C
Cinette
Guest
Speculation!
If you do Not believe that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, than who do you believe Jesus Christ is?
- Status
E
elvisman
Guest
You’re BOTH wrong and you were proven wrong in post #554 - which you BOTH completely glossed over.
Address the evidence in that post (which is pretty much a slam-dunk) and we’ll see if you have a case.
PS - Neither of you haas addressed the ARAMAIC which Elizabeth spoke and the word she used for the child in Mary’s womb “MarYa”, which means, “Yaweh/God”. You keep going back to the Greek, which is a cop-out.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
If we step outside and view even the larger picture, these things that “Mary kept in Her heart”. Which indeed became factual to mankind, and of even greater significance on the Cross.
Then also…
It is in fact the same context or “Tradition” the “Catholic Church has kept in Her heart” for over two-thousand years.
So in essense isn’t the Catholic Church itself teaching “context” and “tradition” thus Truth? Then, to, the denominations must continue to lose tradition and “context” stuck on Sola Scriptura? And the message becomes one of inconsistancy by Protestants. You don’t see this?
So this debate itself becomes in hindsight the fundemental problem with Sola Scriptura. Just read through it and see the truth. And to take it to even a deeper understanding, if you read what the brother above typed before he was “banned.” Mary becomes reduced to just “a Godly Woman” which then is no different than so many women right here on this thread? Right?
So when we can reduce one of the Holy Family to being “no different that any one of us.” Than it must also be true that we can raise ourselves to being just as significant as the Holy Family. And in this arena is where man then decides the fate of other men with such wonderful ideas as genocide etc. Is that not a accurate statement???
Anyway…
Marys memory is a source of singular importance for knowing Christ, an incomparable source. Mary is not only a witness to the “mystery” of the Incarnation, and Mother of Jesus Christ. She followed step by step the Revelation of Her Son, the Son of God to the Cross an also after.
I would say a case could be made that Mary knew even more than was revealed to Luke and John. Matter of fact that statement would be dead accurate. Yet in Her silent humilty, what is written, is what we are left with. So it also must be true that we do not know as much about Mary as we would think from scripture? Yes, No? So how does one arrive at the truth? And there lies the consistancy of two-thousand years of Scholars and Saints. And consistant teaching in “context and tradition”. Yet, here I admit I am referring to “other” aspects of Mary.
We do know what Scripture states about Mary. And I don’t see where one can conclude anything but Mother of Jesus the Christ, Son of God, who in fact is God.
In fact you guys may do better with Co-Redeemer or the Immaculate Conception. If Luther was here he would take issue and would be yelling at ya all. And what did Luther say about Mary???
Then also…
It is in fact the same context or “Tradition” the “Catholic Church has kept in Her heart” for over two-thousand years.
So in essense isn’t the Catholic Church itself teaching “context” and “tradition” thus Truth? Then, to, the denominations must continue to lose tradition and “context” stuck on Sola Scriptura? And the message becomes one of inconsistancy by Protestants. You don’t see this?
So this debate itself becomes in hindsight the fundemental problem with Sola Scriptura. Just read through it and see the truth. And to take it to even a deeper understanding, if you read what the brother above typed before he was “banned.” Mary becomes reduced to just “a Godly Woman” which then is no different than so many women right here on this thread? Right?
So when we can reduce one of the Holy Family to being “no different that any one of us.” Than it must also be true that we can raise ourselves to being just as significant as the Holy Family. And in this arena is where man then decides the fate of other men with such wonderful ideas as genocide etc. Is that not a accurate statement???
Anyway…
Marys memory is a source of singular importance for knowing Christ, an incomparable source. Mary is not only a witness to the “mystery” of the Incarnation, and Mother of Jesus Christ. She followed step by step the Revelation of Her Son, the Son of God to the Cross an also after.
I would say a case could be made that Mary knew even more than was revealed to Luke and John. Matter of fact that statement would be dead accurate. Yet in Her silent humilty, what is written, is what we are left with. So it also must be true that we do not know as much about Mary as we would think from scripture? Yes, No? So how does one arrive at the truth? And there lies the consistancy of two-thousand years of Scholars and Saints. And consistant teaching in “context and tradition”. Yet, here I admit I am referring to “other” aspects of Mary.
We do know what Scripture states about Mary. And I don’t see where one can conclude anything but Mother of Jesus the Christ, Son of God, who in fact is God.
In fact you guys may do better with Co-Redeemer or the Immaculate Conception. If Luther was here he would take issue and would be yelling at ya all.
And what did Luther say about Mary???
D
Dokimas
Guest
Does the Greek word for Lord actually mean “God”? Or is it a term that could refer to God but is used describing position not nature?
Lordship is position not nature; God is nature, essence.
BTW, if you want me to answer your questions, we must have understanding first. I can’t answer you if we don’t have a place of common understanding first.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Wikipedia:
The common languages spoken by both Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land at the time of Jesus were Aramaic, Koine Greek, and to a limited extent a colloquial dialect of Mishnaic Hebrew. All of the books that would eventually form the New Testament were written in Koine Greek, the vernacular dialect in the Roman provinces of the Eastern Mediterranean at the time. These books were later translated into other languages, most notably, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. However, some of the Church Fathers[13] imply or claim that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Nevertheless, the Gospel of Matthew known today was composed in Greek and is neither directly dependent upon nor a translation of a text in a Semitic language, though the citation of texts from the Old Testament demonstrates that the author of the Gospel of Matthew did know Hebrew.[14]
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I believe what Elvis is saying is “Mary” and “Jesus” spoke in Aramaic. thus Luke is doing the translation no service here. Though I could be wrong. Admittedly I’m not a language buff. Somehow the words spoken on the Cross in Aramaic though has to be of significance. In other words why were those words left in the original form “plus” translated?
