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

MamaZ said:

Even the towns people knew Mary and Joseph to be married with children. They were already betrothed..In fact Joseph was going to put her away secretly due to the fact she was with child.. This was before their coming together so Joseph knew the child was not his.. This is why God told Joseph to take Mary was His wife.. Which Joseph did and he did not know her until after the birth of Christ. It is all evident in the writings of the full context of the scriptures. For the focus is not on the virgin Mary but on Christ and His enterance into the world.. Not much more about the childhood of Jesus..

Click to expand...

But in the Gospel of Luke, Luke attests that they were not married, but still betrothed, when they went to Bethlehem to be taxed. And the word the translators give as wife also means betrothed, widow, woman of any age or status. There is no evidence given in the Holy Scriptures that they ever married.

We have discussed the use of "eos ou" as "until" before - it is not evidence that they married.

MamaZ said:

Even the towns people knew Mary and Joseph to be married with children. They were already betrothed..In fact Joseph was going to put her away secretly due to the fact she was with child.. This was before their coming together so Joseph knew the child was not his.. This is why God told Joseph to take Mary was His wife.. Which Joseph did and he did not know her until after the birth of Christ. It is all evident in the writings of the full context of the scriptures. For the focus is not on the virgin Mary but on Christ and His enterance into the world.. Not much more about the childhood of Jesus..

Click to expand...

Can you provide the Scriptural reference to the marriage? You are providing your own eisegesis of what you think the Gospel ought to be saying.

As with so many things, a so called 'plain reading' dissolves the moment you try it. That's why we need to read the Bible in the tradition of which it was a part, not our own one.

peace,

Anglian

Anglian said:

Can you provide the Scriptural reference to the marriage? You are providing your own eisegesis of what you think the Gospel ought to be saying.

As with so many things, a so called 'plain reading' dissolves the moment you try it. That's why we need to read the Bible in the tradition of which it was a part, not our own one.

peace,

Anglian

Click to expand...

Wife means marriage.. He was betrothed and then God came to Joseph in and told him to take Mary as His wife. Not as his betrothe... Then as we read further into the scriptures we see that there were more children from this union. No where are we told to read the scriptures through tradition. Even if we did read the scripture through tradition it would be the Jewish tradition. In jewish tradition we see that they are to be fruitful and multiply. We also see in Jewish tradition that children are a heritiage from the Lord and and great blessing.. When trying to set up Mary as being different from all other women because of the Birth of Christ then a tradtion is set up that is not of the Jewish faith..

MamaZ said:

Wife means marriage.. He was betrothed and then God came to Joseph in and told him to take Mary as His wife.

Click to expand...

But the Gospels do not say wife, they say guni. It is the translators who select the term wife.

The Gospel writer Luke witnesses that Mary and Joseph were still betrothed (not married) when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem.There is no evidence that they married in the Holy Scriptures.

Then as we read further into the scriptures we see that there were more children from this union. No where are we told to read the scriptures through tradition.

Click to expand...

The Holy Scriptures do not tell us what relationship is meant by "adelphoi". If a particular meaning of the many meanings of adelphoi is meant, then a further descriptive must - per the language - be given. No such further description is made.

Even if we did read the scripture through tradition it would be the Jewish tradition. In jewish tradition we see that they are to be fruitful and multiply. We also see in Jewish tradition that children are a heritiage from the Lord and and great blessing.. When trying to set up Mary as being different from all other women because of the Birth of Christ then a tradtion is set up that is not of the Jewish faith..

Click to expand...

Per Jewish tradition:

1. People should be married to beget children.
There is no evidence in the Holy Scriptures that Joseph and Mary were married.

2. One who has had a full encounter with God remains celibate therafter, as did Moses.
If Mary had not remained celibate, it would be evidence that Christ was not begotten by the Holy Spirit.

3. Jewish tradition as reported by Celsus, as well as (iirc.) the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds attest that Mary had only one child.
These historical Jewish sources do not claim that Mary had more children.

Thekla said:

But the Gospels do not say wife, they say guni. It is the translators who select the term wife.

