Mary Mother of God

[Bill the Cat]

If your side of the story is correct, if there was no reason to consider your marriage as invalid in the first place - a) this means the wife by which you had three pregnancies with cerclage is not your wife, I suppose, and b) that the Vatican which confirmed the decree does not have the grace of office, meaning, whoever was supposed to be "Pope" back then ("JP-II"?) was not Pope.

And with this nonsense, I am done with you. I will not have you smugly impugn my marriage, or my wife, nor regard my adulterous ex-wife who CHOSE to break the marital bond when she cheated on me (See Matt 5:32) as still my wife. The Lord Himself said that I was free if she committed adultery on me and refused to repent.

[hansgeorg]

And with this nonsense, I am done with you. I will not have you smugly impugn my marriage, or my wife, nor regard my adulterous ex-wife who CHOSE to break the marital bond when she cheated on me (See Matt 5:32) as still my wife. The Lord Himself said that I was free if she committed adultery on me and refused to repent.

No, the Lord said you were free to marry if that first marriage was null and void at inception, because that would have made what you were doing fornication.

He did not say "except for the sake of adultery", but "except for the sake of fornication".

Matth 5:[32] But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

This means that if you had put her away, refused to repent when she wanted to come back and she had married another, she would still be committing adultery and that other would also be committing adultery.

It works the other way round too.

[hansgeorg]

Oh, I'm sure there were considering he was a few decades after Chalcedon. But there is no mention at all of the controversy, so claiming that it existed at the time of the Apostles is pure and unadulterated wishful thinking.

At the time of the Apostles, either of the two traditions can have been there, either immediate assumption without Dormition, or Dormition and Assumption.

If at the time when She ceased to live on Earth She had just died, that would have been the tradition.

And you are very eager to believe something that is complete silence.

St Epiphanius mentioning an uncertainty which is incompatible with Her simply dying and no more being the original tradition.

Then you should have no trouble proving it. Cite ONE church father before 300 AD that said Mary was assumed into heaven.

Cite one Church Father prior to 300 AD who said she simply died?

Btw, your characterisation of Mariae Dormitio comes from C. Tischendorff, a Protestant scholar in the Leipzig of 1866.

There are other sources which Protestant scholars have also dated as late forgeries, for obvious reasons, like St Dinosyius of the Areopagus.

Because I don't worship her as co-mediatrix like you do. I have but ONE mediator, as scripture demands.

Oh, you are saying that St Epiphanius would not have speculated about Her not dying normally if he hadn't been worshipping Her as co-mediatrix? Great, that poses this title to St Epiphanius.

Where is it required of me to do so?

If you do not praise her blessed, you are not a part of the "all generations" of the faithful.

Good for you.

...

No she didn't. She never said "SHOULD".

This is one occasion where my English being a second language comes in. In Swedish "skall" is used for simple future.

However, since those who "were going to" are, in Her inspired view, "all generation" - namely of the faithful, there is also a real "shall" involved.

After 400 AD. Or perhaps you can come up with some more evidence other than [ATTACH=CONFIG]20003[/ATTACH]

Supposing Mr. C Tischendorff and others dated the "apocryphae" correctly.

[QUOTE=Bill the Cat;397338]Good for you. And your evidence for those can be cited as... what again? Because 1600 years later, a schismatic following a rogue "pope" says so?

No. Because if the tradition simply had been She died, the other traditions would not have arisen and he would not have been in doubt on whether she died or not.

Again, a manufactured honor for the Lord's mother became a tradition, yet it had absolutely no foundation in the Apostles' teachings, nor their students.

If it hadn't, you are painting an entire Church as having falsified the Gospel. In other words, you are contradicting Matthew 28:20.

Well, glad to have educated you partially. Now if you can only take the blinders off of your unhealthy devotion to unscriptural "inerrant traditions", you can see that sometimes, leaders make mistakes, and that's ok.

You have educated me only very partially.

I was ditching him because he contradicted tradition, and you have said he didn't contradict all of it.

It's good that you seem to realize that there was no set tradition before Epiphanius, 400 years after Christ. Acknowledgment is a positive step to recovery.

There was at least a clear hint in the specttrum of tradition.

Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner. THAT is a prayer the Lord commends. As I said, I have no issue if you want to pray the rosary. Just don't act like it is somehow better than the prayer in Luke 18:13. If you require a symbol to pray, then by all means, use it. But for this apparition to act like it is somehow THE way to pray, and is "necessary" is complete claptrap.

Let me ask you a question... if you were to go a full year just praying Luke 18:13 and not once pray a rosary, would you be sinning?

Probably not. And if I then were to take another full year just praying Hail Mary I wouldn't be sinning either.

But the rosary is in the West better known than the Jesus prayer.

Your fundy is showing again...

No, I am exposing your argument from silence.

Oh, but that's right... scholars hold no interest to you except where they confirm your bias...

In this case it is difficult to know who the scholar is, but there is perhaps a choice between John S. Kloppenborg, Burton L. Mack and Bart D. Ehrman - a scholar discredited because his scholarship led to his apostasy.

He's a fruit loop.

Immaterial. He at least illustrates that on his and my view there can be gaps in the papacy.

Sure he did. That's why it is called the REFORMATION, not a revolt or a schism. Luther wanted to reform the Roman church back to what it was before it became a political entity.

Sorry, you are confusing "trad" with "restorer".

Restoring what has been preserved in a minority faction is being a trad.

Restoring what was lost centuries earlier is NOT being a trad.

His very claim contradicts Matthew 28:20.

And, obviously, Catholics, Orthodox are both saying that he was both a schismatic and a heretic.

Also, he was not hankering back to days when Church had no connection to state, on the contrary, he heavily supported excessive connections, like the "ius reformandi" in statesmen.

Obama is right now a President of the US. If he were trying to "reform" any Church whatsoever by deciding who should be its pastors, he would violate First Amendment of US, but according to Luther he would not be violating the constitution Christ gave His Church.

I am an ex-Lutheran, I was once upon a time nearly a Luther fan. I am also a history geek.

Doesn't make it untrue. And that's not at all accurate. SOME Jews believe.

In which case calling them Jews is inaccurate.

No I am not.

OK, why aren't you?

Who but the Jews would say "Mary appearing to children is necromancy" or "Jesus appearing to disciples is necromancy"?

A bit perfidious, since they are taking "testimony about Christ" from an admitted necromancer in the Targum Onkelos, but still.

That was a rumor that has no evidence of historicity.

A tradition which is if not unanimous at least dominant is evidence of historicity, unless countered by better evidence.

I don't take it to be 400 years later. Scholarship, Catholic and non-Catholic say Epiphanius was the first to write about the supposed dormition.

Write in non-liturgical and to us preserved writings, you mean, and discounting the books of St John and of St Dionysius of the Areopagus, no doubt?

"IF"... If a frog had wings...

What are your exact criteria for deciding Apocalypse of St Peter can't be from him?

The NT canon of 397? Well, that is a bit late on your view.

The Muratorian fragment?

" It is not in the Bible, but is mentioned in the Muratorian fragment, the oldest surviving list of New Testament books, which also states it was not allowed to be read in church by others."

Note on this writing:

" The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th or 8th century codex from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century."

And what does it say about Apocalypse of St Peter?

"We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church."

If the latter is a disqualification, we know from elsewhere that Apocalypse of St John was also disputed. Council of Laodicea was not allowing its being read in Church.

So, I think that for the definite NT canon including the Apocalypse of St John and excluding that of St Peter, we do need the Church to have been infallible in 397 AD.

Yet you see little problem accepting him where he confirms your own bias...

I see no problem accpting him where he agrees with canonised saints and who are fathers of the Church.

It is a council of the Catholic Church. That you and Friar Tuck don't like it is inconsequential.

The phrase "council of the Catholic Church" doesn't mean the same thing to us.

There is among Catholics such a thing as a robber council.

Ephesus II is widely regarded as one.

Some Orthodox count our VIII council of 869 as a robber council, probably more than who don't do so.

And regarding Vatican II as a robber council allows the Church to continue in the bishops not accepting it.

You have proof it wasn't?

In the syllabus he says one cannot hope well of those who are in now wise Catholics, as to their salvation.

He also says Protestantism is not simply just another way to be Christian in.

I accept both of these. But there was the occasion when he dealt with one convert who was worried about his or perhaps rather her parents and he told her not to worry.

I think therefore, and because of the Catechism of St Pius X, that he accepted the concept of invincible ignorance along with intention to have the Christian faith. But he was hardly extending it the way Vatican II Sect has been doing in the usual reception of Lumen Gentium.

My daughters are 21 and 19 and both are saved children of God. So is my 15 year old son.

They should convert, you should revert, if they, and you, want to be saved.

[hansgeorg]

The Muratorian fragment?

" It is not in the Bible, but is mentioned in the Muratorian fragment, the oldest surviving list of New Testament books, which also states it was not allowed to be read in church by others."

Note on this writing:

" The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th or 8th century codex from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century."

And what does it say about Apocalypse of St Peter?

"We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church."

If the latter is a disqualification, we know from elsewhere that Apocalypse of St John was also disputed. Council of Laodicea was not allowing its being read in Church.

I should perhaps substantiate my quote from Muratorian:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

[Marta]

Well, you have underlined that She did the will of God.

And also that she could change God's own plan.

You might add that Christ's words to Her in Cana identfy Her as the woman of Genesis 3:15.

I might add that stilling the Son's wrath is sometimes part of that changing of God's plans.

Can Her Son be very angry? Look how He adressed the Pharisees. Look what He did twice about merchants in the temple.

Can the reasons She are called "Blessed" include any stilling of such wrath?

Yes, four women only in OT were called "Blessed". Two with moification "among women", those were Jael and Judith - victorious over enemies of Israel.

Two others : Ruth was called blessed because she took Obed.

Abigail was called Blessed - because she stilled the wrath of King David, so he refrained from shedding blood.

Can't change God''s plan - Isaiah 55.8-56.3.

Another example, when we read passages out of the O.T that shows what normally happens when such kings like Saul don't follow commands - either.