D
Dokimas
Guest
If Luke wrote his Gospel in Greek under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and used a word that didn’t mean God (Lord) then that should be good enough for us. Many humans in history where know as ‘lords’ and only one was God in the flesh.
Jews (including Mary and Elizabeth) )were looking for their Messiah but I doubt they were expecting Yahwey to become a Man. They were looking for their Lord to become King and replace the Roman rule, returning all rights and rules to Israel. They weren’t looking for the Isaiah 53, suffering Savior.
E
elvisman
Guest
AGAIN, you have completely ignored the evidence I presented to you in Post 554.
I am NOT talking about the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53. I am talking about the Glorious Savior mentioned in **Isaiah 9:6, which explicitly calls the Messiah, “GOD”. **
Since you have dodged this post over and over - I will present it to you again:
NIV
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
NASB
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
KJV
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
There is NO doubt that this verse calls the Messiah, “God”. Elizabeth was the wife of a temple Priest (Zechariah) and would have KNOWN this. The inescapable truth here is that Elizabeth, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit proclaimed the child in Mary’s womb to be MarYa=Yaweh/God.
Your argument and Scriptural acrobatics are dead in the water because of this fact.
E
elvisman
Guest
ALSO from Wikipedia:
It is generally agreed that the historical Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic,[1], along with some Hebrew and Greek (although there is some debate as to the degree[2]). The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum, where Jesus lived, were primarily Aramaic-speaking communities, although Greek was widely spoken in the major cities of the Mediterranean Basin. Jesus may have also known enough Hebrew to discuss the Hebrew Bible, and he may have known Koine Greek through commerce in nearby Sepphoris.
Aramaic, as a Semitic language, was a common language of the Eastern Mediterranean during and after the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid Empires (722 BC – 330 BC). Aramaic remained a common language of Israel in the 1st century AD, despite the subsequent Macedonian-Greek (331 BC) and Roman (63 BC) invasions. Indeed, in spite of the increasing importance of Greek, the use of Aramaic was also expanding, and it would eventually be entirely dominant among Jews both in Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East around 200 AD;[3] it would remain so until the Arab conquest in the 7th century.
Mary, Jesus, Elizabeth, the apostles - ALL spoke Aramaic. As I have pointed out ad nauseam - the Gospels are FILLED with Aramaic references uttered from the mouths of Jesus and others. You can dance around the Greek all you want but you cannot ignore this fact.
**Greek was the language of commerce and of the educated. Aramaic was the language of the common people in Israel. **
Case closed.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Are the Jews that are still waiting for the Messiah, looking for a man, God or the God/Man?
Seems you make quite an assumption saying there’s no doubt Elizabeth believed Isaiah 9:6 was being fulfilled in Jesus and even if she had some idea, that she understood the child would actually be God. People misunderstand all the time: the disciple were told by Jesus that He’d be raised on the third day. They did not understand Jesus even though He was quite clear. They didn’t understand until AFTER the resurrection.
E
elvisman
Guest
Read my last post and PLEASE do some linguistic research before you post again.
E
elvisman
Guest
**And the Apostles weren’t filled with and inspired by the Holy Spirit when Jesus told them he’d be raised in 3 days, were they? **
**Elizabeth WAS. **
The Apostles CERTAINLY got it when they WERE filled with the Spirit in Acts, now didn’t they?
A
adrift
Guest
D
Dokimas
Guest
I read it once.
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Not understanding DOES NOT EQUAL misunderstanding.
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Ahh yes… Wikipedia… The Source of Truth for every college student writing a paper where answers, right or wrong, are needed.
D
Dokimas
Guest
If it’s good enough for college students, it’s good enough for me.
BTW, got a better source that says differently?
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Haha… Nope… But, as another Catholic pointed out, Wikipedia demonstrates against Wikipedia…
My source is the Church. But, that is too vague for your question.
D
Dokimas
Guest
The CC disagrees with the post from Wikipedia?
R
rev_kevin
Guest
The Aramaic word “marya” used in place of the Tetragremmaton (YHWH) throughout the Tanakh Old Teatament is better understood as “MarYah.” It is also a contraction of 2 words; "Mar- Aramaic for “Lord” or “Master” and “Yah”- the short form of the Divine name “YHWH” or “YAHweh.”
The actual Aramaic word is spelled Mem Resh Yodh Alap (marya). None of the letters are capitalized in the Aramaic text known as the Peshitta Tanakh or Syriac Old Testament. Therefore, to write the word as “MarYah” as opposed to “marya” is misleading. It is reading only one’s theology into the word and then teaching it.
Since the word “marya” was used in the Peshitta New Testament in reference to Messiah Yahshua, it means Yahshua is Yahweh (MarYah). That is the result of mistakenly understanding “marya” to mean the Divine Name YHWH as to opposed to it being a title meaning “Lord” or “Master.”
It is often stressed by MarYah proponents since “marya” was used to replace the Tetragammaton in almost 7,000 instances in the O.T. that means it must mean “YHWH.” However, the word “Kurios” was consistently used throughout the Septuagint (Greek O.T.) to replace “YHWH”. Does that make “Kurios” mean “YHWH”? No. “Kurios” is simply a Greek word meaning “Lord” that was used as a substitute for “YHWH.”
“marya” is the Aramaaic substitution for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). “MarYa” is not the transllteration of “YHWH.” It is a substite used to avoid pronouncing the Name when reading the Aramaic text. This is in keeping with the common Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Name and Place erroneous vowel points around the Tetragrammton. to signal the reader to say “Adonai” (Lord).
If “YHWH” was written in Aramaic letters within the Greek text of the Septugaint. it could have been, and may have been, written in the original Aramaic Peshitta Tanakh as well. It wasn’t, it should have been rather then using “MarYa.”
- Status