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.
Where does he indicate that what he wrote is an exhaustive doctrinal statement?Well I see that Ignatius wrote about the incarnation of Christ. What did he say about Mary in that?
Where does he indicate what he wrote is an incomplete summary? I'm sorry but the idea why no one said anything about Mary outside of the gospels for centuries is because they didn't have enough ink, just isn't a very persuasive argument in my opinion.Where does he indicate that what he wrote is an exhaustive doctrinal statement?
You sure are a fan of red herrings. No where did I say it was because they didn't have enough ink, but that the absence of commentary regarding Marian beliefs is easily explained by there existing no controversy regarding them in the early church. You attempted to bring in Ignatius' writings on the incarnation as if the absence there is significant, which would only be the case if what he wrote were intended as an exhaustive doctrinal statement. Which is up to you to demonstrate.Where does he indicate what he wrote is an incomplete summary? I'm sorry but the idea why no one said anything about Mary outside of the gospels for centuries is because they didn't have enough ink, just isn't a very persuasive argument in my opinion.
What are you looking for?For that to follow it means all early church writing only addressed controversy. Is that really the case? Mary's status as it relates to Christology is scriptural and agreed upon by virtually all of Christianity. It's that which is not found in scripture or in any Christian literature until the 4th century, that's being questioned.
Oh yes I'm full of clever tactics. Or more likely I just misunderstood "it doesn't seem likely that ink would be spilled" at the time.You sure are a fan of red herrings. No where did I say it was because they didn't have enough ink,
I disagree that the epistles written by the early church fathers were only in regard to controversy. And you'll have to explain what qualifies as an exhaustive doctrinal statement from any early church father, and why it would have to be exhaustive to say one single thing about the church having Marian beliefs and practices prior to the 4th century. I think that it's far more likely that it simply was not something the early church was into, considering there's not an iota of evidence whatsoever that they were.but that the absence of commentary regarding Marian beliefs is easily explained by there existing no controversy regarding them in the early church. You attempted to bring in Ignatius' writings on the incarnation as if the absence there is significant, which would only be the case if what he wrote were intended as an exhaustive doctrinal statement. Which is up to you to demonste.
I'm looking for anything in the epistles of the early church fathers which indicates that Marian beliefs and practices that became apparent in the fourth century going forward, existed before the fourth century.What are you looking for?
The circumstances of the Dormition of the Mother of God were known in the Orthodox Church from apostolic times. Already in the first century, the Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite wrote about Her “Falling-Asleep.”
St. Dionysius was seized and beheaded by Domitian in th year 96.
In the second century, the account of the bodily ascent of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Heaven is found in the works of Meliton, Bishop of Sardis.
Beyond what I've already posted;I'm looking for anything in the epistles of the early church fathers which indicates that Marian beliefs and practices that became apparent in the fourth century going forward, existed before the fourth century.
Things that aren't controversial don't warrant attention even today where written works are completed with little cost and literacy is common. Instruction in the faith was far more liturgical and artistic, with written instruction being reserved for questions and controversies. The relative silence doesn't imply absence, unless what was written approximates an exhaustive compendium of Christian practice at the time which it doesn't. An argument from silence is only compelling if there's a reason we would suspect the kind of evidence we're looking for, and there's little reason to expect comprehensive treatments of Christian faith and practice in writing from the early church. On the other hand, if Marian doctrine was aberant from early faith and practice we would expect significant opposition to those who first introduce it but what we find is that it comes from those who are the most orthodox and they speak of it as a well established tradition.Oh yes I'm full of clever tactics. Or more likely I just misunderstood "it doesn't seem likely that ink would be spilled" at the time.
I disagree that the epistles written by the early church fathers were only in regard to controversy. And you'll have to explain what qualifies as an exhaustive doctrinal statement from any early church father, and why it would have to be exhaustive to say one single thing about the church having Marian beliefs and practices prior to the 4th century. I think that it's far more likely that it simply was not something the early church was into, considering there's not an iota of evidence whatsoever that they were.
Arguments for the "Ever Virgin" are found in the following:I'm looking for anything in the epistles of the early church fathers which indicates that Marian beliefs and practices that became apparent in the fourth century going forward, existed before the fourth century.
more 3rd Century into early 4thI'm looking for anything ..before the fourth century.
It's ironic that after all that, stuff written about Mary by the early church gets posted. But I already knew they wrote out prayers, homilies and benedictions. Basically poetry.Things that aren't controversial don't warrant attention even today where written works are completed with little cost and literacy is common. Instruction in the faith was far more liturgical and artistic, with written instruction being reserved for questions and controversies. The relative silence doesn't imply absence, unless what was written approximates an exhaustive compendium of Christian practice at the time which it doesn't. An argument from silence is only compelling if there's a reason we would suspect the kind of evidence we're looking for, and there's little reason to expect comprehensive treatments of Christian faith and practice in writing from the early church. On the other hand, if Marian doctrine was aberant from early faith and practice we would expect significant opposition to those who first introduce it but what we find is that it comes from those who are the most orthodox and they speak of it as a well established tradition.
a benediction is a closing prayer. Prayers are.. well prayers and yes prayers in the ancient Church are often poetic because they are sung/chanted. Much the same as the Psalms are sung/chanted prayers. This is still the case in the Orthodox Church...I already knew they wrote out prayers, homilies and benedictions. Basically poetry.
What even is the point of trying to argue that she's the mother of God? Like, she can send God to bed without desert? When someone said to Jesus, "Blessed are the breasts which gave you suck" Jesus rejoined, "Rather, blessed are those who hear my words and do them." I think that makes it pretty clear.What are your thoughts on this?
You worship the Bible, a book. That doesn't seem like what a Christian should do.You have no authority to command me anything. My opinion is on the same level as yours. And you are no judge of what is true or false, here.
Does he kneel and pray to the bible?You worship the Bible, a book. That doesn't seem like what a Christian should do.
Does he?Does he kneel and pray to the bible?
You said he worships the Bible, so I'm asking you for the details of how he worships it.Does he?
Answer is yes; for if Jesus is truly God then Blessed Mary is his mother and consequently Blessed Mary is the mother of God. And yes, it is a step towards Nestorian heresy to deny that Blessed Mary is the mother of God."Is Mary the Mother of God?
A: Yes.
B: No."
Having "just" Jesus is not being poor. Focus "just" on Jesus is neither. Etc. Its actually guess what - what apostles did and taught.The protestant view of the incarnation tends to be quite impoverished, a mere footnote that needs to be agreed with rather than the radical event that it was.
To departed ones? NO. And neither did first Christians and apostles. Its a totally foreign concept to Christianity, added later.You don't make requests and petitions to fellow Christians for them to lift up to God? You don't seem to understand what Orthodox and Catholics are doing when they pray to the saints.
Again, just watch some documentary about Catholics in South America, for example. Those are very clear examples. But this practice is not so uncommon even in developed countries. People have home-made shrines, pray to Mary, kneel before her statues etc.Again, it seems to me you're making an unfair caricature of Catholic practice rather than an informed criticism.
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?