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

[Livindesert]

I don't believe anyone has suggested that you cannot trust the Scriptures. What is and remains a fact though, is reading a biased English translation, completely divorced from the context and Tradition that formed it, is highly dangerous.

Which is why I looked at the Greek to come to my conclusions.

 

[Livindesert]

where do you get 2 and 3 from?!

2. From Brother Anglicans posts. 3. Because the LDS says so which is what others from the Apostolic churches always tell me...trust us because we say so.

 

[jckstraw72]

2. From Brother Anglicans posts. 3. Because the LDS says so which is what others from the Apostolic churches always tell me...trust us because we say so.

methinks perhaps you need to be more discerning and not just swallow everything people tell you ....

 

[Livindesert]

methinks perhaps you need to be more discerning and not just swallow everything people tell you ....

If I do that I will end up a atheist.

 

[Livindesert]

methinks perhaps you need to be more discerning and not just swallow everything people tell you ....

How about this the most loving and Christ like people I have met have been Mormons.

I have been sticking to Mainstream Christianity because it is what I knew before I went through a Wiccan/Buddhist phase.

Why should I trust anyone else if I see such good fruit comming from one source?

 

[jckstraw72]

How about this the most loving and Christ like people I have met have been Mormons.

I have been sticking to Mainstream Christianity because it is what I knew before I went through a Wiccan/Buddhist phase.

Why should I trust anyone else if I see such good fruit comming from one source?

i aint denying that --- ive met some Mormons who were really great people, but ive also met some Atheists who were equally nice. for as great as the Mormons can be, the truth can make you a million times more like Christ. Orthodox Saints and modern holy people simply blow the Mormons or anyone else out of the water.

 

[laconicstudent]

Because the LDS says so which is what others from the Apostolic churches always tell me...trust us because we say so.

What doesn't make sense is that you will take this from the LDS, which was founded on the basis of one man claiming a revelation from "God", but not from the Church that was actually founded at Pentecost.

 

[Livindesert]

i aint denying that --- ive met some Mormons who were really great people, but ive also met some Atheists who were equally nice. for as great as the Mormons can be, the truth can make you a million times more like Christ. Orthodox Saints and modern holy people simply blow the Mormons or anyone else out of the water.

I have read about and met Christian priests Orthodox and Catholic, Buddhist Saints, Baha'i's and have yet to see any miracle in person.

Why should I trust your supernatural stories over other Faiths or Christian sects stories?

 

[jckstraw72]

I have read about and met Christian priests Orthodox and Catholic, Buddhist Saints, Baha'i's and have yet to see any miracle in person.

Why should I trust your supernatural stories over other Faiths or Christian sects stories?

that comes down to your own spiritual journey. you shouldnt just trust me or any stories. keep seeking.

 

[Livindesert]

that comes down to your own spiritual journey. you shouldnt just trust me or any stories. keep seeking.

Yup that's where I am at now.

 

[MamaZ]

I grew up Evangelical but have found out from Anglian they cannot be the true church since they follow the Bible. Since the LDS has true apostolic authority given to them by Christ they have a good shot at being the true Isreal.

Well this true apostolic authority is questionable..

 

[Standing Up]

I grew up Evangelical but have found out from Anglian they cannot be the true church since they follow the Bible. Since the LDS has true apostolic authority given to them by Christ they have a good shot at being the true Isreal.

Well this true apostolic authority is questionable..

Quite frankly, LDS is the flip side of the churches of the schisms. They all believe they have the right to introduce new revelation (Mariology, Popology, book of mormon, etc).

Everyone knows about Peter, but very few know the reason Jesus named James and John the sons of thunder. They were the first and last apostles to die. Between them is all the revelation from eyewitnesses of death, burial, and resurrection we are given. Then they wrote it down.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Standing Up,

I have no idea what Popology is, but linguistically it must means studying the words of the bishop of Rome. Since Christians are admonished in Scripture to obey those placed in authority above them, it seems very scriptural to study the words of one's bishops.

In terms of St. Mary, the Blessed Theotokos, no one, including you, has shown when the practice of Marian veneration was novel; nor when it was contested; nor where it is other than orthodox.

Our friend PilgrimToChrist posted some time ago Rev. 12:1-6, which is the Scriptural foundation for the practice, only to be told by MamaZ that this was not at all what it meant - in MamaZ's reading. Yet this is what Fathers such a Oecumenius read it as being. It seems unclear why we should prefer modern readings to those of the ancients.

Of course, if one absolutely insists that the Church, which gives us warrant for the NT being what it claims, and which identified the correct books, was unaware of a contradiction between that book and its Marian veneration, then one constructs an argument for one's own views that the contradiction must be there; if one stops such gymnastics and accepts what the early Church held universally, then one aligns oneself with the teaching of that Church.

Or one can continue with the attempt to construct the ancient Church in an image one can accept.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

What St. Paul says of himself is necessarily more applicable to her who actually formed Christ in her womb. All the elect must be formed in the womb of the Mother of God.

We are not formed in the womb of Mary. We are formed in the womb of our own mother.. Mary has nothing to do with our new birth in Christ. For this comes from the Father.


I will quote at length from de Montfort:



---------
[1]

[2]

I do not even know who de Montfort is. Why would I listen to him over what the scriptures attest to?

 

[MamaZ]

That's interesting, I though it was an Egyptian one too.

Mind you, what any of this has to do with the practice, endorsed by the same Church that endorsed the NT, of Marian veneration, only you know. We do not think the Blessed Theotokos a goddess - a point made to you and others here about a 1000 times in recent threads, so it is disappointing to see it being given another airing.


peace,

Anglian

Well this is what Pilgrim to Christ stated.

Well, you could say that God deified Mary, yes. But you have to understand what "deification" means. You could say that Mary is a goddess, though that would be likely misinterpreted, as some have misinterpreted Jesus saying that "ye are gods". It is best to say simply that Mary is the creature most exalted in all of Creation, the closest to God. Martin Luther said that if he had as many tongues as there are blades of grass in the world, he could not say what it means to be the Mother of God. St. Louis de Montfort said that Mary acquired such merit that it would easier to count the stars in the sky, the drops of water in the ocean, that it would be to count the merits and graces given to the Blessed Virgin. I would not hesitate to say that it is a mystery to the angels and even to the Blessed Virgin herself, as God is infinitely greater than her and thus she herself cannot fully comprehend the infinite graces that He has given to her.

 

[Livindesert]

MamaZ makes a good point here....Anglican says one thing while Pligrim says another...

 

[Livindesert]

Dear Standing Up,

I have no idea what Popology is, but linguistically it must means studying the words of the bishop of Rome. Since Christians are admonished in Scripture to obey those placed in authority above them, it seems very scriptural to study the words of one's bishops.

In terms of St. Mary, the Blessed Theotokos, no one, including you, has shown when the practice of Marian veneration was novel; nor when it was contested; nor where it is other than orthodox.

Our friend PilgrimToChrist posted some time ago Rev. 12:1-6, which is the Scriptural foundation for the practice, only to be told by MamaZ that this was not at all what it meant - in MamaZ's reading. Yet this is what Fathers such a Oecumenius read it as being. It seems unclear why we should prefer modern readings to those of the ancients.

Of course, if one absolutely insists that the Church, which gives us warrant for the NT being what it claims, and which identified the correct books, was unaware of a contradiction between that book and its Marian veneration, then one constructs an argument for one's own views that the contradiction must be there; if one stops such gymnastics and accepts what the early Church held universally, then one aligns oneself with the teaching of that Church.

Or one can continue with the attempt to construct the ancient Church in an image one can accept.

peace,

Anglian

Honestly if Matthew did not say what it dose I would have no problem accepting a toned down version of Marian veneration.

Or if the Marian veneration was about Mary being the most blessed while not being sinless or an ever virgin then I can agree with it.

 

[Anglian]

Well this is what Pilgrim to Christ stated.

Yes, and as you see from the part you embolded, she is saying what I said, that we do not worship the Blessed Theotokos as a goddess, although there are those misguided people who imagine we do so.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

MamaZ makes a good point here....Anglican says one thing while Pligrim says another...

We are saying the same thing - that St. Mary is not a goddess.
Do read what Pilgrim wrote.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Honestly if Matthew did not say what it dose I would have no problem accepting a toned down version of Marian veneration.

Well, let's revisit this.

Now, does Matthew’s use of "until" mean what you say it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for "until" (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child "until" the day of her death. Does that mean she had children after she died? Hardly. So why does 'until' in Matthew mean that after the birth of Jesus there was physical congress?

Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are other places where 'until' cannot mean what you think it means.

What is St. Matthew’s intent? Why do you interpret it was trying to here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ? He is writing about the period before the birth and is concerned to make it clear that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.

You are effectively arguing that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for "until" whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph "not having come together" would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar."

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was "sent" to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.

Do ponder these points and see whether you may not be jumping to a certain conclusion.

Or if the Marian veneration was about Mary being the most blessed while not being sinless or an ever virgin then I can agree with it.

If what you are after is a church which agrees with you, then fair enough. If you want the Church which pronounced on the nature of the NT, it also pronounced St. Mary ever Virgin. (Ephesus 431).

Here, the Orthodox and the Catholics, and some Anglicans agree. It may be that your incisive intellect alone pierces the cloud of unknowing; but it may be that others, who have walked with Christ before, have this right.

peace,

Anglian