The Gospel writer Luke witnesses that Mary and Joseph were still betrothed (not married) when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem.There is no evidence that they married in the Holy Scriptures.


The Holy Scriptures do not tell us what relationship is meant by "adelphoi". If a particular meaning of the many meanings of adelphoi is meant, then a further descriptive must - per the language - be given. No such further description is made.




This language used guni as wife.. Woman or wife.. I am my husbands woman.. My husband is my man.. Just as Jesus called Mary woman.. When we see the words used in the context of the written we can understand the meaning of these words.. Such as in shape.. If we use the word shape in a sentence of a womans stature we know what is meant. If we use the word shape as into a workmans usage we also can see and understand the meaning of the word shape. This is why the full context of the written scriptures are so important. Just as when we see later in the scripture the family setting and the brothers and sisters being mentioned.


Per Jewish tradition:

1. People should be married to beget children.
There is no evidence in the Holy Scriptures that Joseph and Mary were married.

2. One who has had a full encounter with God remains celibate therafter, as did Moses.
If Mary had not remained celibate, it would be evidence that Christ was not begotten by the Holy Spirit.

3. Jewish tradition as reported by Celsus, as well as (iirc.) the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds attest that Mary had only one child.
These historical Jewish sources do not claim that Mary had more children.

Click to expand...

I am speaking of Jewish traditions. Jesus was not Jospehs son. Therefore Mary would want a son for Joseph.. This is the jewish tradition so that the name will be carried on.. As we read further into the context of the written scriptures we see more of an understanding of this..

MamaZ said:

I am speaking of Jewish traditions. Jesus was not Jospehs son. Therefore Mary would want a son for Joseph.. This is the jewish tradition so that the name will be carried on.. As we read further into the context of the written scriptures we see more of an understanding of this..

Click to expand...

The 3 traditions I listed are Jewish traditions.

There is no evidence that Joseph and Mary ever married; if we assume that Joseph followed the instruction of the angel and took Mary to his household, we also note that the Gospel of Luke attests that Joseph did not marry her before taking her into his household; Luke attests that they were still only betrothed when they went to Bethlehem.

There is also no evidence in the Holy Scriptures that Mary had other children.

MamaZ said:

I am speaking of Jewish traditions. Jesus was not Jospehs son. Therefore Mary would want a son for Joseph..

Click to expand...

Jewish tradition involves defiling the temple of God in order to get pregnant by a man you're not married to? I don't know what kind of Jews you've been speaking to but.....

Intercisus said:

Jewish tradition involves defiling the temple of God in order to get pregnant by a man you're not married to? I don't know what kind of Jews you've been speaking to but.....

Click to expand...

Well, well, well. Now we have marital intercourse portrayed as sinful. However, to get to that point, you drag us back in time to when Mary and Joseph were engaged and not married, thus making premarital sex the issue, which nobody, but nobody on this thread believes that Mary and Joseph came together until after he birth of Jesus Christ.

However, you create a picture of a couple of housemates named Joseph and Mary who never got married, but decided just to shack up together in a loveless relationship so that Joseph would what? Be something of a father figure to Jesus? Give the appearance (a lie, if ever there was one) that he and Mary were really a husband and wife rearing their Son, Jesus?

Why is it such a heinous sin for a married couple to engage in intercourse? Why is it that the relationship of Joseph and Mary is held to be the ideal for marriage and family life if, in fact, they were never married?

bbbbbbb said:

Well, well, well. Now we have marital intercourse portrayed as sinful. However, to get to that point, you drag us back in time to when Mary and Joseph were engaged and not married, thus making premarital sex the issue, which nobody, but nobody on this thread believes that Mary and Joseph came together until after he birth of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

No, we're not back to "marital intercourse portrayed as sinful". What part of betrothed and not married are you just not getting?

bbbbbbb said:

However, you create a picture of a couple of housemates named Joseph and Mary who never got married, but decided just to shack up together in a loveless relationship so that Joseph would what? Be something of a father figure to Jesus? Give the appearance (a lie, if ever there was one) that he and Mary were really a husband and wife rearing their Son, Jesus?

Click to expand...

No, I'm not creating a picture of a young "shacked-up" couple. An older man with no wife and prior children was selected to take care of a young woman who God chose to give birth to the Son. Kindly, drop your attitude of projecting screwy 21st century culture and morality (or lack thereof) on 1st century Jews.

bbbbbbb said:

Why is it such a heinous sin for a married couple to engage in intercourse? Why is it that the relationship of Joseph and Mary is held to be the ideal for marriage and family life if, in fact, they were never married?

Click to expand...

It's not a sin for married people to have sex, but there's a catch. Are you paying attention? Really, please, have a seat and get your brain ready to comprehend this very simple thing. They were not married.

bbbbbbb said:

However, you create a picture of a couple of housemates named Joseph and Mary who never got married, but decided just to shack up together in a loveless relationship so that Joseph would what? Be something of a father figure to Jesus? Give the appearance (a lie, if ever there was one) that he and Mary were really a husband and wife rearing their Son, Jesus?

Click to expand...

So by this, would you hold that Joseph did not immediately take Mary into his household per the instruction of the angel, but waited ? Luke attests that they were not married when they traveled to Bethlehem.

Do you believe that a relationship without sex is necessarily loveless ?

Why is it such a heinous sin for a married couple to engage in intercourse? Why is it that the relationship of Joseph and Mary is held to be the ideal for marriage and family life if, in fact, they were never married?

Click to expand...

Where is the attestation in the Holy Scriptures that Mary and Joseph represent the ideal for marriage and family life ?

I have to say, I commend both Thekla and Anglian for their efforts here. In my time on CF, I've seen literally 1000's of posts in threads just like this and these two are always there, repeating the truth patiently. Many times, to the same people, who know better but still insist on using ridiculous arguments to slander the Mother of God.

Personally, I'm starting to embrace the St. Nicholas way of doing things. Confront those who champion outright heresy, give them the facts patiently, and if they persist give them a good right cross to the jaw.

MamaZ said:

Wife means marriage.

Click to expand...

As our sister Thekla has explained, yet again an English tranlsation misses the nuances present in the Greek. Still, if you insist that the English word takes priority over the Greek, just show us where in Scripture we are told, directly, that they were married. If you can't, you are making assumptions unsupported by the Greek text in which God chose that the Scriptures be written.

. He was betrothed and then God came to Joseph in and told him to take Mary as His wife. Not as his betrothe... Then as we read further into the scriptures we see that there were more children from this union. No where are we told to read the scriptures through tradition. Even if we did read the scripture through tradition it would be the Jewish tradition. In jewish tradition we see that they are to be fruitful and multiply. We also see in Jewish tradition that children are a heritiage from the Lord and and great blessing.. When trying to set up Mary as being different from all other women because of the Birth of Christ then a tradtion is set up that is not of the Jewish faith..

Click to expand...

Again, the Greek text makes no such assumption - you are making it from an English translation.

MamaZ said:

I am speaking of Jewish traditions. Jesus was not Jospehs son. Therefore Mary would want a son for Joseph.. This is the jewish tradition so that the name will be carried on.. As we read further into the context of the written scriptures we see more of an understanding of this..

Click to expand...

Who says Joseph had no son? The 'brothers' of Jesus may well have been Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage. It was Jewish tradition that the sons looked after the mother, Christ commends His blessed mother to St. John, another indication that the so-called 'brothers' were not St. Mary's children.

One can keep citing the English text, but since it is hardly definitive, I'm not sure what use it is; one can also cite Jewish traditions, but none of them, neither those mentioned by Thekla or the one I have mentioned, suggest any support for the recent and entirely man-made tradition that St. Mary was not ever-Virgin.

Still, being of man, these traditions will keep repeating themselves.

Hail Mary, Full of Grace,
the Lord is with thee,
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God
pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of our death

peace,

Anglian

I just still do not understand while even in the Greek it says until Christ was born which means there was a reversal of the situation. Even in the Greek in Matthew I have found only one out of three untills I have studied even has the possiblity of there not being a reversal of the situation. I figure there must have been a great apostasy then and both Apostolic and protestants must be wrong. Time to bail ship and go to the LDS board. Have fun with all of your man made traditions.

Anglian said:

Hail Mary, Full of Grace,
the Lord is with thee,
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God
pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of our death

peace,

Anglian

Click to expand...

^^^ Probably the best idea I've seen put forth yet.

Hail Mary, Full of Grace,
the Lord is with thee,
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God
pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of our death

A word more: respecting the favorite prayer to Mary, the angelic greeting, or the Ave Maria, which in the Catholic devotion runs parallel to the Pater Noster. It takes its name from the initial words of the salutation of Gabriel to the holy Virgin at the annunciation of the birth of Christ. It consists of three parts:
(1) The salutation of the angel (Luke i. 28):
Ave Maria, gratiae plena, Dominus tecum!
(2) The words of Elizabeth (Luke i. 42):
Benedicta tu in mulieribus797797 96 .These words, according to the textus receptus, had been already spoken also by the angel, Luke i. 28: Εὐλογημένησὺ ἐν γυναιξίν, though they are wanting here in important manuscripts, and are omitted by Tischendorf and Meyer asa later addition, from i. 42. , et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Jesus.
(3) The later unscriptural addition, which contains the prayer proper, and is offensive to the Protestant and all sound Christian feeling:
Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis. Amen.
Formerly this third part, which gave the formula the character of a prayer, was traced back to the anti-Nestorian council of Ephesus in 431, which sanctioned the expression mater Dei, or Dei genitrix (θεοτόκο&#962.But Roman archaeologists798

//798 Mast, for example, in Wetzer und Welte’s Kathol. Kirchenlexikon, vol. i. p, 563 //


now concede that it is a much later addition, made in the beginning of the sixteenth century (1508), and that the closing words, nunc et in hora mortis, were added even after that time by the Franciscans. But even the first two parts did not come into general use as a standing formula of prayer until the thirteenth century.799799 Peter Damiani (who died a.d. 1072) first mentions, as a solitary case, that a clergyman daily prayed the words: “Ave Maria, gratia plena! Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in mulieribus.” The first order on the subject was issued by Odo, bishop of Paris, after 1196 (comp. Mansi, xxii. 681): “Exhortentur populum semper presbyteri ad dicendam orationem dominicam et credo in Deum et salutationem beatae Virginis.” From that date the Ave Maria stands in the Roman church upon a level with the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed, and with them forms the basis of the rosary.

History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Acorn-to-oak thinking is a witness against itself.

Intercisus said:

I have to say, I commend both Thekla and Anglian for their efforts here. In my time on CF, I've seen literally 1000's of posts in threads just like this and these two are always there, repeating the truth patiently. Many times, to the same people, who know better but still insist on using ridiculous arguments to slander the Mother of God.

Personally, I'm starting to embrace the St. Nicholas way of doing things. Confront those who champion outright heresy, give them the facts patiently, and if they persist give them a good right cross to the jaw.

Click to expand...

Matthew 1:25 untill=till= heos(something for a period of time)
Matthew 5:18 untill=till= heos(something for a period of time)
Matthew 22:44 untill=till= heos(something for a period of time)

And for Matthew 22:44 since I was asked about it

Jesus rose to the right hand of the father until(a set period of time) the second comming when his enemies will be trampled under his feet. So until again shows a length of time not unlimited time.

Matthew 28:20 (Young's Literal Translation)


20teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days -- till(heos) the full end of the age.'


If the age ends Jesus will not be with us beyond it, which means the age will not end hence he will be with us forever.


So either Mary had sex or Orthodox christianity is false since the scirptures are twisted by man to fit a Marian hersey made during the great apostasy.

Dear Standing Up,

Perhaps it only stands in relation to itself in the way you think if you actually agree with your line of thinking?

We know that 'Mother of God' dates back further than 431, just as we know the word 'Trinity' antedates Nicaea; in both cases the Councils sanction practices already long in place.

I am unsure what is 'offensive' to Protestants in the prayer, and surely to suggest that it is 'offensive to all sound Christian feeling' comes pretty close to 'flaming' in that it implies that those of us who pray it lack sound Christian feeling; since it is not my habit to complain to the Mods, I will content myself with pointing out to you, as a respected member of this Forum, that your phraseology lends itself to causing offence; if none was meant, then fair enough; if you meant to cause offence, that is a matter for you and your conscience.

If the Holy Spirit is with the Church, one might well expect His presence to deepen our understanding of the Faith once received. That is part of a living, growing and organic process of spiritual development. If one wishes to preserve an artifact between the covers of a book or within the aspic of an ancient liturgy, that is one thing; to suppose that the living word of God cannot reach us through the development of a prayer across the centuries is just what it seems to be; a supposition about what the Holy Spirit can, and cannot do.

As I commented many post ago, those who have no experience of the spiritual benefits of Marian veneration cannot understand whereof we speak; those of us who have simply wish that those who have not would stop talking about a holy thing they know nothing about.

Once upon a time, those who knew nothing about something would ask for information; now, in the age of the Internet, they insist on telling those of us who do experience the benefits of her intercession that we don't. One definition of that would be chutzpah.

To repeat one other point. I am indifferent to confessional disputes, these are the small change of this place. What I am not indifferent to is the reputation of the Blessed Virgin. She is the mother of Our Saviour. Now it may be that some think Him one of those rare sons who does not care how other family members talk about His mother; but many of us honour Him through his mother. Chivalry alone would tell against bandying the name and reputation of a lady. So, I am afraid that for as long as there are some here who doubt what the Church has taught (and your date of 377 still puzzles me) and cast aspersions on her holy name, then I, for one, will enter the lists in her defence.

Hail Mary, full of Grace,
the Lord is with thee,
blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of they womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of our death. Amen

peace,

Anglian

To sit "at the right hand of" denotes position or value.
(To stand at the side of (right) indicates a lower status.)

To say there is some time when Christ does not "sit at the right hand of" means that His status/value will change (ie will be not God).

Re: Matthew 5:18,

It can be said "while heaven and worth will change, the heart of what is the law will maintain entire (is unchanging). To say - for example - that the two greatest commandments will cease to exist means that the core, full love for God and other, will at some time not be. Yet not to love God and other is hell.

Also, Matthew 28:20 is unchanging.

This leaves, in your list, Matthew 1:25 -- to the extent that you argue from the other verses, that there is a reversal of condition is not supported.

Thekla said:

To sit "at the right hand of" denotes position or value.
(To stand at the side of (right) indicates a lower status.)

To say there is some time when Christ does not "sit at the right hand of" means that His status/value will change (ie will be not God).

Re: Matthew 5:18,

It can be said "while heaven and worth will change, the heart of what is the law will maintain entire (is unchanging). To say - for example - that the two greatest commandments will cease to exist means that the core, full love for God and other, will at some time not be. Yet not to love God and other is hell.

Also, Matthew 28:20 is unchanging.

This leaves, in your list, Matthew 1:25 -- to the extent that you argue from the other verses, that there is a reversal of condition is not supported.

Click to expand...

Sorry not good enough all reversals still stand.

Livindesert said:

Matthew 1:25 untill=till= heos(something for a period of time)
Matthew 5:18 untill=till= heos(something for a period of time)
Matthew 22:44 untill=till= heos(something for a period of time)

And for Matthew 22:44 since I was asked about it

Jesus rose to the right hand of the father until(a set period of time) the second comming when his enemies will be trampled under his feet. So until again shows a length of time not unlimited time.

Matthew 28:20 (Young's Literal Translation)


20teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days -- till(heos) the full end of the age.'


If the age ends Jesus will not be with us beyond it, which means the age will not end hence he will be with us forever.


So either Mary had sex or Orthodox christianity is false since the scirptures are twisted by man to fit a Marian hersey made during the great apostasy.

Click to expand...

Reposted so someone else can try to make scripture say something it dose not.