laconicstudent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2009
- 11,671
- 720
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
That would require I have some clue to what you are talking about.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm sure you would agree.
I know the poster meant the insult toward me. No problem.
If by "the poster" you mean me, as I'm the one who posted the anathema from the fifth council, then no insult was or is intended. It was posted to show the simple fact that this conversation has already gone down in the church catholic, and the argument is over. The Blessed Virgin is indeed ever-virgin, whether that sits well with some protestants or not.
No, no problem.
You're right that the church-married-to-the-state has declared things heretical and excommunicated and anathematized certain ones. But wrong that the argument is over.
Why would you think that if the quote was written by Schaff?I know the poster meant the insult toward me.
Why would you think that if the quote was written by Schaff?
John
The point is that the Apostolic Church considers it finished. I'm sure all the heretics condemned by the Ecumenical Councils wanted to keep arguing their point.... But that isn't how it works.
The quote was written by Schaff.
You are assuming an adjective for the church that is not shown. In other words, if the church were apostolic, then we wouldn't have various branches claiming that they were apostolic.
I'll look for the headlines tomorrow RC OO EO P are apostolic.
So, yes, the so-called, self-claimed "apostolic" churches claim it over, but not.
Dude.... he was the editor..... The guy who took all the old writings and got them translated into English, then compiled them into a big, multiple volume series
Believe whatever you want, I suppose.
Hubris has nothing to do with right or wrong, it means extreme pride, and in classical tragedy it precedes a fall. Nemesis follows hubris.
The only connection it has with this thread seems to be that it is hubristic to think one knows better than the Church which canonised the NT.
No one has yet answered the point that the Church which canonised the NT also practised intercessory prayer through St. Mary and revered her as ever-Virgin. Not one of these Greek speaking Fathers saw any disconnect between there liturgical and prayer practices and the Bible.
It has been left to the hubris of modern man to find something no one noticed before; and it has been left to him to tell millions of Christians down the ages that he, modern man, knows better than all of them, and indeed, better than the Church.
That is a good working definition of hubris, come to think of it.
peace,
Anglian
I concur.
Frankly, more specifically I think it is hubris to think that all of the early Christians, who knew the Apostles and had heard them speak, or knew people who had, were somehow incapable of understanding Christianity and that it is only our modernist pastors who have found the True Christian Faith
Show me where Jesus exaults Mary at any given time while speaking to His disciples.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.
We are told that Jospeh was to take Mary to Be His wife. The betrothel was already in effect. In fact was in effect before Mary was greeted by the Angel. Joseph set out to put her away secretly. He knew this child was not his. But God told Jospeph no to go ahead and take Mary as His wife for the child was not conceived of sin but of God..
Again, the Greek text makes no such assumption - you are making it from an English translation.
I am making nothing up. It is all written in the scriptures for all to read. English or greek the scriptures bear the truth. We see no where that Mary was kept a virgin for the entire time of her joining with Joseph. We see in scripture that He kept Mary a Virgin until Christ was born..
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.
Where do you see in the written scriptures that Joseph was married before he married Mary? this is a made up story not consistant with the scripture.. Even in the Geneolgy we do not see Joseph as having a different wife other than Mary nor being the husband of anyone other than Mary.
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.
Show me according to Jewish tradition that a man when he took a wife only did so to deceive the people they lived among.. There is no deceit in God.. If they were not husband and wife the scripture would plainly say such.
But the scripture plainly states that Jospeh took Mary to be His wife and in the geneolgy we see that Joseph was the husband of Mary.
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
This report can be canceled out by the writings of scripture.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.
Per Jewish tradition:
1. People should be married to beget children.
Marriage was from the very beginning as we see in Adam and Eve. God created them male and female and they became one flesh.. Marriage is not just so they can have children.
God tells us that it is not good for man to be alone so therefore He created a helpmeet for the man.
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.
What makes you believe that Moses was celebate? He was married.
If Mary had not remained celibate, it would be evidence that Christ was not begotten by the Holy Spirit.
How so? This is why Joseph kept her a virgin until the birth of Christ. She did not need to remain celebate for evidence of Christ being born of God.
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.
I don't know why you keep insisting we follow your man made tradition of having to find everything in a book which does not, itself, tell you what should be in it?Show me where Jesus exaults Mary at any given time while speaking to His disciples.
your argument leaves alot of blanks I must say..To sit "at the right hand of" denotes position or value.
(To stand at the side of (right) indicates a lower status.)
It also denotes where He is at this time.. He is seated at the right hand side of God. Where do you say Jesus is? Is He seated at the right hand side of God awaiting until He comes again in all His glory?
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).
His status and value will never change but His position of where He is will. For He is coming again..
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.
So are you trying to say that the scriptures are of man made tradition? For the belief we have are from the very written scripture and not of hand me down hear say. Jesus quoted the OT and contantly brought those back to it is written. Now we have not only the OT scriptures but the NT scriptures that we can trust and rely upon as being from the very breath of God. We cannot trust and rely upon traditions that do not find their roots in the written account. For somewhere along the line one of them are wrong. Now to me it is quite evident that I will trust the writing of the scriptures to any tradition that contradicts what has been written..I don't know why you keep insisting we follow your man made tradition of having to find everything in a book which does not, itself, tell you what should be in it?
So many times this has been pointed out, and still you offer us only this late, man made tradition.
Show me where the Church, which recognised the canon of the NT, said that intercessory prayer is incompatible with the Bible.
Show we where it is written that modern men and women are wiser than the Fathers who established that canon and saw no problem with intercessory prayer.
Indeed, show me where, before relatively modern times, any Christian had a problem with intercessory prayer to the Blessed Virgin.
One of the problems with following a recent, man made tradition is that it has no roots in the Church which established the Bible, so one is reduced to using a methodology unknown to the Apostles or to Christ Himself. Not once, oddly enough, did Our Lord cite the NT.
peace,
Anglian
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?