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

[Livindesert]

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.


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

I am going to ponder these points. But since as you point out I can only trust the church not the text I am going to check out and LDS church since they have Apostolic authority given to them by Christ and have produced the best Christ fruits I have seen with my own eyes.

 

[Anglian]

I am going to ponder these points. But since as you point out I can only trust the church not the text I am going to check out and LDS church since they have Apostolic authority given to them by Christ and have produced the best Christ fruits I have seen with my own eyes.

Good luck, brother, and may the Lord guide you.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

All you have provided as evidence that the practice did not begin until later is your say so. I don't consider that a particularly reliable source.

If I were you, I'd try to find justification for my practice. Scripture is best. The earlier in history the more likely for the apostles and first elders to have done it as well. Barring that, you have a man-made tradition at best.

For a Church that believes in Christ's victory over death, and in the unity of Christ's body the Church, seeking the intercessions of those members of the body who have finished the race is completely natural. It is a completely natural extension of our love for one another to continue to pray for each other and to seek each other's prayers, unless you believe death still has some hold over us.

Good point. That's why it is imperative to understand that the apostles and very early church didn't practice asking the deceased saints for prayer.

Intercessory prayer of the Saints is completely in line with our theology. To the best of my knowledge it has never been necessary for the Church to explain how it 'fits in' because of people questioning the practice.

-snip-

Another good point. It shows us that they didn't practice it, that it wasn't controversial, that they obeyed apostolic teaching.

Later on, Christians asked about its source and found that it arose out from acorn-to-oak thinking. It is a witness against itself.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

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.
-snip-

Veneration of the deceased from Rev. 12:1-6? Or veneration of Mary?

 

[Anglian]

Those Fathers who accepted the Apocalypse as Orthodox (and not all did) saw the 'woman' as the Blessed Theotokos. We pray to her as we do to the great cloud of witnesses who surround us.

This Christians have done for so long that no man can say when it started. This Christians have seen as so natural that it created no controversy in the early Church.

There was more controversy about the Trinity (which you accept) and the Canon (likewise) than about Marian veneration; yet you accept what was controversial and reject that which never was.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

Rev. 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days.

How did the early church understand the "they" and the 1260 days?

 

[Anglian]

Rev. 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days.

How did the early church understand the "they" and the 1260 days?

Oecumenius' Commentary sees this as the flight of the Virgin and the Holy Family into Egypt for 1260 days to escape from Herod (the dragon), hence the tradition, preserved in my Church, that the Holy family spent just over three and a half years in Egypt.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

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

peace,

Anglian

She did state that you could say that Mary was a goddess.. She also said you could say that God diefied Mary..

 

[MamaZ]

Oecumenius' Commentary sees this as the flight of the Virgin and the Holy Family into Egypt for 1260 days to escape from Herod (the dragon), hence the tradition, preserved in my Church, that the Holy family spent just over three and a half years in Egypt.

peace,

Anglian

Well this is why we are to keep scripture in context. For we read in Revelation that these are things to come. Not things that have happened..
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

 

[prodromos]

If I were you, I'd try to find justification for my practice. Scripture is best. The earlier in history the more likely for the apostles and first elders to have done it as well. Barring that, you have a man-made tradition at best.

In your opinion. Looking to Scripture we see in 2 Maccabees both prayer for the deceased (2 Macc 12:42-45) and the intercessory prayer of the deceased (2 Macc 15:12-16)

Good point. That's why it is imperative to understand that the apostles and very early church didn't practice asking the deceased saints for prayer.

Based on your say so. I believe Thekla has provided evidence that it was Jewish practice to seek the intercession of saints prior to the coming of Christ.

Another good point. It shows us that they didn't practice it, that it wasn't controversial, that they obeyed apostolic teaching.

It does not show that they didn't practice it.

Later on, Christians asked about its source and found that it arose out from acorn-to-oak thinking. It is a witness against itself.

I'm sorry, but your opinion that this is so is not evidence of such.

John

 

[Anglian]

She did state that you could say that Mary was a goddess.. She also said you could say that God diefied Mary..

