Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: OLD REGGIE; InterestedQuestioner

No, not the same. I make reference to the Tradition, which never contemplated the idea that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. That Tradition was formed when copies not lost were available and oral memory was also available. Besides, the Tradition was formed by men who spoke Koine as a living language. In contrast, a typical Protestant mariophobe works from late translations into English, often done tendentiously by people with a destructive agenda. Note that I invited everyone to analyse Matthew 1:25 in Koine with tools readily available (1633); and likewise InterestedQuestioner provided a complete analysis of the usage of "brother" and "sister" in the Gospel, incompatible with the notion that Mary had other children beside Jesus, in 1600. In response we got stubborn unencumbered by any analytical thinking one-liners, which still do not prove the mariophobic point. It is exercises like this, -- which give me a certain guilty pleasure, I confess, -- that convince me that late Protestantism, at least in its popular variety, completely lost the ability to understand the scripture, and does not seem to care.


1,758 posted on 02/25/2006 3:26:09 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1746 | View Replies ]


To: annalex
My main issue with the Protestant theological worldview, which you touched on here and in other posts, is that Protestants look at Christianity in the vacuum of the Bible. The Early Fathers are completely ignored, linguistics are completely ignored, historical context is completely ignored.

While no one is saying that the words of historians or the Early Church Fathers are on par with the Bible, their writings are very relevant when one talks about things the Bible is silent or iffy on.

For instance, one might say that Mary definitely had children and was not a perpetual virgin. OK, that's a valid thing to claim. Scripture is somewhat ambiguous about this. However, if you look at what the earliest fathers of the Church taught, they almost uniformly teach that Mary was a perpetual virgin. There simply is no Tradition of Mary as mother of several children.

Similarly, when we talk of Mary's Assumption, again this is something that simply is not covered in the Bible at all. But, when we look back on the historical writings, it is quite interesting that there are no churches claiming to have possession of her relics. No one claims to have built their Church over or near Mary's grave site. This is all indicates that while we can never prove without a shadow of a doubt she was assumed bodily into Heaven, that there is a longstanding, uniform Tradition that she was.

Many Protestants tend to ignore this simply due to an aversion to Tradition. However, it *is* important and relevant.
1,759 posted on 02/25/2006 3:41:45 PM PST by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1758 | View Replies ]

To: annalex

You know if the argument is used that Mary had other children with Joseph, would not the natural assumption be that Jesus was a biological child of Joseph or that his brothers and sister would also be divine?

We've been over this sooooo many times with others who reject everything about Mary including this from the preferred version on the thread this weekend:
__________________________________________
Luke 1:36-56 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

39And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;

40And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

44For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

45And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

46And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

47And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

48For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

49For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

50And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

51He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

52He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.

53He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

54He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

55As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

56And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

_________________________________________

I'm off for a while....


1,769 posted on 02/25/2006 4:47:08 PM PST by Jaded (The truth shall set you free, but lying to yourself turns you French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1758 | View Replies ]

To: annalex; InterestedQuestioner
No, not the same. I make reference to the Tradition, which never contemplated the idea that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. That Tradition was formed when copies not lost were available and oral memory was also available. Besides, the Tradition was formed by men who spoke Koine as a living language. In contrast, a typical Protestant mariophobe works from late translations into English, often done tendentiously by people with a destructive agenda. Note that I invited everyone to analyse Matthew 1:25 in Koine with tools readily available (1633); and likewise InterestedQuestioner provided a complete analysis of the usage of "brother" and "sister" in the Gospel, incompatible with the notion that Mary had other children beside Jesus, in 1600. In response we got stubborn unencumbered by any analytical thinking one-liners, which still do not prove the mariophobic point. It is exercises like this, -- which give me a certain guilty pleasure, I confess, -- that convince me that late Protestantism, at least in its popular variety, completely lost the ability to understand the scripture, and does not seem to care.

Well, since I'm not a Protestant, you may well be wasting your time on me. I would be interested though in learning the earliest dated original documents you use to prove this so-called Tradition.

Remember, not third or fourth generation copies, but original documents.

1,864 posted on 02/26/2006 1:16:32 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1758 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson