|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Behold your mother!" - John 19:25-27
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
The debate on the "Almost thou persuadest me..." thread in Purg about the question of the perpetual virginity of Mary led me to dig up an old thread from last year on this subject, and I noticed a post I wrote in that thread relating to John 19:25-27:
quote:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son! Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.
I explained in the post that I didn't think that Jesus was simply making domestic arrangements for Mary, given that the disciples (or Jesus' 'adelphoi') would look after her anyway. Given the spiritual significance of Jesus' words from the cross, I felt that there had to be a more profound explanation as to what it means for Mary to be the "Mother of the Church".
Any ideas?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Mater Eccleseai was postulated by Ambrose of Milan in the forth century. The title was lost in history but revived during Vatican II.
It is not a new thought. Some Maryologists like it.
To me, it is not that important.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I explained in the post that I didn't think that Jesus was simply making domestic arrangements for Mary, given that the disciples (or Jesus' 'adelphoi') would look after her anyway. Given the spiritual significance of Jesus' words from the cross, I felt that there had to be a more profound explanation as to what it means for Mary to be the "Mother of the Church".
Any ideas?
But all the disciples had fled. Perhaps his adelphoi, however they were related, had also abandoned him and his Mother.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
I actually look at that passage in my most recent blog post although in a slightly different context. The Beloved Disciple is probably responsible, one way or another for the contents of the Gospel and Letters which bear the name of St John. The high christology of his work is often attributed to its late addition to the canon but it is at least plausible to suggest that his intimate relationship with Mary, her knowledge and her wisdom, was a source for his deep understanding of the Incarnation, a source to which John as an adopted son of hers had a privileged access that other NT writers did not.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
So you're saying it's more for John's benefit than Mary's?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I explained in the post that I didn't think that Jesus was simply making domestic arrangements for Mary, given that the disciples (or Jesus' 'adelphoi') would look after her anyway. Given the spiritual significance of Jesus' words from the cross, I felt that there had to be a more profound explanation as to what it means for Mary to be the "Mother of the Church".
Any ideas?
Having been personally several times in intense physical pain, this doesn't resonate as possible amidst the agony. Unless I am a complete whimp. Unless Jesus is more like a superman. Unless we diminish Jesus' humanity and decide to accept the perspective that he wasn't really suffering that much.
The man Jesus was dying, suffering, and focused on that part of life. He was doing what anyone who is dying does: focusses on those he loves. I don't think that he was thinking about a church, mother of a church, nor anything about ecclesiastical structure at the time. Do you think he was capable independently of predicting the future? What besides "mother of the church" might he have been anticipating of we go down your road a bit? No. It's just not tenable. Unless he wasn't really there as a human.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
Having been personally several times in intense physical pain, this doesn't resonate as possible amidst the agony. Unless I am a complete whimp. Unless Jesus is more like a superman. Unless we diminish Jesus' humanity and decide to accept the perspective that he wasn't really suffering that much.
The man Jesus was dying, suffering, and focused on that part of life. He was doing what anyone who is dying does: focusses on those he loves. I don't think that he was thinking about a church, mother of a church, nor anything about ecclesiastical structure at the time. Do you think he was capable independently of predicting the future? What besides "mother of the church" might he have been anticipating of we go down your road a bit? No. It's just not tenable. Unless he wasn't really there as a human.
Jesus was not superman, but God and man. He suffered as man and suffers as God. He speaks out of the midst of this suffering, and I believe that the words uttered by the Son of God and Saviour of the world from the very heart of God's work of salvation have significance for all of us. After all, Jesus said that His words are "spirit and life" (John 6:63).
If Jesus was merely a man, and nothing more, then you would have a point.
Jesus would have known that the Church would take care of Mary, his mother. After all, He knew what was to happen, with the establishment of the Church from the Day of Pentecost, when the believers would have all things in common. As God, Jesus certainly could predict the future, and much of Jesus' teachings in the run-up to His passion concerned prophecy.
Therefore I deduce that there is some spiritual significance in Mary being the mother of believers. Does that make me a Catholic? I don't think so. I admit that I don't know what it means for Mary to be the spiritual mother of believers (and I don't really know why this role is necessary anyway, given the all-sufficiency of Christ our Mediator), but I can't ignore the Scripture here, especially as the idea comes up again in Revelation 12:17, which refers to the other 'offspring' of the woman who bore the Child caught up to heaven (an obvious reference to Christ). These offspring "keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ". The woman of Revelation 12 is clearly Mary, and other interpretations (such as the woman signifying Israel) simply don't make sense.
[ 12. June 2014, 21:17: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Exactly, not a superman.
There was no church though. Not then and not for several hundred years. Unless you want to assert he had superhuman thought processes as a mortal man on the cross, I can't agree with this. He was unable as a man to anticipate the future. His meditation and praying in the garden as well. These are the prayers and suffering of a real human, not a god, not a superhuman. To really be human, he had to experience all of it, which seems to me to include no prescience. Much as the idea is interesting from a justification of a church that began later and is mostly structured as humans would have it, I find this doesn't wash and wear well.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Exactly, not a superman.
Perhaps there is room in your vision of Jesus as solely human to apply the word Prophet to him, and prophetic to some of his utterances.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
On the Cross Jesus quoted not one but two Psalms. This does suggest that at the least His psyche was saturated with what might be called God consciousness. And for a Jew of His time consciousness of God was always inextricably linked with consciousness of the People of God. If He took thought for the one then He took thought for the other. Giving Mary and the Beloved Disciple into each other's care would not have occurred to Him as a merely private, familial gesture because the idea that there were distinct privatised spheres marked Family, Religion and God would not have occurred to Him.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Not a church for several hundred years?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Try telling that to the Council of Jerusalem.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Of course, it took a good while for the Church to develop in the way it did, but if you read the Sub-Apostolic Fathers it's pretty clear that they had a developing ecclesiology in the immediate post-Apostolic period ... and of course, the NT epistles wouldn't have been written in the first place - nor the Gospels come to that - if there hadn't been communities of believers to address them to nor a developing concept of a Church that embraced both Jew and Gentile.
I'm with EE on this one - I think there is sufficient internal NT evidence to suggest some significance and application of these verses beyond the immediate context of Mary's domestic arrangements ... both/and rather than either/or - and yes, with the verses in Revelation taken into account to.
The thing is, though, that we are then immediately into extra-biblical or 'tradition' territory when we try to establish what significance it may or may not have. I'm cool with that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
The thing is, though, that we are then immediately into extra-biblical or 'tradition' territory when we try to establish what significance it may or may not have. I'm cool with that.
Is it really the case that all inferences or deductions from Scripture should be termed 'extra-biblical' or 'tradition'? If a text implies something, then that conclusion is in the text implicitly. The fact that different people may draw different conclusions is not the point. Just because two people may see different (i.e. contradictory) things in the same text does not mean that both views are equally valid (especially as both positions cannot be right. They could both be wrong, of course). The same argument could apply to the interpretation of empirical data in science, of course.
I think there are a number of pretty strong pointers in the Bible (that count as strong circumstantial evidence) that Mary at least had a position of authority in the Church. I have already referred to Revelation 12.
There is also Acts 1: 12-26, the account of the believers in the upper room (and possibly elsewhere) immediately prior to the Day of Pentecost.
The only believers who are mentioned by name in this passage are the eleven disciples, the two candidates to take Judas' place and Mary, the mother of Jesus. Of course, David and Judas are mentioned for historical reasons. There were about 120 believers at the time (v. 15) and yet the only people named are those in leadership (or potential leadership as in the case of the candidate who failed to replace Judas) and Mary. I assume that not all the 120 were in the upper room (the text is not clear on that, but the break between verse 14 and 15 suggests this). This would imply that the believers in the upper room were the 'core' of the fledgling church. But there were other unnamed people in that room - the women (other than Mary) and "His brothers" (v.14).
Now this seems pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Mary was categorised with the eleven apostles among the upper room believers. This suggests a position of pre-eminence and some form of leadership.
Why does it say in verse 14: "...devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus..." (as if to suggest that Mary was not a woman!)?
Clearly the text indicates that Mary was in a category of her own, and could not simply be lumped together with the rest of the women. I find this very significant. Others may disagree, but that's how I see it...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, but I 'spose what I'm saying is that as soon as we start to make and formulate these kind of deductions and one or other then becomes some kind of prevailing or general accepted view, then we're into 'tradition'.
I don't see anyway around that. Nor do I see it as a problem.
On your particular inferences and deductions from the scriptures in the issue we are discussing here, then yes, you might well be right. I don't have an issue with the deductions and conclusions you are drawing from these verses and because I'd generally draw similar conclusions from those that you are drawing then I'd suggest that between the two of us we have started to formulate a 'tradition' ...
That's how these things work and how they materialise, it seems to me. Nothing sinister about it necessarily.
Where I suppose it might become so would be if the pair of us agreed that these deductions must be binding on all other believers both now and for eternity.
But I don't see either of us doing that ... not just yet ...
But the same principle we're discussing here is what happens at a Conciliar level, surely ... with the way the various Councils discussed and agreed doctrine.
We're simply doing it a micro level but the principle is similar I would submit.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Exactly, not a superman.
Perhaps there is room in your vision of Jesus as solely human to apply the word Prophet to him, and prophetic to some of his utterances.
Acute and terrible pain brings a person into the moment. There is nothing about this that says solely human always. But nailed up, dying and feeling forsaken, that's pretty human. Which is for so far as I know, the point just then.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I've tended to understand this in the context of Christian unity and how christians should relate to one another. Earlier Jesus made the statement (albeit in Matthew) that those who obey God are his brother and sister and mother. In John, before the crucifixion, Jesus had been praying mightily that the disciples might be one. Here he expresses to someone who is not a blood relative that Mary is his mother. It seems to my mind that this is expressive of the type of relationship to be held in value of being Christians together. I have no personal problem with it also being understood as Mary being the 'mother' of the church; she did technically give birth to its founder after all.
[ 13. June 2014, 12:43: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Unless you want to assert he had superhuman thought processes as a mortal man on the cross, I can't agree with this. He was unable as a man to anticipate the future. His meditation and praying in the garden as well. These are the prayers and suffering of a real human, not a god, not a superhuman. To really be human, he had to experience all of it, which seems to me to include no prescience.
noprophet, I'm sorry I didn't express myself clearly.
You say here that he had no prescience, unable to anticipate the future, being nailed up to the cross.
Even if we stipulate that Jesus' self-emptying was complete as he hung on the cross (which tendency I pretty much agree with), I'm suggesting that the prophetic voice played a part in Jesus' death-time utterances, thus giving him, in extremis, a God-voiced speech of prophecy, as was given to many other humans in the biblical record.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Is it really the case that all inferences or deductions from Scripture should be termed 'extra-biblical' or 'tradition'?
Yes. Pretty much by definition.
quote:
If a text implies something, then that conclusion is in the text implicitly. The fact that different people may draw different conclusions is not the point.
On the contrary. It is precisely the point. To wit:
quote:
Just because two people may see different (i.e. contradictory) things in the same text does not mean that both views are equally valid (especially as both positions cannot be right.
True. But deciding which one is right is tradition. It is precisely tradition -- extra-biblical choosing between biblical interpretations.
quote:
They could both be wrong, of course). The same argument could apply to the interpretation of empirical data in science, of course.
Of course! And scientists admit that they use criteria such as "beauty" to decide between interpretive frameworks. They are much more forthcoming about the extra-scientific nature of their interpretation than "Bible only" believers are about the extra-biblical nature of theirs.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Is it really the case that all inferences or deductions from Scripture should be termed 'extra-biblical' or 'tradition'?
Yes. Pretty much by definition.
That's a bit like saying that the blanks in a Sudoku puzzle can only be filled in "by tradition". Or that x in 2x=6 is "extra-mathematical".
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Even if we stipulate that Jesus' self-emptying was complete as he hung on the cross (which tendency I pretty much agree with), I'm suggesting that the prophetic voice played a part in Jesus' death-time utterances, thus giving him, in extremis, a God-voiced speech of prophecy, as was given to many other humans in the biblical record.
I am okay with this idea, just think in the situation, that it is unlikely. The idea of church as a human organization versus a body of believers is perhaps a point of incomplete clarity.
Your "self emptying" terminology is a good way of saying this.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Is it really the case that all inferences or deductions from Scripture should be termed 'extra-biblical' or 'tradition'?
Yes. Pretty much by definition.
That's a bit like saying that the blanks in a Sudoku puzzle can only be filled in "by tradition". Or that x in 2x=6 is "extra-mathematical".
No, not at all. It's rather like saying the bible requires interpretation, and all such interpretation is tradition, by definition. That's (part of) what tradition is. Choosing between two competing interpretations of scripture is tradition. Disanalogies concerning Sudoku puzzles notwithstanding.
Here, let me restate the part of my post you conveniently didn't address:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Just because two people may see different (i.e. contradictory) things in the same text does not mean that both views are equally valid (especially as both positions cannot be right.
True. But deciding which one is right is tradition. It is precisely tradition -- extra-biblical choosing between biblical interpretations.
[ 13. June 2014, 19:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
It's rather like saying the bible requires interpretation, and all such interpretation is tradition, by definition. That's (part of) what tradition is. Choosing between two competing interpretations of scripture is tradition. Disanalogies concerning Sudoku puzzles notwithstanding.
So logic is a tradition then?
After all, we can use logic to choose between two competing interpretations of Scripture. Which one best fits the biblical data? Which one is implied by clear biblical statements?
But if you are right, then knowing truth is impossible, because different people simply submit to their different, and often contradictory, traditions.
For example, does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or just from the Father alone?
The West says one thing, the East another. Both positions cannot be true. We know that at least one tradition is in error concerning that idea. Therefore tradition per se cannot guarantee truth.
If I am not allowed to think this idea through for myself, analysing it logically and coming to my own conclusion, then what am I to do? Either I choose the Western tradition or I choose the Eastern. One of those traditions is in error (or they both are).
Therefore simply following tradition is a form of intellectual gambling.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, then, EE how do YOU decide which of those statements about the procession of the Holy Spirit are the correct one?
Can you cite a scriptural verse that unequivocally solves it either way?
No, of course not. Consequently wrestling with meanings and drawing deductions and conclusions is 'tradition' in the sense that Mousethief is using the term and, I would say, a necessary way of trying to get at the truth of any issue/interpretation.
I don't understand why this should be problemmatic. Of course, the fact that Eastern and Western traditions/Traditions may disagree over the Filioque clause causes problems but whilst tradition may have caused those problems in the first place - tradition also offers a way out of the impasse and affords a solution - if only we'd knuckle down to the process of 'traditioning' and argued it all out once and for all.
Also, tradition or Tradition doesn't stand in isolation any more than scripture stands in isolation - or logic stands in isolation too for that matter. Logical discourse and processes of evaluation are themselves part of a tradition ... a tradition of logic and there are different strands in that tradition - Aristotelian and so on and forth as you well know.
I really don't see the difficulty. It's as if to acknowledge that there are collective processes of deduction and debate mean that we can never know or arrive at the TruthTM.
I don't see how or why that follows, although I would certainly see some conclusions arrived at that way as being provisional - 'we know in part ...'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So logic is a tradition then?
After all, we can use logic to choose between two competing interpretations of Scripture. Which one best fits the biblical data? Which one is implied by clear biblical statements?
If all we needed were "logic" to interpret scripture, then we would all interpret scripture the same way. But we do not. Therefore more than "logic" is required.
quote:
But if you are right, then knowing truth is impossible, because different people simply submit to their different, and often contradictory, traditions.
Indeed. How do you know your tradition is better than mine at interpreting a given biblical passage where they disagree? Because yours uses "logic"? You are being led astray by your faith in your tradition, into thinking that it merely uses "logic" while other traditions import something else.
This is, by the way, a typical Protestant failing. "You have interpretations. We read the Bible literally."
quote:
If I am not allowed to think this idea through for myself, analysing it logically and coming to my own conclusion, then what am I to do?
Admit that your use of "logic" is not definitive. In short develop a measure of humility about your interpretation of scripture.
quote:
Either I choose the Western tradition or I choose the Eastern. One of those traditions is in error (or they both are).
Indeed. And where you disagree with both of them, you may be in error also. Human beings are not strictly rational and have a tendency to unwittingly drag things other than "logic" into their use of "logic." And if you are unwittingly doing that, how can you tell, since it is by definition unwitting? All you can do is test it against a tradition you trust, even if that tradition is five buddies you bend an elbow with at the Bird and Bee.
quote:
Therefore simply following tradition is a form of intellectual gambling.
Indeed, and thinking that YOUR use of "logic" provides the only viable interpretation is a form of intellectual self-deception.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Since we've got on a tangent, let me respond by referring to the subject matter of this thread...
Both these statements are true (and it is a violation of humility to say otherwise):
A: Mary is the Mother of the Church.
Non-A: Mary is NOT the Mother of the Church.
Ergo... A = non-A
If all theology is like this, then it really is the non-subject Richard Dawkins thinks it is (but at least I can comfort myself with the thought that my belief in the historicity of, say, the conquest of Jericho is as valid as the denial thereof. After all, humility works both ways!)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Mary was contacted to have the "baby" Jesus just before she was also with her man ! So she was the "mother" all the time after He was born up and became a boy and then a man.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Since we've got on a tangent, let me respond by referring to the subject matter of this thread...
Thanks for bringing it back to the topic.
Moo, Kerygmania host
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Since we've got on a tangent, let me respond by referring to the subject matter of this thread...
Both these statements are true (and it is a violation of humility to say otherwise):
A: Mary is the Mother of the Church.
Non-A: Mary is NOT the Mother of the Church.
Ergo... A = non-A
If all theology is like this, then it really is the non-subject Richard Dawkins thinks it is (but at least I can comfort myself with the thought that my belief in the historicity of, say, the conquest of Jericho is as valid as the denial thereof. After all, humility works both ways!)
You have mistaken a sentence in a natural language as an atomic logical proposition. This is not uncommon for people who use the word "logic" a lot as if it "proves" things. You might want to look up Heraclitus. He had some things to say about rivers you could benefit from.
Meanwhile you might answer what I said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Reading EE's post on the other thread (now in Limbo – linked to in the OP), I can see how an author like John would have made conscious decisions regarding what he wanted to put into his work and what to leave out. It all goes to his intent – why he said what he said in the way he said it (or used the words he used in the way he used them). To me it would seem strange for John to waste resource in recording that episode from the cross if all he wanted to do was to explain Mary's arrangements post-crucifixion. I'd want to know what issue John's audience had that necessitated that line, especially given the quite meaty themes that John deals with elsewhere.
The idea of a spiritual meaning is interesting. Here, I guess commentators would argue the toss over whether this is for all believers or just a rhetorical device to assert John's primacy among the disciples and hence the validity for what he had been saying. I did think here that John's reference to 'children of God' in his introduction (Jn. 1:12-13) introduces a theme that he picks up throughout his gospel and that again be in play at the cross. The enigmatic theme of the father being in Jesus and vice versa – and the subsequent Jesus being in the disciples – suggests a close-knit family.
How does it work out in practice? StevHep's earlier post prompted a thought. I've been struck by the very close similarity between the themes in John and those in Paul. Although Paul doesn't focus much on Jesus' earthly ministry (still less Mary) in his letters, that may be because he assumes those facts and has other fish to fry with his audiences. He does focus a great deal, however, on the concept of family. His gospel included the place of Abraham as father of all the faithful across many nations. He, like John, stresses the important impact of Jesus and God's spirit being 'in' the believer and the believer being 'in' Jesus. Paul's practical outworkings (his significances) of the biblical material could provide a link back to what John had to say about Mary.
Incidentally, a plank in the argument for the lateness of John's Gospel is removed by this link to Paul. Because Paul assumed as already understood many ideas that in more recent years have been dubbed 'high christology', the mere fact that John talks about the same themes does not mean that his work is therefore late. If anything, his themes are current very quickly after the resurrection.
On the tradition point – I get the feeling that the discussion is more about individual definitions of the English term 'tradition.' Personally I prefer to see tradition as a sequence of significances (or applications) addressed to specific issues that arise. Of more importance to me is whether those significances are based on authorial intent (understood as the meaning of a text) as the best option around to validate an interpretation, or whether they are based on previous significances without reference to that basic meaning.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have mistaken a sentence in a natural language as an atomic logical proposition. This is not uncommon for people who use the word "logic" a lot as if it "proves" things. You might want to look up Heraclitus. He had some things to say about rivers you could benefit from.
Meanwhile you might answer what I said.
Host hat on
Mousethief, I would like to remind you of C3, Attack the issue, not the person
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Moo, acknowledged.
Trying again:
What I call humility is not trying to believe two contradictory things, but admitting that one's use of "logic," however well-intentioned, could lead one to false conclusions.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Humility is acknowledging that one is wrong when shown to be wrong. Humility is not about submitting to ideas due to being browbeaten, threatened, pressured or due to vain appeals to authority.
In other words, humility is admitting that one's own logic is inferior to better logic. But no one should feel under obligation to humbly submit to no logic!!
By the way... I have yet to see anyone on this site, who appeals to Tradition, concede any ground or admit any error. So where is the humility?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Humility is acknowledging that one is wrong when shown to be wrong.
Aye, there's the rub. One without humility can't admit it when shown to be wrong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Exactly.
And how do you go about showing someone that he is wrong?
Answer: with evidence and logic.
Bring it on...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Host hat on
Let's get back to the OP topic.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