Saul Disobeys the Lord

It would be like that same moment when someone tells you "To Do" (as in, Mary said "do" as he says).

[hansgeorg]

Can't change God''s plan - Isaiah 55.8-56.3.

It would be like that same moment when someone tells you "To Do" (as in, Mary said "do" as he says).

Actually Isaiah said sth about nobody rendering God's word futile.

Not sth about nobody ever - including the Blessed Virgin - ever changing His plan.

Word and plan are not the same thing.

IV Kings 20 and Gospel of St John chapter 2 are great examples.

Your word from Isaiah means that both Apocalypse will achieve its purpose meant by God and, if Fatima apparitions are true, as I think they are, they will achieve their purpose too.

[Marta]

Actually Isaiah said sth about nobody rendering God's word futile.

Not sth about nobody ever - including the Blessed Virgin - ever changing His plan.

Word and plan are not the same thing.

IV Kings 20 and Gospel of St John chapter 2 are great examples.

Your word from Isaiah means that both Apocalypse will achieve its purpose meant by God and, if Fatima apparitions are true, as I think they are, they will achieve their purpose too.

For no word from God will ever failso is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.)

[Marta]

Word and plan are not the same thing.

[Marta]

Actually Isaiah said sth about nobody rendering God's word futile.

Not sth about nobody ever - including the Blessed Virgin - ever changing His plan.

Word and plan are not the same thing.

IV Kings 20 and Gospel of St John chapter 2 are great examples.

Your word from Isaiah means that both Apocalypse will achieve its purpose meant by God and, if Fatima apparitions are true, as I think they are, they will achieve their purpose too.

[Marta]

IV Kings 20 and Gospel of St John chapter 2 are great examples.

Your word from Isaiah means that both Apocalypse will achieve its purpose meant by God and, if Fatima apparitions are true, as I think they are, they will achieve their purpose too.

Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spiritEphesians 2:8you have found favor with Godyou who are highly favored! The Lord is with you

[Marta]

Your word from Isaiah means that both Apocalypse will achieve its purpose meant by God and, if Fatima apparitions are true, as I think they are, they will achieve their purpose too.

Fatima - the third secret hasn't been revealed, yet. And from what I understand the Vatican isn't releasing it. However, and again, Mary's apparitions from Lourdes and also, Fatima - are explained in this view, "Bernadette went to Massabielle on the banks of the Gave to collect bones and dead wood. Removing her socks in order to cross the stream, she heard a noise like a gust of wind, she looked up towards the Grotto"

Spirit - In Judaic and Christian usage, pneuma is a common word for "spirit" in the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. At John 3:5, for example, pneuma is the Greek word translated into English as "spirit": "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit (pneuma), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In some translations such as the King James version, however, pneuma is then translated as "wind" in verse eight, followed by the rendering "Spirit": "The wind (pneuma) bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit (pneuma)."

Mary appearing to individuals is not without reasonings and the fact that she has come down from Heaven to instruct - is this possible? There's a passage in Genesis that said that Jacob "saw Angels ascending and descending" that make me began to wonder if that is possible? If so, are there perhaps other occurrences? Psalm 103:20, Hebrews 1:14,Psalm 91:11) is understood[weasel words] as another prophecy of the Incarnation: the "gate" signifying the Virgin Mary and the "prince" referring to Jesus. This is one of the readings at Vespers on Great Feasts of the Theotokos in the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches.[citation needed] This imagery is also found in the traditional Catholic Christmas hymn "Gaudete" and in a saying by Saint Bonaventure, quoted by Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori: "No one can enter Heaven unless by Mary, as though through a door."[12] The imagery provides the basis for the concept that God gave Mary to mankind as the "Gate of Heaven" (thence the dedication of churches and convents to the Porta Coeli), an idea also laid out in the Salve Regina (Hail Holy Queen) prayer.

[Marta]

Word and plan are not the same thing.

Numbers 23:19

[hansgeorg]

Jesus Teaches Nicodemus? - Yes, that's a great passage!

Isaiah 20* and John 2 - you think of 3 - are precisely examples of God changing His plan. Plan "my time hasn't come yet". Outcome "miracle".

* I meant IV Kings 20.

[Marta]

Isaiah 20* and John 2 - you think of 3 - are precisely examples of God changing His plan. Plan "my time hasn't come yet". Outcome "miracle".

* I meant IV Kings 20.

No, God didn't change His Plan - all works go toward His Glory.

[hansgeorg]

No, God didn't change His Plan - all works go toward His Glory.

All working to God's glory does not mean God never changes His plan.

Going to make no miracle in Cana was but did not remain God's plan.

Going to have Hezekiah die at a certain date was but did not remain God's plan.

Some predictions are conditional, and those plans which did not remain so were then conditional.

As to keeping the Father's commandments, that is another issue. Commandments and plans are not the exact same thing.

Ergo, the things in Apocalypse that seem to contradict Fatima (but the bishop of Fatima of course studied the Apocalypse to see if there was a contradiction) could have been conditional only, with Fatima presenting an alternative, also conditional plan.

And since the conditions were not met, this conditional plan was then wavered for ... going on with the Apocalypse as stated the first time.