The Jewishness of Mary

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//jewishmary.htm ^ | unknown | By Sr. M. Danielle Peters U-Dayton

[DungeonMaster]

But Fr. Whiteford presented the topics far better than I ever could.

I'm very willing to converse with you but I'm not willing to go off and read the work of some apologist. If you've studied this persons writings perhaps you can sum up. The question on the table is:

The bible doesn’t point to a source of completely new doctrine unmentioned in the bible. Have I missed the place where it does after reading it some 40 times or is there some reason that I should look to that source though the bible doesn't point to it?

[FormerLib]

Have I missed the place where it does after reading it some 40 times or is there some reason that I should look to that source though the bible doesn't point to it?

As Fr. Whiteford cited, the New Testament itself uses non-biblical oral history as a source, thereby validating that as a source for us to use as well. The answer to your question is that you apparently have missed this and that you should look to that source for further illumination in regards to what the Bible teaches in addition to those things which the Bible does not reference.

Have you ever read the Church Fathers?

[DungeonMaster]

As Fr. Whiteford cited, the New Testament itself uses non-biblical oral history as a source, thereby validating that as a source for us to use as well. The answer to your question is that you apparently have missed this and that you should look to that source for further illumination in regards to what the Bible teaches in addition to those things which the Bible does not reference.

I'm sorry but that doesn't hold. The Holy Spirit can site whatever He wants but no one else is able to make that call. In other words, if a lady selling purple makes a statement that is put in the bible, that doesn't mean that all lady's selling purple are suddenly sources for inspired scripture.

Have you ever read the Church Fathers?

I read the bible. I don't believe in such a thing as "Church Fathers"

[FormerLib]

The Holy Spirit can site whatever He wants but no one else is able to make that call.

As the article noted, if the Apostle Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. Clearly, the Holy Spirit points us to this place for a reason.

I don't believe in such a thing as "Church Fathers".

Are you suggesting that these men who assembled the New Testament that you currently use did not exist at all or that they cannot possibly have anything to teach us?

[OLD REGGIE]

The angel seems to have noticed the difference in intent since Ole Zech was punished.

So you agree Mary did hesitate? Methinks you are playing word games.

[DungeonMaster]

The Holy Spirit can site whatever He wants but no one else is able to make that call.

As the article noted, if the Apostle Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. Clearly, the Holy Spirit points us to this place for a reason.

The bible cites possessed people also and little pieces of doctrine is derived from what they say. Once again, this does not mean that we can go get additional doctrine from possessed people. The same is true for religious organizations like pharasees. You are still using this same flawed logic. There is one and only one trustworthy source for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction.

I don't believe in such a thing as "Church Fathers".

Are you suggesting that these men who assembled the New Testament that you currently use did not exist at all or that they cannot possibly have anything to teach us?

Neither you nor I can trace the motions of the Holy Spirit. I don't know the condition of the Man that gave me the gospel such that I was born again and it's not important that I know anything about him. In that instant that I was born again I was given the gift of faith in the Gospel and the Bible. Faith doesn't require seeing. It's nifty and comforting to know that the bible has been around a long time and is read by a lot of people but that is not proof it's just nice to know.

[FormerLib]

There is one and only one trustworthy source for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction.

And as we've pointed out in this thread, that concept is directly contradicted by Scripture.

It is only by hanging onto this non-Scriptural concept that one can refuse to acknowledge what the Church truly teaches about Mary.

[DungeonMaster]

I think that I have pointed out fairly clearly that you don’t have any scripture that says to go flesh out new doctrines from other sources. All you’ve done is show that the bible actually mention that people exist. You’ve tried to stretch that around an entirely different idea.

[FormerLib]

I think that I have pointed out fairly clearly that you don’t have any scripture that says to go flesh out new doctrines from other sources.

Actually, we've proved that Scripture itself states that it does not include everything that Jesus said or did in addition to proving that Scripture itself refers to tradition to tell about people whose stories are not found in Scripture.

All you've got is this 16th-Century man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura which contradicts Scripture itself.

