When does Marian veneration and devotion go too far? When is the line crossed?

Thekla · Jan 19, 2014

Mike to Michael said:
Depends on what text you use. NU Text says Stephen was full of grace.

So the question becomes, is the term a matter of translation or a variant Greek source ?

If the latter, what is the form of the term (verb, noun, adjective, etc.) ?

Sorry - I don't know what the NU text is, hence my questions

Sword of the Lord · Jan 19, 2014

NU is the Netsle-Aland Greek NT and United Bible Society. I don't know Greek myself. Newer translations will read "grace" because most modern translations use the NU. It also doesn't include calling Mary blessed among women in Luke. The KJV/NKJV use the Textus Receptus. As we all know, modern scholarship rejects the TR as having many errors. I've read that the Orthodox folks like the TR though because it best resembles the Byzantine texts.

Thekla · Jan 19, 2014

Mike to Michael said:
NU is the Netsle-Aland Greek NT and United Bible Society. I don't know Greek myself. Newer translations will read "grace" because most modern translations use the NU. It also doesn't include calling Mary blessed among women in Luke. The KJV/NKJV use the Textus Receptus. As we all know, modern scholarship rejects the TR as having many errors. I've read that the Orthodox folks like the TR though because it best resembles the Byzantine texts.

Thank-you !

So it seems the NU then reflects the more recent text finds, the TR does not and reflects the Majority of extant (ancient) Scripture texts - is that about the gist of it ?

Sword of the Lord · Jan 19, 2014

NU uses the most ancient manuscripts, while TR uses manuscripts from the middle ages.

Or, NU uses the Alexandrian texts that TR/KJV people reject as being corrupt/of satan. Lol.

You know Greek, right? What's up with this variation?

Thekla · Jan 19, 2014

Mike to Michael said:
NU uses the most ancient manuscripts, while TR uses manuscripts from the middle ages.

Or, NU uses the Alexandrian texts that TR/KJV people reject as being corrupt/of satan. Lol.

You know Greek, right? What's up with this variation?

The Byzantine text is (from what I understand) the text first mass produced (iirc an edition of about 50) in the 4th c. - this is what the OC uses (in the Greek). The Alexandrian text type is thought to be older (as extant fragments are older) but there is some debate as to why this is.

I know some Greek - what I don't I check with friends (two - who teach Koine at the Uni level).

As for the variation - not sure. From my brief research (per your observations re the variants of the use of "grace" in Luke and Acts and Alexandrian text type) - as both Clement of Alexandria and Athanasios are reported to have used A-text type, and both held to the ever-virginity and 'special blessing' of Mary - it seems the matter is somewhat moot -- until the past few hundred years.

Sword of the Lord · Jan 19, 2014

That's because the past few hundred years is all the history the nay sayers have

OrthodoxyUSA · Jan 20, 2014

marie alice said:
So when God, as the author, inspired Paul to write that ALL scripture is inspired of Him, that means that God only meant it to refer to the Old Testament? Seriously?

Would this mean that the New Testament isn't inspired of God?

I'm still waiting for that mysterious source, as yet unidentified, that some believe should be used along with the bible. I'm interested especially in the verification that it is the infallible word of God.

The answer is 'The Holy Traditions' of The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. What makes them Holy is that Christ taught them to the Apostles.

They are the equal to scripture in Christian Authority. In fact, without them scripture would not have be regarded with any authority. The history of how these books were accepted into Christianity by the bishops over the first 300-400 years shows this clearly. The New Testament was gathered and assembled by the Church Fathers, for the purpose that each and every Christian community would have a copy of the same books and that they would all use them in unison on service days... a service in one part of the world would have the same content as the services in another.

I would also challenge the idea that scripture is infallible. That in itself is an extra-biblical idea. Clearly contradictions can be shown. (day of preparation, Matt, Mark, Luke vs. John)

Nor does scripture ever state that it is to be used alone. In fact that is an absurd idea. One would have to strip all references to Christian liturgical worship services from scripture in order to do so.

Can we show from scripture how the Psalms are to be used in Christian service? Christians continued to use them is liturgical Christian worship as they had when they were Jewish. As witness to that, they are still in the middle of our bibles. When did they get dropped from use and why?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

Sword of the Lord · Jan 20, 2014

Also note the difference in the time in which Jesus cleansed the temple between the synoptic gospels and John.

Albion · Jan 22, 2014

I'm interested especially in the verification that it is the infallible word of God.

OrthodoxyUSA said:
The answer is 'The Holy Traditions' of The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. What makes them Holy is that Christ taught them to the Apostles.

They are the equal to scripture in Christian Authority. In fact, without them scripture would not have be regarded with any authority.

There's no "verification" in that kind of testimonial. It's just a religious theory.

Philothei · Feb 7, 2014

Albion said:
There's no "verification" in that kind of testimonial. It's just a religious theory.