By which she meant you would read it that way; you have just shown she was right.

we are all, as St. Peter wrote, to be deified. Understood aright, this is our fate. As St. Athanasius wrote: 'God became man so that men could become gods'.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Well this is why we are to keep scripture in context. For we read in Revelation that these are things to come. Not things that have happened..
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

The context is the Church which tells us that the Apocalypse in Scripture. It is what was, is, and is to come. One should never seek to restrict the workings of the Holy Spirit.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

By which she meant you would read it that way; you have just shown she was right.

we are all, as St. Peter wrote, to be deified. Understood aright, this is our fate. As St. Athanasius wrote: 'God became man so that men could become gods'.

peace,

Anglian

And just what kind of gods are men suppose to be?

 

[MamaZ]

The context is the Church which tells us that the Apocalypse in Scripture. It is what was, is, and is to come. One should never seek to restrict the workings of the Holy Spirit.

peace,

Anglian

So then
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

This is not true? The Holy Spirit works according to the written word of God for they bear witness to one another.. There is only one truth.

 

[Anglian]

And just what kind of gods are men suppose to be?

This kind from 2 Peter 1:
2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

This is the basis of the doctrine of theosis.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

So then
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

This is not true? The Holy Spirit works according to the written word of God for they bear witness to one another.. There is only one truth.

Indeed. You seem to wish to confine the interpretation of the whole book by these two verses. There is a rich history of exegesis, I quoted part of it, you disagree because it does not fit what you think it ought to mean. This isn't much of a basis for discussion really. I quote from the fathers and tradition, you say you don't agree. I think by this stage we know you agree with your interpretation of Scriptures; I think everyone can do that

peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

This kind from 2 Peter 1:
2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

This is the basis of the doctrine of theosis.

peace,

Anglian

How very Ken Copeland like i had a thread on here a while back called...
It started in the garden...about this very topic.

I would say that what Peter was getting at here could more accurately be described thusly...By being partakers of the divine nature it seems to me at least that Peter is/was saying when we are born-again we are given everything necessary for life and godliness...Not that we become divine by any means. I mean is that not part of the riches of our salvation?

 

[Anglian]

How very Ken Copeland like i had a thread on here a while back called...
It started in the garden...about this very topic.

I would say that what Peter was getting at here could more accurately be described thusly...By being partakers of the divine nature it seems to me at least that Peter is/was saying when we are born-again we are given everything necessary for life and godliness...Not that we become divine by any means. I mean is that not part of the riches of our salvation?

No idea who he is, but the concept of theosis is a crucial part of Orthodox theology, and, of course, it does not mean we become God (there is always a small g) it means that we realise the divine image in which we are made. That, after all, is the purpose of our creation.

peace,

Anglian

ps. Good to see you back Simon

 

[simonthezealot]

No idea who he is, but the concept of theosis is a crucial part of Orthodox theology, and, of course, it does not mean we become God (there is always a small g) it means that we realise the divine image in which we are made. That, after all, is the purpose of our creation.

peace,

Anglian

ps. Good to see you back Simon

In an effort for my understanding could you briefly describe what theosisi is and what is the end result of it?
thanks for the welcome, not sure how long i'll stick around working on some discipleship programs that may constitute more of my energies. Nice to see you as well ang.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

As for the LDS, I know nothing about it save it is a late, man made novelty; I guess they all get indistinguishable on the cafeteria menu after a while

LDS (Mormons) are a 19th century "novelty" but are quite different than other Protestants. They adhere to a scripture supposedly given to their "prophet" which supposed to be "another testament of Jesus Christ" as it is subtitled (and two other books as "scripture"). It's all about how the "lost tribe of Israel" is the Native Americans and thus Jesus appeared to them as well over here.

Probably the most distinct characteristic is their doctrine of exaltation. I do not know if they have an actual infinite God who created the universe, if they do, I have never heard them speak of Him. Rather they teach that people get to become their own separate gods in charge of their own planets, just as the Father and Son (they are non-Trinitarian) used to be men but then became gods.

Orthodoxy:

God became Man, that man might become god.

Heresy:

As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.

As a result of their almost incalculable number of heresies, few Protestants consider them even to be Christians.