Some take it further to suggest that if it doesn't exist in Scripture (some even insist upon a single, rather-modern translation over any other!), then it cannot be a teaching of the Church. I can't help but be reminded of those folks who declared that potatoes were a work of the devil because they weren't specifically mentioned in Scripture.

[OLD REGGIE]

Zechariah was a Levite Priest, and old man who had studied, trainied and served God all his life....His knowlege of the word,the promises and prophesies of God were to be greater than a 16 year old or so girl was though taught the word of God had not trained and worked and was surrounded by it for decades like Zechariah.

1. Robby said Mary agreed without hesitation. Not so.

2. Zechariah was a doddering old man (I am in the same boat) and couldn't be expected to be as sharp as he once was.

3. You are reading more into the wisdom, knowledge, and training of Zechariah than is clear from Scripture.

[OLD REGGIE]

Just on such example would be Saint Ignatius' letter to her and her subsequent response, which can be read on this site as well as others. Here is where we can come to understand her ongoing role in the church.

Universally branded as a forgery. No exceptions. It is not true.

Your initial statement cannot be supported by fact, logic or reason.

That is true - - - - concerning your statement.

[OLD REGGIE]

In the second place, if Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. The names Jannes and Jambres are not found in the Old Testament, yet in II Timothy 3:8 Paul refers to them as opposing Moses. Paul is drawing upon the oral tradition that the names of the two most prominent Egyptian Magicians in the Exodus account (Ch. 7-8) were "Jannes" and "Jambres."2 And this is by no means the only time that a non-biblical source is used in the New Testament — the best known instance is in the Epistle of St. Jude, which quotes from the Book of Enoch (Jude 14,15 cf. Enoch 1:9).

Note how Paul considered tradition:

2 Thessalonian:
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Past and present tense. No consideration for new, manufactured "Tradition".

[OLD REGGIE]

All you've got is this 16th-Century man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura which contradicts Scripture itself.

Really? Is the following Sola Scriptura?

“Among those things which are said openly in Scripture are to be found all those teachings which involve faith, the mores of living, and that hope and charity which we have discussed.”

Who said it?

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine trans. by D.W. Roberston, Jr. (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1958) 11:9.

That's about 12 centuries before your "man-made" attack on Sola Scriptura.

[Diego1618]

Why would Matthew single out 4 women for mention in his genealogy if there was nothing special about them?

Matthew singles out 4 special women because there "was" something special about all of them.

[Matthew 1:3] Tamar: As I have mentioned previously Tamar was not a Canaanite. Tamar was Hebrew.....and the mother of Zerah and Perez. [At Judah's desire, Er married Tamar, a daughter of Aram, [Genesis 10:23] the son of Shem, but because she was not a Canaanitish woman, his mother used artifices against her, and he did not know her, and an angel of the Lord killed him on the third day after his wedding.] This is quoted from Legends of the Jews Volume II. This is not scripture and I am not intending to imply that it is.

[And in those days Judah went to the house of Shem and took Tamar the daughter of Elam, the son of Shem, for a wife for his first born Er.] This is quoted from The Book of Jasher [Chapter 45:23]. This is also not scripture, but is mentioned in [Joshua 10:13] and [2 Samuel 1:18]. Jasher calls him Elam and the Legend of the Jews call him Aram.....Tamar's father. The "Legend of The Jews" says "a daughter" of Aram....possibly meaning down through his line and not actually his real daughter.

Tamar, being Hebrew, and believing that her father-in-law , Judah, might marry another Canaanite women....(his wife Bath-Shua had died [Genesis 38:12] was attempting to keep the bloodline pure Hebrew. Judah, as a widower, would now certainly be able to marry her...if he desired, but did not. Tamar was also quite well aware of the divine injunction against Israelites marrying Canaanites. [Genesis 24:3] And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.

Tamar and Judah's son, Perez, becomes an ancestor of our Lord. Because of the unusual circumstances and the fact that Tamar was already mentioned in Hebrew scriptures....Matthew decides to include her in his genealogy.

You already know why Ruth [Matthew 1:5] would be included in Matthew's Gospel as Samuel (ostensibly) wrote scripture about her. This is the same reason Matthew mentions Rachab [Matthew 1:5] as she was the mother of Boaz....another central figure in that book of scripture...and Rachab would then indeed be a special woman too. It goes without saying that Rachab was an Israelite and not the same person as the "Rahab" of the Book of Joshua. At no place in scripture does it mention the harlot, Rahab....marrying anyone. As I said earlier the similarities of the two names has led some folks into this confusion. The two instances would be separated by at least 120 years anyway.

Finally, Bathsheba [Matthew 1:6]: She also was an Israelite, daughter of Eliam who was the son of Ahithophel, an adviser to King David [2 Samuel 15:12] And Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counselor, from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy was strong; for the people increased continually with Absalom. It is because Bathsheba was the mother of King Solomon that she was given a special place in Matthew's genealogy.

Furthermore according to what I understand from Jewish law, the offspring of a Gentile father and Jewish mother was a Gentile. But the offspring of a Jewish father and Gentile mother was Jewish, and after that birth, the mother was considered to be a daughter of Israel in good standing.

I believe this is Talmudic Law....not Torah. I could be wrong.

[FormerLib]

Universally branded as a forgery. No exceptions. It is not true.

Incorrect. Considering that you initiated your reponses with a falsehood, I respectfully decline to entertain any additional ones.

Good day.

[FormerLib]

Really? Is the following Sola Scriptura?

I guess I should correct this error as well. No, it is not Sola Scriptura, although your usage of a quote out of context does follow the Sola Scriptura "pattern".

Returning to Fr. Whiteford's article referenced above:

In this approach to Scriptures, it is not the job of the individual to strive for originality, but rather to understand what is already present in the traditions of the Church. We are obliged not to go beyond the boundary set by the Fathers of the Church, but to faithfully pass on the tradition we received. To do this requires a great deal of study and thought, but even more, if we are to truly understand the Scriptures, we must enter deeply into the mystical life of the Church. This is why when St. Augustine expounds on how one should interpret the Scriptures [On Christian Doctrine, Books i-iv], he spends much more time talking about the kind of person the study of the Scripture requires than about the intellectual knowledge he should possess: (St. Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine," A Selected Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 1, vol. ii, eds. Henry Wace and Philip Schaff, (New York: Christian, 1887-1900), pp. 534-537.)

1. One who loves God with his whole heart, and is empty of pride,

2. Is motivated to seek the Knowledge of God's will by faith and reverence, rather than pride or greed,

3. Has a heart subdued by piety, a purified mind, dead to the world; and who neither fears, nor seeks to please men,

4. Who seeks nothing but knowledge of and union with Christ,

5. Who hungers and thirsts after righteousness,

6. And is diligently engaged in works of mercy and love.

[pray4liberty]

Since Tamar didn't have children from either of Judah's sons, (Er and Onan) and Shelah wasn't given to her in marriage, it was actually Canaanite custom for the father (Judah) to "do the duty" himself so the family lineage would continue. Apparently, Judah was not willing so Tamar had to trick him into it. Going up to a sheepshearing meant wild hanky-panky doings with strange (Canaanite) women.

Several ancient traditions suggest Tamar was not a Canaanite but an Aramean; and thus she is righteous as compared to Judah who married a Canaanite (Jubilees 41:1; Testament of Judah 10:1). Source: http://www.moshereiss.org/articles/24_tamar.htm

The poor girl only wanted justice.

[OLD REGGIE]

Incorrect. Considering that you initiated your reponses with a falsehood, I respectfully decline to entertain any additional ones.

The two letters to the Apostle St. John and the one to the Blessed Virgin , which exist only in Latin, are unanimously admitted to be spurious.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA - IGNATIUS LETTER TO THE VIRGIN MARY A FORGERY

Argue with the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[OLD REGGIE]

"No, it is not Sola Scriptura..."

Perhaps it would be appropriate for you to define what your definition of Sola Scriptura is.

[OLD REGGIE]

ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354-430)

In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)

Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)

All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence. (Ep. 42)

Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write. (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult.)

Let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their church if they can, not by the talk and rumor of the Africans; not by the councils of their own bishops; not by the books of their disputers; not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the word of God, but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the verses of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, in the preaching and works of the evangelists; that is, in all canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. (De Unit. Eccl. 16)