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

[laconicstudent]

I'm sure you would agree.

That would require I have some clue to what you are talking about.

 

[Musa80]

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.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

 

[laconicstudent]

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.

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.

 

[prodromos]

I know the poster meant the insult toward me.

Why would you think that if the quote was written by Schaff?

John

 

[Standing Up]

Why would you think that if the quote was written by Schaff?

John

The quote was written by Schaff.

The reference was to internet research.

No problem by me.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

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 each claiming that they were apostolic, but not the others.

I'll look for the headlines tomorrow RC OO EO P are apostolic.

So, yes, the so-called, self-claimed "apostolic" churches claim it is over, but not.

 

[laconicstudent]

The quote was written by Schaff.

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

 

[laconicstudent]

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.

Believe whatever you want, I suppose.

 

[Standing Up]

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

Sure. Here's another example of this---

This famous tradition may be explained either as a real miracle implying a personal appearance of Christ,2525 This is the view of the older historians, Protestant as well as Catholic. Among more modern writers on the subject it has hardly any advocates of note, except Döllinger (R.C.), J. H.Newman (in his “Essay on Miracles,” published in 1842, before his transition to Romanism, and prefixed to the first volume of his translation of Fleury), and Guericke (Lutheran). Comp. also De Broglie, i. 219 and 442. or as a pious fraud,2626 So more or less distinctly Hoornebeck (of Leyden), Thomasius, Arnold, Lardner, Gibbon, and Waddington. The last writer (Hist. of the Church, vol. i. 171) disposes of it too summarily by the remark that “this flattering fable may very safely be consigned to contempt and oblivion.” Burckhardt, the most recent biographer of Constantine, is of the same opinion. He considers the story as a joint fabrication of Eusebius and the emperor, and of no historical value whatever (Die Zeit Constantins des Gr. 1853, pp. 394 and 395). Lardner saddles the lie exclusively upon the emperor (although he admits him otherwise to have been a sincere Christian), and tries to prove that Eusebius himself hardly believed it. or as a natural phenomenon in the clouds and an optical illusion,2727 This is substantially the theory of J. A. Fabricius (in a special dissertation), Schröckh (vol. v. 83), Manso, Heinichen (in the first Excursus to his ed. of Euseb), Gieseler, Neander, Milman, Robertson, and Stanley. Gieseler (vol. i. § 56, note 29) mentions similar cross-like clouds which appeared in Germany, Dec. 1517 and 1552, and were mistaken by contemporary Lutherans for supernatural signs. Stanley (Lectures on the Eastern Church, p. 288) refers to the natural phenomenon known by the name of “parhelion,” which in an afternoon sky not unfrequently assumes almost the form of the cross. He also brings in, as a new illustration, the Aurora Borealis which appeared in November, 1848, and was variously interpreted, in France as forming the letters L. N., in view of the approaching election of Louis Napoleon, in Rome as the blood of the murdered Rossi crying for vengeance from heaven against his assassins. Mosheim, after a lengthy discussion of the subject in his large work on the ante-Nicene age, comes to no definite conclusion, but favors the hypothesis of a mere dream or a psychological illusion. Neander and Robertson connect with the supposition of a natural phenomenon in the skies a dream of Constantinewhich reflected the optical vision of the day. Keim, the latest writer on the subject, l.c. p. 89, admits the dream, but denies the cross in the clouds. So Mosheim. or finally as a prophetic dream.

 

[Standing Up]

Believe whatever you want, I suppose.

One tries to present something other than opinion I would guess. Apostolic church nowadays is a contradiction of terms and reality, else we should expect the EOs to jump on board the RC train; or vice-versa. I mean one would not not want to be associated with one.

And if the reply comes that we are all (RC, EO, A) apostolic, one only needs to dig with fingernails to come up with all sorts of further contradictions between those "apostolic" churches.

No, I think Prodromus accidentally nailed it on the head with his throw-away snicker.

Hubris--as in one is either very right or very wrong.

 

[laconicstudent]

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Anglian]

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

 

[laconicstudent]

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™

 

[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™

Very true, my friend.

Of all traditions, it is the man-made fabrication of the 'Great Apostasy' which is most pernicious. Unknown before the sixteenth century, it seems to be fervently held by those who hanker after the true Apostolic Church, which knew no such idea.

The only apostasy is that of the sons of Adam who, like our forefather, think we have eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and know all things. How well the Tempter knows our feeble clay and its weaknesses.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

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

Show me where Jesus exaults Mary at any given time while speaking to His disciples.

 

[MamaZ]

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.

This report can be canceled out by the writings of scripture.

 

[Anglian]

Show me where Jesus exaults Mary at any given time while speaking to His disciples.

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

 

[MamaZ]

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.

your argument leaves alot of blanks I must say..

 

[MamaZ]

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

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..