and ancient. There was less controversy about this practice than there was about what should be in the Canon.

The division here is the product of a late refusal to go along with antiquity, catholicity and orthodoxy.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

No, Jesus left us with a Church. That Church established how we worshipped Him; it established the living traditions from His time; it established which books were the real word of God. If you trust its book, is it not illogical to deny the rest of the tradition of the early Church?

I know you are insisting that you alone can translate St. Mattehw's 'heos'; others, Greek speakers, have tried to correct you, but you insist on your view, even against that of the Greek-speaking Fathers.

We are sinners, if we insist on our own understanding, who knows where we shall end up?

peace,

Anglian

We can trust in scripture because it is inspired of God. We can read it in its full context and It is Jesus who opens the eyes and ears and understanding. Through the reading of the full context of the scriptures we can see what the earliest of the body of Christ were being taught by the Apostles themselves. We can also see the struggles and questions that arose and Paul through His letters addressing these issues.

 

[MamaZ]

We can go round one more time

The Bible did not exist in the first three centuries of the Christian era; Marian veneration did.

I understand that the bible was not cannonized until a certain time. I also understand that this Marian veneration did come in at a later date than the Apostles. But now we have the cannon of scripture and its truth.. So therefore we need to take what the scriptures say as a light unto our Path.. Not what happened in the Past. We are not told to look back for truth but to study the scriptures to see if what was being practiced at the time truly lines up with the Apostles teaching and the OT teaching that we have now in the cannon of scripture and not to drag things that are not even mentioned by the scriptures and call it truth.

In the fourth century the Church which had inherited the tradition of intercessory prayer and Marian veneration also established which of the books it had inherited were the genuine word of God.

God has established which books were to be put within the cannon of scripture. Can God use whom ever He deems to make sure His written word is brought forth for correction and reproof?

How likely is it that it would have practiced things which it thought its own book forbade?

Due to the fact of the history I would say very likely..

Your very late, man made tradition is the only changed thing from the early Church, and since I agree that God does not change, I think it highly unlikely that He changed His mind. Indeed, I suspect it is highly unlikely that the second person of the Trinity thinks slights on His mother's honour are part of the Christian tradition.

peace,

Anglian

You only go back so far and call this the early church when reading of scripture we see the firstfruits of the body of Christ. Jesus honored His mother because she is HIS mother.. We honor our mother because she is OUR mother.. Jesus did not hold Mary up in high esteem and venerate her. He honored her as His mother.. So your line of thinking here baffles me.

 

[seashale76]

The Church existed before the New Testament. The holy scriptures are only part of Tradition. To divorce the scriptures from the rest of Holy Tradition gives one a very incomplete picture.

 

[Livindesert]

No, Jesus left us with a Church. That Church established how we worshipped Him; it established the living traditions from His time; it established which books were the real word of God. If you trust its book, is it not illogical to deny the rest of the tradition of the early Church?

I know you are insisting that you alone can translate St. Mattehw's 'heos'; others, Greek speakers, have tried to correct you, but you insist on your view, even against that of the Greek-speaking Fathers.

We are sinners, if we insist on our own understanding, who knows where we shall end up?

peace,

Anglian

The greek spreakers are blinded by tradition where as I looked at it through fresh eyes. As far as my understanding when the Bible itself changes or when all apostolic churches from the O.O.E.O, R.C. Anglican, Assyrian, Old believers, Lutherians etc... Have worked out which one of them is the only Church they maybe I will throw out my Bible and look to the apostolic churches for information.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

The second part of the equation also confuses me, St. Athanasius and the Council of Carthage did not just sit down and make up a list of books to be included in the Bible. Nor was their list dogmatic being a local synod and not an Ecumenical Council, as the canon was not formally dogmatically defined until Trent. The definition of the New Testament was an organic development, just as was the cult of Mary and the saints. It all comes from the same culture, the same Church. Things don't just pop into existence.-snip-

I also am not sure what "prink" means...

Prink--pray/think.

Athanasius made a list as part of his festal letters apart from any council.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

How likely is it that it would have practiced things which it thought its own book forbade?

-snip-

Paul--the OT was written for our instruction. From leaving Egypt to worshipping idols in less than a month. In Acts, we find believers following the Law of Moses. Revelation c95 tells us of those in the churches following practices and beliefs of the Nicolaitans, Jezebel, Balaam. Within 60 years.

So, how likely? Very.

Clearly, when Stephen and James the Greater were martyred, the Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church had two perfect examples to introduce the idea of venerating the saints, praying to the deceased, whatever. The Church did not introduce the practice. It arose some 300 years later. History is silent for 300 years about the practice in the Church, except as it points to cults and worse.

 

[Livindesert]

I know many of my posts are a bit tongue in cheek and tend to contain a good bit of sarcasm, but I'm saying this in all seriousness, and only out of sincere concern for another person. It is one thing to look around and go through a period of discernment in seeking the truth, it's quite another to run off and join up with non-Christian cults. The LDS are not catholic in any sense of the word, and certainly do not bear fruit of any flavor that might be confused with that of the workings of God.

Just if we are to rely on one church then why not the one who has 12 living apostles?

 

[Anglian]

You only go back so far and call this the early church when reading of scripture we see the firstfruits of the body of Christ. Jesus honored His mother because she is HIS mother.. We honor our mother because she is OUR mother.. Jesus did not hold Mary up in high esteem and venerate her. He honored her as His mother.. So your line of thinking here baffles me.

Dear MamaZ,

As you can see, when you answer my points within the quoted text and I then quote you, it only reproduces the last part of your text, so I shall go back and start with your first point:

I understand that the bible was not cannonized until a certain time. I also understand that this Marian veneration did come in at a later date than the Apostles. But now we have the cannon of scripture and its truth.. So therefore we need to take what the scriptures say as a light unto our Path.. Not what happened in the Past. We are not told to look back for truth but to study the scriptures to see if what was being practiced at the time truly lines up with the Apostles teaching and the OT teaching that we have now in the cannon of scripture and not to drag things that are not even mentioned by the scriptures and call it truth.

I see. The difficulty here is that this is what you say the Scriptures mean, but since the Scriptures do not self-declare, we need to go to Tradition to check they are what they claim to be. That same tradition which validates the claims of Scripture validates Marian veneration.
Your next point:

God has established which books were to be put within the cannon of scripture. Can God use whom ever He deems to make sure His written word is brought forth for correction and reproof?

And how did God do this? He did it through the same Church which practised Marian veneration; it seems odd to think the Spirit inspired it on one issue and not the other.

The difference, I think, is that you seem to think that the Church was inspired only on one issue, and that everything is in the Bible. But, as I say again, what is not in the Bible is a list of the books to be considered scripture, so it is illogical to say everything is in the Bible when this very simple list is not.

You follow one part of tradition and not another. Others of us follow the whole of it.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

The greek spreakers are blinded by tradition where as I looked at it through fresh eyes. As far as my understanding when the Bible itself changes or when all apostolic churches from the O.O.E.O, R.C. Anglican, Assyrian, Old believers, Lutherians etc... Have worked out which one of them is the only Church they maybe I will throw out my Bible and look to the apostolic churches for information.

Or, perhaps, the Greek speakers understand their language and you reply on an English translation.

How, after all, do you know which books are supposed to be in your Bible?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Paul--the OT was written for our instruction. From leaving Egypt to worshipping idols in less than a month. In Acts, we find believers following the Law of Moses. Revelation c95 tells us of those in the churches following practices and beliefs of the Nicolaitans, Jezebel, Balaam. Within 60 years.

Correct me if I fail to understand aright, but you are writing here about the same people of Israel who failed also to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ. I was writing about the Church He founded and which was inpsired to see what was and was not Scripture.

So, how likely? Very.

Why do you suppose the Holy Spirit guided the Church on one issue and not the other? Was He having an off day?

Clearly, when Stephen and James the Greater were martyred, the Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church had two perfect examples to introduce the idea of venerating the saints, praying to the deceased, whatever. The Church did not introduce the practice. It arose some 300 years later. History is silent for 300 years about the practice in the Church, except as it points to cults and worse.

And they chose not to do it then, but later. They also chose not to write down all their memories of Jesus then, but did so later. Again, you accept one later addition - written Scripture, but not another. I don't see the logic here.

You can point to no beginning for Marian veneration. You can point to no controversy over it. You can point to nothing in the early Church which suggests other than this was a natural outgrowth of the faith of the Apostles.

And yet, rejecting something which may have happened as late as the second century, you prefer a tradition (non veneration) which dates from the sixteenth century. Again, pardon me, but the lack of consistency here is staggering.

One practice is ancient, catholic and orthodox; the other is late, sectarian and unknown to the orthodx; and you go for the latter???

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

Correct me if I fail to understand aright, but you are writing here about the same people of Israel who failed also to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ. I was writing about the Church He founded and which was inpsired to see what was and was not Scripture.

Okay. Rev. 7 letters to the churches, 5 for correction.

Left first love
Hold the teachings of Balaam and Nicolaitans
Tolerate Jezebel
Have a name, but are dead
Lukewarm

It is the height of arrogant pride to believe none of those issues affect you or your church group. Let him hear who has ears to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. Repent or lampstand removed.

-snip-

One practice is ancient, catholic and orthodox; the other is late, sectarian and unknown to the orthodx; and you go for the latter???

peace,

Anglian

Aside from Mariology, what else have later councils given the churches? We all know and reject the Papal stuff (else you'd be RC). What else? What more has the church done for itself since 325? Besides schisming.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Standing Up,

If your point is that we are all sinners, I suspect we already knew that.

If your point is that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church and made Christ's promise to it of no effect, then I beg to differ.

What Councils after 451 have given us those who accept them will have to say.

431 gave us the dogma of the Theotokos, so I can see why you might want to stop before then.

I'm still wondering what is wrong with a practice which is ancient, orthodox and catholic. I'm not sure what your objection to it is.

When was Marian veneration first condemned by anyone? It is so late that I am surprised you go along with it.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

Dear MamaZ,

As you can see, when you answer my points within the quoted text and I then quote you, it only reproduces the last part of your text, so I shall go back and start with your first point:

I see. The difficulty here is that this is what you say the Scriptures mean, but since the Scriptures do not self-declare, we need to go to Tradition to check they are what they claim to be. That same tradition which validates the claims of Scripture validates Marian veneration.
Your next point:

And how did God do this? He did it through the same Church which practised Marian veneration; it seems odd to think the Spirit inspired it on one issue and not the other.

The difference, I think, is that you seem to think that the Church was inspired only on one issue, and that everything is in the Bible. But, as I say again, what is not in the Bible is a list of the books to be considered scripture, so it is illogical to say everything is in the Bible when this very simple list is not.

You follow one part of tradition and not another. Others of us follow the whole of it.

peace,

Anglian

The scriptures speak for themselves.. Therefore when we read about Gods anger kindled against those who held a woman is high esteem and venerated her we can be assured that He would not change is Position on this. The OT was already set to read about this. The list is no problem for we do not need a man made list for the HS to inspire the scriptures and to teach Christs body what is and is not true scripture..

 

[MamaZ]

It is a greek practice of veneration to a godess and having those in heaven to protect for certain things.

 

[Livindesert]

Or, perhaps, the Greek speakers understand their language and you reply on an English translation.

How, after all, do you know which books are supposed to be in your Bible?

peace,

Anglian

Just as Isreal would worship other gods but still was able to give the apostolic churches the OT so to from the corrupt apostolic churches do we get the NT it's pretty simple. Protestant churches are Isreal the chosen people. Which is one reason why I am currently looking into the LDS. So I can possibly be apart of the one true Christian church.

Also you yourself has admited that Marian veneration is an outgrowth of tradition. It was not there from the beginning.

 

[Anglian]

The scriptures speak for themselves.

If that were so we'd have no disagreements; it would also say so in Scripture

. Therefore when we read about Gods anger kindled against those who held a woman is high esteem and venerated her we can be assured that He would not change is Position on this

I have no idea what you mean here.

The OT was already set to read about this. The list is no problem for we do not need a man made list for the HS to inspire the scriptures and to teach Christs body what is and is not true scripture..

This is pretty unclear too. We know the NT because the Church canonised it; the HS inspired the Church; that Church also practised Marian veneration. No one saw any problem until some late man made tradition came along and claimed there was one. I see no reason to follow a tradition of men, especially such a late one.

peace,

Anglian