Then maybe the canon of the Bible is a "holy tradition" since it was ratified by a council?? just saying... Who can deny it came about through different "church traditions" ?

Philothei · Feb 7, 2014

OrthodoxyUSA said:
The answer is 'The Holy Traditions' of The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. What makes them Holy is that Christ taught them to the Apostles.

They are the equal to scripture in Christian Authority. In fact, without them scripture would not have be regarded with any authority. The history of how these books were accepted into Christianity by the bishops over the first 300-400 years shows this clearly. The New Testament was gathered and assembled by the Church Fathers, for the purpose that each and every Christian community would have a copy of the same books and that they would all use them in unison on service days... a service in one part of the world would have the same content as the services in another.

I would also challenge the idea that scripture is infallible. That in itself is an extra-biblical idea. Clearly contradictions can be shown. (day of preparation, Matt, Mark, Luke vs. John)

Nor does scripture ever state that it is to be used alone. In fact that is an absurd idea. One would have to strip all references to Christian liturgical worship services from scripture in order to do so.

Can we show from scripture how the Psalms are to be used in Christian service? Christians continued to use them is liturgical Christian worship as they had when they were Jewish. As witness to that, they are still in the middle of our bibles. When did they get dropped from use and why?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

Albion · Feb 7, 2014

Philothei said:
Then maybe the canon of the Bible is a "holy tradition" since it was ratified by a council?? just saying... Who can deny it came about through different "church traditions" ?

That's close to what I was saying. Anyone can claim just about anything occurred by tradition and that God was the one who guided it.

It can't proven, but it can't be disproven either.

Now when we instead turn to the word of God (since you mentioned that), we have something that is permanent, specific, and shared by all Christian churches.

Philothei · Feb 7, 2014

Commonalities in faith are there but also differences and eventually it breaks down to where it leads you. To salvation or damnation...It is a matter of Soteriology and all seen under the Incarnation! That is our measure what is beneficial what is not. And like everything excess is not only present at the veneration of Mary or the Saints it can be also the "authority" one puts in scripture to the point of blindly following for example a modern day preacher or theologian. When we take Christ as our focus and replace it then it becomes "out of bull's eye" thus αμαρτια (sin) So I would say it is matter of emphasis NOT a matter of pointers to the incarnation. For pointers like Mary are there to do exactly that to "point" to the incarnation of Christ and His plan of salvation for us....When Mary becomes the focal point everything is messed up like for example we focus on a verse alone ....then we are in trouble for we diminish the "wholeness" of the word of God thus we get a tunnel vision perspective on scripture... A past living witness of Christ is NOT only a source of knowlege of faith but also a torch, a bearer of God's grace just the same as the prophets were in the OT. Just like the Apostles were when they recieved the Holy Spirit...They became torches and Christ's lighthouses, guideposts of Christ's salvific plan.

Albion · Feb 7, 2014

Philothei said:
Commonalities in faith are there but also differences and eventually it breaks down to where it leads you. To salvation or damnation...It is a matter of Soteriology and all seen under the Incarnation! That is our measure what is beneficial what is not. And like everything excess is not only present at the veneration of Mary or the Saints it can be also the "authority" one puts in scripture to the point of blindly following for example a modern day preacher or theologian.

...which wouldn't really have anything to do with using Scripture as one's doctrinal guide.

Philothei · Feb 7, 2014

Albion said:
...which wouldn't really have anything to do with using Scripture as one's doctrinal guide.

Where in scripture it says that we are to use the Bible for one's "doctrinal guide"? care to point?

Albion · Feb 8, 2014

Philothei said:
Where in scripture it says that we are to use the Bible for one's "doctrinal guide"? care to point?

The last time I was asked that, I posted nineteen (I think it was) verses that describe the Scriptures as the ultimate in guidance. If that is the case--and if every church acclaims the Bible as revelation (which virtually every one does), what's the argument for instead following something manmade and/or clearly inferior in reliability?

Bob Carabbio · Feb 16, 2014

"When does Marian veneration and devotion go too far?"

It's OUT OF ORDER as soon as Mary ceases to be a normal, devout, OBEDIENT Jewish gal, who was charged with a difficult Ministry, which she carried out properly, before becoming Joseph's Wife, having his kids, and raising her family in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord".

The Biblical record DOES bear out that Mary apparently became a Christian, and joined the other disciples in the Post-Resurrection church.

"Orthodox" veneration of Mary is more accurate than Romanist veneration.

ONLY the Protestants relate PROPERLY to her, and God's ministry through her.

When does Marian veneration and devotion go too far? When is the line crossed?

Thekla

Guest

In need of a physician.

Thekla

Guest

In need of a physician.

Thekla

Guest

In need of a physician.

Well-Known Member

In need of a physician.

Facilitator

Love never fails

Love never fails

Facilitator

Love never fails

Facilitator

Love never fails

Facilitator

Old guy -

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency