Why does the Catholic church say the Mary was always a virgin, in Luke 2, it talks about Mary's "Firstborn Son".
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born,
7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

In Mathew 13 it names Jesus brothers and "All his sisters" meaning at least three.

53When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there.
54Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked.
55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
57And they took offense at him.
But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
58And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

No doubt, they have an explanation to gloss over the truth again, like, "they were cousins and they used to call their cousins brothers and sisters in those days."

I'm sure it has something to do with the bible saying that the holy spirit is what caused a virgin to get pregnant. If one can accept jesus' miracles, and the power from which they came (god's power), then god causing a virgin to get pregnant is on equal par with the other miracles. Either way, it shows god has control over atoms, and can construct or destruct them at will. I don't know why the focus is on mary, when it should be on god.

Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, but she was not always a virgin. She had other children including James who is believed to be the James that wrote the book of James in the Bible. Jesus was a virgin birth, but her other children were not.

The Christian Tradition that nearly all Christians believed until the Reformation is that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.

So she was married and never had sex?

so she was married and never had sex?

Yes.

Well the truth is never glossing over anything, except to those who close their eyes to the truth.

But was he not the first born, I am a only child and I am the first born, that is an important position esp in their society,

And of course yes, cousins were considered "brothern" and that was actually yes a very common term to people during that time.
Also it is a fairly common belief that Joseph was much older and could have had other children which also wouild have been brothers and sisters.

This is part of too many people that they merely accept words as they are used today and it is not always the same.

But yes, it was till the Reformation and is though traditions and customs

Why does the Catholic church say the Mary was always a virgin, in Luke 2, it talks about Mary's "Firstborn Son".
Just FYI:

Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Mary is Ever-virgin“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,' and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;' who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,--that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?" Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

"Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed." Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

“Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.' John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

"But those who by virginity have desisted from this process have drawn within themselves the boundary line of death, and by their own deed have checked his advance; they have made themselves, in fact, a frontier between life and death, and a barrier too, which thwarts him. If, then, death cannot pass beyond virginity, but finds his power checked and shattered there, it is demonstrated that virginity is a stronger thing than death; and that body is rightly named undying which does not lend its service to a dying world, nor brook to become the instrument of a succession of dying creatures. In such a body the long unbroken career of decay and death, which has intervened between the first man and the lives of virginity which have been led, is interrupted. It could not be indeed that death should cease working as long as the human race by marriage was working too; he walked the path of life with all preceding generations; he started with every new-born child and accompanied it to the end: but he found in virginity a barrier, to pass which was an impossible feat." Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 13 (A.D. 371).

I sometimes wonder the motive for people asking questions on here. I have never heard of 'ever virgin', but common sense tells me that joseph would have been one unhappy man if his wife never had sex.

Luk 1:34 And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
She couldn't have a child, as the angel said she would, because she never had sex. But the angel told her how she could have it. Another thing: wasn't mary engaged? So she wouldn't have been able to have sex before marriage, and I believe this is mary's true intent in asking her question. She knew her marriage would take some time to pass, and the angel said she would conceive, so mary was concerned about the pregnancy. She didn't want to argue, so she finally said:
Luk 1:38 And Mary said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
virgin or not, it wasn't joseph who conceived jesus, it was the holy spirit. The seed was now in the woman. And spiritually, it can be in us as well.

Yes.

And she had her other children how?

virgin or not, it wasn't joseph who conceived jesus, it was the holy spirit. the seed was now in the woman. and spiritually, it can be in us as well.
Well, the ante partum virginity you are referring to is evidenced quite clearly in the Bible (Matthew 1:18 Luke 1:26-35)... so I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Discussions of Mary's virginity eventually came to examine Mary's virginity during three periods: ante partum (i.e. before the birth of Christ); in partu (i.e. during the delivery of Christ); and post partum (i.e. after the birth of Christ). Your question involves what came to be called Mary's virginitas post partum.


The best sources of information on Mary's virginity prior to the birth of Jesus are the Infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, usually dated around 80 A.D. There are also several writings before 350 on both Mary's virginitas in partu and on her virginitas post partum which expand on the Biblical reflection about Mary's virginitas ante partum.


The first witnesses are to be found in the Apocrypha from around 150, especially: the Protogospel of James, the Book of Sybils, the Ascent of Isaiah, and the Acts of Peter (see: Corp. Mar. I, 131-158). These apocryphal texts may not be considered sufficient doctrinal justification for Mary's lifelong virginity. However, they point out how widespread the conviction about this point was among early Christians.


There are suggestions that Irenaeus (d. ca 220) and Justin (d. ca 165) may have alluded to Mary's virginitas in partu, but there are no explicit statements by either author. Origen (d. 254) may have been the first to affirm Mary's lifelong virginity (see: PG 14, 320) in commenting on the Protogospel of James (see also Corp. Mar. 265; GCS 38, 42f; PG 13, 1631). Clement of Alexandria (d. ca 215) accepted the Protogospel of James without problem (Strom VII, 16, 93, 7) along with its perspective on Mary as ever-virgin. However, Tertullian (d. ca 200) rejected the apocryphal protogospel and with it Mary's virginitas in partu and her virginitas post partum (see De carne Christi, 23).
-International Marian Research Institute

And she had her other children how?

She didn't have another child.

She didn't have another child.

Let's turn to what the word of God says:

Matt 12:46-48
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You."
NKJV

Let's turn to what the word of God says:

Matt 12:46-48
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You."
NKJV

How can you read the Bible while you're standing on it. What a feat of acrobatics!

JoeT

she gave birth to her firstborn, a son
If that were the only child a woman had, wouldn't it be referred to as an "only child" or "only son"? "Firstborn" implies there were more children born after this one.

How can you read the Bible while you're standing on it. What a feat of acrobatics!

JoeT

Hey, at least I am reading it. How about - what is stopping you from reading it?

Hey, at least I am reading it. How about - what is stopping you from reading it?

It's my bed time.

It's my bed time.

Perhaps it would be good to spend some time in God's word before retiring to bed.

If that were the only child a woman had, wouldn't it be referred to as an "only child" or "only son"? "Firstborn" implies there were more children born after this one.
I already covered this in my earlier post:

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

"The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word first-born' means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word till' signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord, meaning after the general resurrection."
-John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 4:14 (A.D. 743).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another common error is believing that scriptural references to the "brothers" of Jesus implies that Mary had other children... but scripture and history show this not to be the case:

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

"Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?' and had not added, seeing I know not a man,' certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free."
-Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).

This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed.
I don't know how they came to this conclusion. See my earlier post about her being espoused to joseph, so she was concerned about her upcoming wedding, and pregnancy.
Mat 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Now why would he try to put her away, if her pregnancy wasn't a concern? Guess joseph decided getting rid of his pregnant wife was better than having a wife. Never mind trying to protect her. If he wanted to do that, at least he could say he was the father. Then the baby wouldn't be looked upon as illegitimate.
Also, anti this, and post this... I just know that she didn't have a man to create a baby with, in jesus. The holy spirit was the seed that began jesus.

I don't know how they came to this conclusion. See my earlier post about her being espoused to joseph,
I did read your earlier post... but it didn't make much sense to me then either:


she couldn't have a child, as the angel said she would, because she never had sex. But the angel told her how she could have it.
Gabriel tells Mary, an engaged woman, that she will "conceive in your womb and bear a son" (v31)

Mary asks “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” (v34)

THEN Gabriel informs her how: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you... "(v35)

So this still does not explain how an engaged woman, when told she will conceive a child would ask "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

Notice... Gabriel tells her that she WILL (future tense) conceive and Mary brings up her virginity... so common sense would tell you that Mary most likely had made a vow of chasitity and had no intention of having sexual relations even AFTER (remember FUTURE tense) she was married.

another thing: wasn't mary engaged? So she wouldn't have been able to have sex before marriage, and I believe this is mary's true intent in asking her question. She knew her marriage would take some time to pass, and the angel said she would conceive, so mary was concerned about the pregnancy. She didn't want to argue, so she finally said:
But this only would make sense if Gabriel told her the time frame of her conception, and he didn't... notice again he used the future tense... it could have meant 10 years from then... and Mary still was confused... so I'm not sure how you came to your assumptions.

I just know that she didn't have a man to create a baby with, in jesus. The holy spirit was the seed that began jesus.
Agreed... but that's not what this thread is about.

ScottRC:"Notice... Gabriel tells her that she WILL (future tense) conceive and Mary brings up her virginity..... so common sense would tell you that Mary most likely had made a vow of chasitity and had no intention of having sexual relations even AFTER (remember FUTURE tense) she was married."

This part of the bible says nothing about mary taking a vow of chastity, and nothing of her virginity after she married.

this part of the bible says nothing about mary taking a vow of chastity, and nothing of her virginity after she married.
That's why it is important to understand a bit about the culture of the period... and I think I provided some evidence as to why this text shows Mary's vow of chastity... as well as showing Scripture and the teachings of the early Church that should make it clear Mary remained a virgin after she married.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Some folk go with man's tradition over God's word.

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2) - and he instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Here's a helpful article on Mary, Ever Virgin:
Mary: Ever Virgin (http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp)

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2) - and he instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

2 Tim 2:2
2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
NKJV

He never says, nor does scripture say, that he is, or that we are to go outside of what scripture says. Indeed scripture says that we are NOT to go beyond what is written.

ScottRC:"Notice... Gabriel tells her that she WILL (future tense) conceive and Mary brings up her virginity..... so common sense would tell you that Mary most likely had made a vow of chasitity and had no intention of having sexual relations even AFTER (remember FUTURE tense) she was married."

this part of the bible says nothing about mary taking a vow of chastity, and nothing of her virginity after she married.

Why is this so hard to believe that Mary didn’t have a physical relationship after the birth of Christ?

My nature is that of a doubting-Thomas (I usually need some credible reason), but I’ve never questioned that Mary was ever virgin. I’ve never been able to put a finger on why my nature is incongruous when it comes to the ever virgin Mary. I can discuss the topic openly (maybe not as well as Scott), but in the end I still can’t visualize Mary any other way except as ever virgin. Go figure!

JoeT

2 Tim 2:2
2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
NKJV

He never says, nor does scripture say, that he is, or that we are to go outside of what scripture says. Indeed scripture says that we are NOT to go beyond what is written.

??
Where does scripture say that scripture is the sole authority? Nowhere. Of course this is a major dividing point (Why, I am not sure since Scripture affirms that it is NOT the sole authority).

There was no New Testament for the first 300 years of Christianity. What did the early Christians rely on?

The Answer: The teaching of the Apostles whom Christ designated as the leaders of His Church.

In order not to wrestle with scripture, let me say that if I tell you something, you can infer whatever you want. Then, if that becomes the standard inference, it's like it becomes set in stone. I think this is what was done with these documents that infer things from the scripture that I would never infer myself.
However, that's not the point. The pharisees had the scriptures, and they did err. It was the scriptures that spoke of jesus. The pharisees thought they could find their salvation in the words, but the means to their salvation was staring them in the face. Words are not living. I'll take the living god, and learn from him. If he happens to let me know what his intention for some scripture means, then at least I'll have the interpretation from the living god, staring me in the face, rather than what someone wrote.

One of the prophecies of the Messiah was that he would be born of a virgin. Christ's virgin birth is part of what made him so special because he did not have an earthly father, because his father was God. If Mary's other children were also virgin births wouldn't that be considering them to be more than just men, but also God in the flesh as Christ was? And in turn wouldn't that be in essence be declaring them almost as deity? Considering the other children of marry to also be virgin births (which would mean their father was God) seems to be stepping outside of the purpose of the virgin birth in the first place. Mary was a wonderful, Godly woman. My favorite woman of the Bible and one of my role models, but I just don't believe she remained a virgin all her life. Does that make her any less of a Godly woman or role model? Absolutely not. For starters, she was married!! She was well within God's "law" to lose her virginity!

in order not to wrestle with scripture, let me say that if i tell you something, you can infer whatever you want. then, if that becomes the standard inference, it's like it becomes set in stone. i think this is what was done with these documents that infer things from the scripture that i would never infer myself.
however, that's not the point. the pharisees had the scriptures, and they did err. it was the scriptures that spoke of jesus. the pharisees thought they could find their salvation in the words, but the means to their salvation was staring them in the face. words are not living. i'll take the living god, and learn from him. if he happens to let me know what his intention for some scripture means, then at least i'll have the interpretation from the living god, staring me in the face, rather than what someone wrote.

One of the prophecies of the Messiah was that he would be born of a virgin. Christ's virgin birth is part of what made him so special because he did not have an earthly father, because his father was God. If Mary's other children were also virgin births wouldn't that be considering them to be more than just men, but also God in the flesh as Christ was? and in turn wouldn't that be in essence be declaring them almost as deity? Considering the other children of marry to also be virgin births (which would mean their father was God) seems to be stepping outside of the purpose of the virgin birth in the first place. Mary was a wonderful, Godly woman. My favorite woman of the Bible and one of my role models, but i just don't believe she remained a virgin all her life. Does that make her any less of a Godly woman or role model? absolutely not. for starters, she was married!!! She was well within God's "law" to lose her virginity!

But why not? It’s not out of the question that she couldn’t have retained her virginity. If you’re willing to believe in the seemingly more incredible virgin birth, then why not believe that she remained celibate?

"Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?)

JoeT

I totally agree with you joe that she COULD have retained her virginity, I just don't believe that she did because that would diminish the miraculous birth of Christ. I hope what I'm saying make sense. I believe without a doubt that God can do anything including have a child be born of a virigin because he did once already. I am not one to say that I understand God's plan entirely, but it seems to me that Christ's virgin birth was meant to be a special event unique to the Messiahs birth only. For Mary to have had other children though was a virgin would make the birth of the Messiah not so unique.

But why not? It's not out of the question that she couldn't have retained her virginity. If you're willing to believe in the seemingly more incredible virgin birth, then why not believe that she remained celibate?
Good point Joe... my opinion on this as a convert to the Church relied on this.

I just could not see Joseph putting his selfish desires ahead of the most important "job" any parents in history were given: raising our divine Lord into the man that would save us all from sin.

I know this is not "proof" of anything... but just wanted to share.:D

All with Peter to Jesus through Mary!

I am not one to say that i understand God's plan entirely, but it seems to me that Christ's virgin birth was meant to be a special event unique to the Messiahs birth only.
Very well stated.. God bless you for this wonderfully Christian attitude... I know I'm guilty at times of forgetting the "mystery" of our faith.

God bless.

Please clarify scott, why are joseph's desires selfish? They were a married couple. What's wrong with them having sex? I just don't understand why it is such taboo to believe that Mary had sex with her husband not in Jesus' case, but in the case of her other children?

please clarify scott, why are joseph's desires selfish? they were a married couple. whats wrong with them having sex? i just don't understand why it is such taboo to believe that Mary had sex with her husband not in Jesus' case, but in the case of her other children?
Thank you for your question.

And to clarify: my answer is based upon my personal opinion.

I believe that Joseph was a pure and holy man... and I believe sex is intended for the procreation of children... and since (as I mentioned before) I believe Joseph and Mary decided that they would remain pure to focus on their primary task: raising Jesus... having sex "just for fun" and not for procreation would have certainly been simply "selfish".

Just my opinion... thanks for the chat.

i totally agree with you joe that she COULD have retained her virginity, I just don't believe that she did because that would diminish the miraculous birth of Christ. I hope what i'm saying make sense. I believe without a doubt that God can do anything including have a child be born of a virigin because he did once already. I am not one to say that i understand God's plan entirely, but it seems to me that Christ's virgin birth was meant to be a special event unique to the Messiahs birth only. for Mary to have had other children though was a virgin would make the birth of the Messiah not so unique.

Good point Joe.... my personal opinion on this as a convert to the Church relied on this.
I just could not see Joseph putting his selfish desires ahead of the most important "job" any parents in history were given: raising our divine Lord into the man that would save us all from sin.

I know this is not "proof" of anything... but just wanted to share.:D

All with Peter to Jesus through Mary!
Tadita83, Scott, et al

I don't think that God needed to prove himself, as it were to make the virgin birth even more miraculous. Or, for that matter, whether Joseph (by the way, that's a great name) had “desires.” I think Mary remaining virgin had more to do with the following verse:

Luke 1:45 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Mary completely subjected herself to the will of God; in effect became the “handmaiden” of God, willingly, knowingly, in spite of her young age. And after this proclamation, her spirit “rejoiced.”

Luke 1:45.. My soul doth magnify the Lord.
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Shall call me blessed... These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.
49 Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
51 He hath showed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy.
55 As he spoke to our fathers: to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

I would say that it was more a spiritual response of subjecting oneself (Mary's self) to God's will. If there is a “proof” I would vote for this one.

JoeT

??
Where does scripture say that scripture is the sole authority? Nowhere. Of course this is a major dividing point (Why, I am not sure since Scripture affirms that it is NOT the sole authority).

We could go into that in detail, but we don't need to. Simply because there are 66 books that we agree are canonical, and scripture commands that we not add to the word of God (Prov 30:5-6 and others). So if you wish to add to those 66 books, show us that validation rthat proves that they are in fact the word of God. The onus is on you to validate any additional claims.


There was no New Testament for the first 300 years of Christianity. What did the early Christians rely on?

Really? Why are parts referred to even in the NT itself as scripture?

Mark 6:2-4 (King James Version)


2And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man these things? And what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?


3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.


Galatians 1:18-20



18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
20Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

There was no New Testament for the first 300 years of Christianity. What did the early Christians rely on?

300 years of Christianity?...it's only been about 2008, and matthew was written between 61 and 70 A.D Acts was written between 60 and 64 A.D. Rev. was written between 90 and 99 A.D.

There was no New Testament for the first 300 years of Christianity. What did the early Christians rely on?
The early church used the Old Testament books plus the apostolic oral tradition (apostles' accounts of spending time with Jesus and what he said and did). Of course, the churches that received epistles (letters) from the various apostles used those in the teaching of and preaching to their members.

Matt 1:24-25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(KJV)

Note the word "till" clearly implying that he did "know" her AFTER Jesus was born.

Matt 1:24-25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(KJV)

Note the word "till" clearly implying that he did "know" her AFTER Jesus was born.


“Tilll” is a Scriptural figure of speech. This has been taught from the beginning by the Magisterium of the Church. The following is a theological tact. Halvidius made the same argument that sisters and brethren were “proof” that the Virgin Mary had children. The argument surrounding the “till” was settled by St. Jerome.



St. Jerome, Against Helvidius (circa) 383 A.D.

…so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, Isaiah 46:4 Even to old age I am he. Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, Matthew 28:20 Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord? Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. Granted that the passage relates to our Lord's human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fulness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David also in the fourth Song of Ascents speaks thus, Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us. Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground?

Why is the Ever Virgin Mary a threat to Protestantism?

JoeT

“Tilll” is a Scriptural figure of speech.

You might have a weak argument if it was not for the fact that scripture tells us specifically that Mary had additional children. We cannot ignore the context of the whole of scripture.


This has been taught from the beginning by the Magisterium of the Church. The following is a theological tact.

I do not care what the private interpretation of your denomination is. I prefer to go by what the word of God says rather than the private interpretation of men.

Originally Posted by JoeT777
which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation
How can you be sure that Matt 1:24-25 denotes no limitation? And not what till means in Matt 2:9; Matt 10:23; Matt 13:33; Mark 9:9

Jerome's argument is not flawless after all.

==================

Originally Posted by Peter Wilson
55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
I think Mark 6:3 holds a stronger support that Mary have children--Jesus had sisters in flesh (who were unbelievers).

The early church used the Old Testament books plus the apostolic oral tradition (apostles' accounts of spending time with Jesus and what he said and did). Of course, the churches that received epistles (letters) from the various apostles used those in the teaching of and preaching to their members.

Just to add what to what you have said, the Apostles subsequently wrote their teachings down and we have them today in the New Testament, not as a separate additional teaching, and their teachings are in complete harmony with the Old Testament.

Matt 1:24-25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(KJV)

Note the word "till" clearly implying that he did "know" her AFTER Jesus was born.

It puzzles me to no end how somebody can say this is figurative.

In the O.T. knowing your wife means sexual relationship and the fact that he knew marry BEFORE Jesus' birth WHAT was there not to know about her in any other way?
So if it is figuratively WHAT then did he KNOW about her after Jesus was born that he didn't know before he was born?


“Tilll” is a Scriptural figure of speech. This has been taught from the beginning by the Magisterium of the Church. The following is a theological tact. Halvidius made the same argument that sisters and brethren were “proof” that the Virgin Mary had children. The argument surrounding the “till” was settled by St. Jerome.

JoeT

Joseph having more kids seems more a threat to Catholic's than Mary being a virgin is to Protestants because it is not a threat either way... at least to us... why is that?

It puzzles me to no end how somebody can say this is figurative.

In the O.T. knowing your wife means sexual relationship and the fact that he knew marry BEFORE Jesus' birth WHAT was there not to know about her in any other way?
So if it is figuratively WHAT then did he KNOW about her after Jesus was born that he didn't know before he was born?



Joseph having more kids seems more a threat to Catholic's than Mary being a virgin is to Protestants because it is not a threat either way...at least to us....why is that?

The objection was in the word "till." St. Jerome shows that the objection is spurious.

If its not a threat then why the anxiety in proving it to be false?

Why is the Ever Virgin Mary a threat to Protestantism?

JoeT

Some people just like to wonder about things that doesn't make it a threat.

I wonder about how many stars, galaxies, planets are actually out in space and how vast the universe is does that make it a threat?

Usually people who want to project something onto somebody it is often the way they themselves actually see it... would it be a threat to your religion if she actually did give birth to other children? Would it make her a sinner in your eyes or what? Why is it so important to you that she be denied or deny Joseph a relationship AFTER Jesus was born?

The objection was in the word "till." St. Jerome shows that the objection is spurious.

Private interpretation, and this does not take into account the fact that scripture is quite specific in the fact that Mary had other children.


If its not a threat then why the anxiety in proving it to be false?

Love of the truth and integrity found in God's word would be my interest. Once you start tearing apart the truth found in God's word to support your denominations variant doctrinal teachings, then it is the start of a slippery slope which opens the way to altering other parts of God's word.

How can you be sure that Matt 1:24-25 denotes no limitation? And not what till means in Matt 2:9; Matt 10:23; Matt 13:33; Mark 9:9

Jerome's argument is not flawless after all.

==================

I think Mark 6:3 holds a stronger support that Mary have children--Jesus had sisters in flesh (who were unbelievers).


Well, no I couldn't agree to a statement like that. I only pasted a small part of St. Jerome's tract, maybe it would be wise to read the remainder. Brother refers to clansman -link. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm)

Mark 6: 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him.

JoeT

Well, no I couldn't agree to a statement like that. I only pasted a small part of St. Jerome’s tract, maybe it would be wise to read the remainder. Brother refers to clansman -link. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm)

Mark 6: 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him.

JoeT

Why do you make one man's opinion the authority over doctrine?

So if it is figuratively WHAT then did he {Joseph} KNOW about her {Mary} after Jesus was born that he didn't know before he was born?


So any Catholics can you answer me?

Why is the Ever Virgin Mary a threat to Protestantism?
If the Catholic Church has lied about (misrepresented?) that, what else has been misrepresented?

So any Catholics can you answer me?

Think about, relationships such as marriage don't rely on physical contact. Rather, such relationships rely on love. Ask yourself why must there have been a physical relationship between Mary and Joseph for your faith to work?

Why is the Ever Virgin Mary a threat to Protestantism?

JoeT

If the Catholic Church has lied about (misrepresented?) that, what else has been misrepresented?

That's a big claim Wondergirl. Do you wish to show us how this could be?

JoeT

That's a big claim Wondergirl. Do you wish to show us how this could be?

JoeT

I am sure she could but I am even more sure Catholics would still not see it.

Think about, relationships such as marriage don't rely on physical contact. Rather, such relationships rely on love. Ask yourself why must there have been a physical relationship between Mary and Joseph for your faith to work?

Why is the Ever Virgin Mary a threat to Protestantism?

JoeT

Open your eyes the Bible says NOTHING about sex between a husband and a wife being wrong so WHY IS IT such a threat to you that she may have actually been ONE with HER husband as God honors Biblically?

In fact the Bible says do not listen to *religions* that forbid and preach abstinance

I am sure she could but I am even more sure Catholics would still not see it.

Not only would I not believe it; I'd suggest that it wouldn't be true either.

JoeT

Just proves Catholics will only believe what they are taught no matter what proof is given otherwise.

Open your eyes the Bible says NOTHING about sex between a husband and a wife being wrong

I never said there was something wrong with a physical relationship between husband and wife. In fact good Catholics celebrate life with large families.

JoeT

That's a big claim Wondergirl. Do you wish to show us how this could be?

JoeT
I didn't claim anything. Note the word "if."

Why did the Catholic Church make Mary a virgin her whole life?

I never said there was something wrong with a physical relationship between husband and wife. In fact good Catholics celebrate life with large families.

JoeT

So if she was free to have a sexual relationship with Joseph then why does the Catholics insist she was a virgin all her life? Why is it such a threat to Catholics if she had more children? Once she gave birth to Jesus her obligation was over and she was free to live a godly Christian life just as any godly Christian woman.

So if she was free to have a sexual relationship with Joseph then why does the Catholics insist she was a virgin all her life? Why is it such a threat to Catholics if she had more children? Once she gave birth to Jesus her obligation was over and she was free to live a godly Christian life just as any godly Christian woman.

The whole doctrine is based on a non-canonical, apochryphal document called the Protoevangelium of James. This book is not even considered canonical by the Roman Catholic denomination.

So if she was free to have a sexual relationship with Joseph then why does the Catholics insist she was a virgin all her life? Why is it such a threat to Catholics if she had more children? Once she gave birth to Jesus her obligation was over and she was free to live a godly Christian life just as any godly Christian woman.

I thought you'd never ask. Its as much, maybe more of a threat to Protestants than Cahtolics. It's a threat to Christianity as a whole. Without a Virgin Mary, Christianity, including Protestantism, is soiled with the sin of Adam.

Well I'm glad you asked. The answer to why Catholics believe in the one true faith that holds the Mother of God ever virgin is in the following verse.
Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? For the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN.

A woman conceives without the co-operation of man. What comes to life is the Word Incarnate. The mother is said to “compass a man.” Once God conceives Mary's womb becomes the dwelling place of God; a Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies. To have had additional children would mean one of two things. More than one God came from Mary – which I think we would both agree is ridiculous. Or, that the Mary the Tabernacle of the Most High God was desecrated by Joseph and Mary – which I think you would agree is equally absurd.

You do know what a Tabernacle is don't you? - link (http://www.the-tabernacle-place.com/tabernacle_articles/what_is_the_tabernacle.aspx)

Thus, Mary, the Mother of God, was Ever Virgin

JoeT

virgin Mary MEANS she was a virgin BEFORE giving birth to JESUS!

YOU never said there was something wrong with a physical relationship between husband and wife. In fact good Catholics celebrate life with large families.
SO WHY do you deny Mary to celebrate life with a large family?

How can it be desecrated by Joseph and Mary when God says a physical relationship between a husband and wife is blessed and honored?

How does it mean that more than one God came from Mary whenever it would be Joseph that was the father of the others and NOT God himself?

I do believe your reasoning is very faulty. So I do not see where it is absurd for Mary to have children. I see where it is absurd for her to not have any more children.

NO threat to Protestants whatsoever one way or another!

virgin Mary MEANS she was a virgin BEFORE giving birth to JESUS!

YOU never said there was something wrong with a physical relationship between husband and wife. In fact good Catholics celebrate life with large families.
SO WHY do you deny Mary to celebrate life with a large family?

How can it be desecrated by Joseph and Mary when God says a physical relationship between a husband and wife is blessed and honored?

How does it mean that more than one God came from Mary whenever it would be Joseph that was the father of the others and NOT God himself?

I do believe your reasoning is very faulty. So I do not see where it is absurd for Mary to have children. I see where it is absurd for her to not have any more children.

NO threat to Protestants whatsoever one way or another!

Mosaic Law required that the spot on which the Tabernacle was built remain holy ground when the tents were taken down and removed. The spot was usually marked with Altar, only priests were to enter onto the spot.

So am I hearing you say that God is not Incarnate and that Mary's womb holds no significance? Truly strange from a Christian.

JoeT

Mosaic Law required that the spot on which the Tabernacle was built remain holy ground when the tents were taken down and removed. The spot was usually marked with Altar, only priests were to enter onto the spot.
OT situation. No relation to Mary.


So am I hearing you say that God is not Incarnate and that Mary's womb holds no significance? Truly strange from a Christian.
Huh? It was a one-shot deal by the Holy Spirit to create Jesus in a virgin's womb. The rest of Mary's children were from Joseph's seed, and she was no longer a virgin then.

Truly strange from a Christian?

What is truly strange?

Mary was chosen by God to be Jesus mother. AFTER Jesus was born Mary was free from her purpose of being a virgin. Joseph KNEW Mary. Mary was free to have children. The Bible says HOLY matrimony meaning there is NO sin involved.

Why is that so complicated?

Truly strange from a Christian?

What is truly strange?

Mary was chosen by God to be Jesus mother. AFTER Jesus was born Mary was free from her purpose of being a virgin. Joseph KNEW Mary. Mary was free to have children. The Bible says HOLY matrimony meaning there is NO sin involved.

Why is that so complicated?

No, that's not quite right. She submitted to God's will becoming the Handmaiden of God. She wasn’t chosen. She cooperated with God’s will – of her own free will; a marked difference.

JoeT

Okay SO she submitted to God's will -either way, -Does that mean that she is forced to be obligated to her choice of submission after her part is fulfilled? I mean if I made a promise to fulfill something or I submitted to doing something for someone does that mean I am required to live a certain life for thereon after once my *obligation* has been fulfilled?
NO and the Bible says that too.

[QUOTE=N0help4u]Okay SO she submitted to God's will -either way, -Does that mean that she is forced to be obligated to her choice of submission after her part is fulfilled? [QUOTE]

Yes because she became like the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies. Her womb became a Holy place.

JoeT

Me thinks you are reading too much into things.

Me thinks you are reading too much into things.


Ok, but its equally possible you're not reading enough into the Scripture.

JoeT

No, that's not quite right. She submitted to God's will becoming the Handmaiden of God. She wasn’t chosen. She cooperated with God’s will – of her own free will; a marked difference.

JoeT
Of course God chose her. The Bible say so. Luke 1:30--And the angel said, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God." Then Mary was confused and wondered why she had been chosen, but she finally submitted to God's will. And yes, she could have said no.

Yes because she became like the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies. Her womb became a Holy place.

JoeT
But only while Jesus was in it.

But only while Jesus was in it.

Don't forget. Christ was first and foremost fulfillment of Mosaic Law (The Old Testament). He lived the Law, like no man could because he was pure without the stain of sin. He was the Messiah of the Old Testament. His Tabernacle was where ever He was. That makes the very ground he walked on Holy; it makes the womb of Mary Sacred, for that one residence and forever.

Mary was ever Virgin.

JoeT

Don’t forget. Christ was first and foremost, fulfillment of Mosaic Law (The Old Testament). He lived the Law, like no man could because he was pure without the stain of sin. He was the Messiah of the Old Testament.

JoeT
Yes. So?

Yes. So?

Re-read previous post. I added the explanation to it.

it makes the womb of Mary Sacred, for that one residence and forever.

Jesus was sacred, not Mary's womb--ever.

If I put my life savings into a paper bag, the bag becomes valuable too?

Mary was a sinful human, just like us. She was sinful while she carried Jesus. She was sinful after His birth. Mary was never without sin. Only Jesus was.

Mary was a sinful human, just like us. She was sinful while she carried Jesus. She was sinful after His birth. Mary was never without sin. Only Jesus was.


Really now! Let's see the Lamb worthy of sacrifice was defiled at birth? Would you give up Christ for spite because you find the Catholic Church so objectionable?

To give you a bit more to think about, lets carry this theme to the Blessed Virgin Mary being Immaculate. If we consider the womb of Mary as a Tabernacle then we have to consider that Mary and the Tabernacle were ritually cleaned. The essence of original sin was removed from her. She was given a special grace (my words) removing every emotion, passion, and debilities inherent in original sin. She was made pure to receive the purest of lambs; just as the Tabernacle was ritually cleaned before it was consecrated. (Also see Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28)


JoeT

Really now! Let's see the Lamb worthy of sacrifice was defiled at birth? Would you give up Christ for spite because you find the Catholic Church so objectionable?

To give a bit more to think about, lets carry this theme to the Blessed Virgin Mary being Immaculate. If we consider the womb of Mary as a Tabernacle then we have to consider that Mary and the Tabernacle were ritually cleaned. The essence of original sin was removed from her. She was given a special grace (my words) removing every emotion, passion, and debilities inherent in original sin. She was made pure to receive the purest of lambs; just as the Tabernacle was ritually cleaned before it was consecrated. (Also see Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28) JoeT
Good grief! Nothing against Mary. She didn't have to be sinless for God to create a sinless Jesus. Mary wasn't immaculate. She was just like you and me. God did a miracle. I don't accept your Tabernacle thing. She was not given a special grace (why do we care about YOUR words in this?) and was not made pure. Miracle. Think miracle. Jesus had to be sinless in order to be the perfect sacrifice, but Mary had nothing to do with that.

How was Mary ritually cleaned? How was the essence of original sin removed from her?
When and how did she get cleansed?
Why would emotion, passion and debilities be removed from her when the Bible says that even Jesus came to experience what we experience in our human form (without sinning of course). It says he was tempted in every way known to man so you are claiming that Mary not only had no sin, but she also had no emotion or passion?

All she did was come from a special blood line AND submit her will to honoring and pleasing God.

Good grief! Nothing against Mary. She didn't have to be sinless for God to create a sinless Jesus. Mary wasn't immaculate. She was just like you and me. God did a miracle. I don't accept your Tabernacle thing. She was not given a special grace (why do we care about YOUR words in this?) and was not made pure. Miracle. Think miracle. Jesus had to be sinless in order to be the perfect sacrifice, but Mary had nothing to do with that.

Yes she had to be sinless for Christ be compassed in her womb.

The Immaculate Conception-link (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)refers to the birth of Mary. Tradition (small t) holds that it was at her birth that she became, as it were, protected from sin and cleansed of original sin.

JoeT

Yes she had to be sinless for Christ be compassed in her womb.

The Immaculate Conception-link (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)refers to the birth of Mary. Tradition (small t) holds that it was at her birth that she became, as it were, protected from sin and cleansed of original sin.

JoeT
No, she didn't have to be sinless. That was the miracle, that God chosen a mortal woman as the mother of His Son. There is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that says Mary was sinless.

Mary was born sinful, and stayed that way all her life.

Find me a non-Catholic proof that I am wrong. You won't be able to.

How was Mary ritually cleaned? How was the essence of original sin removed from her?
When and how did she get cleansed?
Why would emotion, passion and debilities be removed from her when the Bible says that even Jesus came to experience what we experience in our human form (without sinning of course). It says he was tempted in every way known to man so you are claiming that Mary not only had no sin, but she also had no emotion or passion?

All she did was come from a special blood line AND submit her will to honoring and pleasing God.


The difference here is that she was “protected”. She didn’t resist temptation like you and I because of this protection. See my post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-mary-called-ever-virgin-246321-4.html#post1202349)



JoeT

Find me a non-Catholic proof that I am wrong.

Really now, a non-Catholic proof? The point is that regardless of the source, the proof would still be “Catholic”.

Nice try

JoeT

The difference here is that she was “protected”. She didn’t resist temptation like you and I because of this protection. See my post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-mary-called-ever-virgin-246321-4.html#post1202349)


And do you have any scripture to validate this claim, or will you have no answer to this question also?

Really now, a non-Catholic proof? The point is that regardless of the source, the proof would still be “Catholic”.

Nice try

JoeT

That seems a bit arrogant - to suggest that everything belongs to your denomination.

The difference here is that she was “protected”. She didn’t resist temptation like you and I because of this protection. See my post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-mary-called-ever-virgin-246321-4.html#post1202349)
That's not Biblical.

No, she didn't have to be sinless. That was the miracle, that God chosen a mortal woman as the mother of His Son. There is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that says Mary was sinless.

Mary was born sinful, and stayed that way all her life.

Find me a non-Catholic proof that I am wrong. You won't be able to.

Actually, Mary said that she had sinned, and was in need of a Saviour:

Luke 1:46-49
46 And Mary said:
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.
49 For He who is mighty has done great things for me,
And holy is His name.
NKJV

A person who has not sinned needs no Savior.
She refers to the lowly state that she is in.
She speaks of what He has done for her.

That's not Biblical.

You do remember Scripture and Tradition. Do you want me to trot out St. Agustine again?

JoeT.

You do remember Scripture and Tradition. Do you want me to trot out St. Agustine again?

JoeT.

Personally, I'd like to see you deal with some scripture rather than the opinions of men.

They can't do that our their traditions/doctrines would crumble!

They can't do that our their traditions/doctrines would crumble!!

You are absolutely right. They cannot defend a bit of this from scripture.

You do remember Scripture and Tradition. Do you want me to trot out St. Agustine again?
So only Catholics believe Mary was sinless. And they believe that because of "tradition," not because the Bible says so.

They can't do that our their traditions/doctrines would crumble!!

Look, try reading the Old Testament. But this time remember that words mean things.

JoeT

... and?.
It will show you what wondergirl, tom and Peter are all saying

Look, try reading the Old Testament. But this time remember that words mean things.
So, depending on how one interpret Bible words, they get a certain meaning.

Specifically what verses in the O. T. refer to Mary as the tabernacle?

So only Catholics believe Mary was sinless. And they believe that because of "tradition," not because the Bible says so.


As I recall you had stated that you were raised Lutheran. It seems strange that you would reject the Virgin Mary being that of all the Catholic doctrine Martin Luther rejected, he didn't reject this one.

JoeT

As I recall you had stated that you were raised Lutheran. It seems strange that you would reject the Virgin Mary being that of all the Catholic doctrine Martin Luther rejected, he didn't reject this one.

JoeT
Lutherans are never taught this about Mary, nor is it mentioned.

Luther was raised in the Catholic Church and was an Augustinian monk, and was steeped for many years in Catholic thinking. As time went by, he considered Mary worthy of honor, but not a sinless person.

Yes, he did.

Prove it.

Rejecting the virgin Mary? Who is rejecting the virgin Mary and I went to a Lutheran Church to and they never taught that Mary was always a virgin or any of that.

Lutherans believe she was a virgin until after Jesus was born. They DO NOT teach she still was AFTER Jesus was born. They say AND THEN Joseph KNEW her,

Prove it.

Joe,

Rather than trying to point the spotlight on someone else, let us not forget that the onus remains on you to prove that scripture says that Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin. So far you have provided nothing.

Rejecting the virgin Mary? Who is rejecting the virgin Mary and I went to a Lutheran Church to and they never taught that Mary was always a virgin or any of that.

Lutherans believe she was a virgin until after Jesus was born. They DO NOT teach she still was AFTER Jesus was born. They say AND THEN Joseph KNEW her,

It is a common tactic of Roman Catholics to accuse non-Catholics of rejecting or demeaning Mary if we do not buy into their doctrine. I personally believe Mary was a very godly woman, but one in need of a Saviour nonetheless, and a normal woman who had a number of children after the virgin birth of Jesus.

Yes she was blessed above ALL woman but she was humble enough to KNOW she was NOT divine in any sense of the word.

Prove it.

Luther was raised in the Catholic Church and was an Augustinian monk, and was steeped for many years in Catholic thinking. As time went by, he considered Mary worthy of honor, but not a sinless person.

Luther and I share a birthday. I'll channel him tonight and let you know what he says.

Open your eyes the Bible says NOTHING about sex between a husband and a wife being wrong so WHY IS IT such a threat to you that she may have actually been ONE with HER husband as God honors Biblically??

In fact the Bible says do not listen to *religions* that forbid and preach abstinance

It absolutely does! I was just reading that today.
1 Corinthians 7

1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.


2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.


3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.


4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.


5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
Says it all!
Along with some other things that have been stated here.

Luther also though polygamy was acceptable...

Luther is a mixed bag, as are almost all human beings. He got some things right and some wrong.

Luther also though polygamy was acceptable....

Luther is a mixed bag, as are almost all human beings. He got some things right and some wrong.

I didn't know that. Do you have anything that cites this, or is this based on your own knowledge?

I didn't know that. Do you have anything that cites this, or is this based on your own knowledge?
Googling will suffice. You don't need me.

I didn't know that. Do you have anything that cites this, or is this based on your own knowledge?
Here's one for you --

From Wikipedia ("Polygamy") --

During the Protestant Reformation, in a document referred to simply as "Der Beichtrat" (or "The Confessional Advice" ),[25] Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living "constantly in a state of adultery and fornication,"[26] a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret however, to avoid public scandal.[27] Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.")[28]

(from the same article)
"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years' War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."

Here is what I found.
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid. pp. 329-330.)

I never heard that either but I would guess that since the Old Testament was full of people with more than one wife it was a culture thing and he was looking at it as okayed by God.

Here's one for you --

from Wikipedia ("Polygamy") --

During the Protestant Reformation, in a document referred to simply as "Der Beichtrat" (or "The Confessional Advice" ),[25] Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living "constantly in a state of adultery and fornication,"[26] a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret however, to avoid public scandal.[27] Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.")[28]

(from the same article)
"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."

Yes, I do remember now. Very good.

I never heard that either but I would guess that since the Old Testament was full of people with more than one wife it was a culture thing and he was looking at it as okayed by God.
If nothing else, Luther was very German, very pragmatic, very practical. Thanks to Luther, Kitty's spice rack was probably in alphabetical order.

Well, no I couldn't agree to a statement like that. I only pasted a small part of St. Jerome's tract, maybe it would be wise to read the remainder. Brother refers to clansman -link. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm)

Mark 6: 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him.

JoeT
I think this "small part" is sufficient enough for me to tell; I am sorry about this but I do not know why Jerome is such an authority as to the definition of till when he, himself, do not fully understand what he is saying.

He said "Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign?"

Then, he concluded "Of course His reign will then commence in its fulness when His enemies begin to be under His feet." without even citing a supporting biblical verse.

In fact, the Christ will cease to reign when he finally put His enemies under His feet. The bible clearly indicates why it is till he hath put all enemies under his feet; the reason--because Christ will put down ALL rule and ALL authority and power to the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Just FYI:

From the Lutheran Church MS website (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2195):

Q. I've heard that Martin Luther believed in Mary's immaculate conception, in her perpetual virginity and in praying to her. Is this how Lutherans still view Mary today?

A. Like Luther himself, Lutherans hold Mary in high esteem for the chosen role she played in God's plan of salvation. Lutherans have never objected to denoting Mary as the "Mother of God" (theotokos, "God-bearer"), since she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus was and is indeed God. Since the Son of God was and is sinless, it is evident that some miraculous "exception" was made in the conception of Jesus through Mary that prevented original sin from tainting the Christ-child. This accounts for Luther's comments about Mary being "entirely without sin" (as far as the conception was concerned). Lutherans today are not bound to Luther's personal views regarding how this was accomplished; in any event, it is clear from Luther's other and later writings on Mary that he did not hold to the view that Mary was personally devoid of all sin (which would mean that she would have had no need of forgiveness or salvation). Luther also held to the semper virgo (the perpetual virginity) of Mary. This, again, is a personal view to which Lutherans today are not bound. Scripture is not clear on this matter, and Lutherans do not regard it as a theological issue.

In his early years Luther was still greatly influenced by his rigorous Roman Catholic and monastic training. In his later writings he clearly rejects invocation to Mary and/or the saints as having no Scriptural mandate or promise. None of this undermines the opening sentence of this e-mail, which should be underscored as the final word on this issue.

A. Like Luther himself, Lutherans hold Mary in high esteem for the chosen role she played in God's plan of salvation.

I believe that this is true of all Christians.


Lutherans have never objected to denoting Mary as the "Mother of God" (theotokos, "God-bearer"), since she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus was and is indeed God.

If you limit God to Jesus alone, and if God began with the birth of Jesus, then you would be right.

But God is a trinity, father, Son and Holy Spirit. Further Jesus, as God, actually created Mary, so He pre-existed Her, is Her creator and her God. She cannot be the mother of God unless she pre-existed God Himself, making her a yet more powerful God.

Mary was the willing and submission vessel through whom God entered the world in the flesh. To claim that makes her "mother of God" is incorrect. When you start with an erroneous premise such as this, it is no surprised that you logically go one to an erroneous conclusion, which is...


Since the Son of God was and is sinless, it is evident that some miraculous "exception" was made in the conception of Jesus through Mary that prevented original sin from tainting the Christ-child.

This erroneous conclusion is directly refuted in scripture where mary says that she was in need of a Saviour.

Just FYI:

From the Lutheran Church MS website (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2195):

Q. I've heard that Martin Luther believed in Mary's immaculate conception, in her perpetual virginity and in praying to her. Is this how Lutherans still view Mary today?

A. Like Luther himself, Lutherans hold Mary in high esteem for the chosen role she played in God's plan of salvation. Lutherans have never objected to denoting Mary as the "Mother of God" (theotokos, "God-bearer"), since she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus was and is indeed God. Since the Son of God was and is sinless, it is evident that some miraculous "exception" was made in the conception of Jesus through Mary that prevented original sin from tainting the Christ-child. This accounts for Luther's comments about Mary being "entirely without sin" (as far as the conception was concerned). Lutherans today are not bound to Luther's personal views regarding how this was accomplished; in any event, it is clear from Luther's other and later writings on Mary that he did not hold to the view that Mary was personally devoid of all sin (which would mean that she would have had no need of forgiveness or salvation). Luther also held to the semper virgo (the perpetual virginity) of Mary. This, again, is a personal view to which Lutherans today are not bound. Scripture is not clear on this matter, and Lutherans do not regard it as a theological issue.

In his early years Luther was still greatly influenced by his rigorous Roman Catholic and monastic training. In his later writings he clearly rejects invocation to Mary and/or the saints as having no Scriptural mandate or promise. None of this undermines the opening sentence of this e-mail, which should be underscored as the final word on this issue.


Scott:

When considering Mary it is of paramount importance that we keep in mind Christ's words, Matt 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. By fulfilling the law Christ fulfills the Mosaic Covenant; without an Ever Virgin Mary this is not possible. In my opinion, this is one of the main failings of Lutherans

What do the words of Christ mean? He didn't come to destroy the Mosaic Law but to fulfill it. Christ wasn't just an ordinary Hebrew. He was both the High Priest and the sacrificial Lamb. He was both man and God. Christ's life was a living example of the Law.

Was not Christ's entire life an observance of the Jewish Feast days? Christ's crucifixion was in the spirit of Yom Kippur, atonement for our sins (which is what Yom Kippur means). When the Messiah's procession to the temple where the people waived palms and shouted “Hosanna” was living the feast of Sukkot. Couldn't we even say that Christ's birth in late December founded in the Jewish Hanukah – the lighting of the menorah? Christ even waits till the feast of Hanukah to declare that, “The Father and I are one.” No doubt we can find a corollary for each High Holyday in the Jewish calendar matching up with the recorded events in Christ's life.

Would we then expect no less an adherence to the Jewish ecclesiastic covenant of Moses? Would not the temple, the residence of God receive ritual cleaning? Would that temple then be kept in the manner of Jewish Tradition, clean and holy? Then we must consider that Mary the Mother of Jesus, Mother of God, was kept in such a way.

Given the verse, Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN we must conclude that Mary was Immaculate, protected from knowing the sins of Adam, protected from knowing the sins of men. How does one COMPASS Christ the man without COMPASSING the God that is Christ? At the moment God was infused, and conceived, Mary's Womb would have been spiritually clean; as clean as the ritual cleansing of the Tabernacle of Moses. Thus Mary's womb became the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies. This Tabernacle would have remained pure as did Mary in her of life celibacy.

Therefore, it becomes a matter of critical importance to the very existence to Christianity that Mary be immaculate and ever virgin. To hold any other view would be to deny Christ the God.

JoeT

By fulfilling the law Christ fulfills the Mosaic Covenant; without an Ever Virgin Mary this is not possible.
How so? Discussions of Mary's virginity eventually came to examine Mary's virginity during three periods: ante partum (i.e. before the birth of Christ); in partu (i.e. during the delivery of Christ); and post partum (i.e. after the birth of Christ)... so I can understand how it is "essential" to our faith that Mary was a virgin ante partum, but why if she was no longer a virgin AFTER the birth of Christ would He not be able to save us?

Therefore, it becomes a matter of critical importance to the very existence to Christianity that Mary be immaculate and ever virgin. To hold any other view would be to deny Christ the God.
Critical importance?

New one to me... sorry, Mary's role is ancillary at best... I don't call into question God's plan of salvation for us, but that being said you can be sure that we would be saved by the Cross of Christ NO MATTER what Mary did or did not do. Jesus was God and was NEVER dependent upon a human being... again, Mary's role (wonderful as it was) was not salvific in the strict sense.

My two cents.:D

How so? Discussions of Mary's virginity eventually came to examine Mary's virginity during three periods: ante partum (i.e. before the birth of Christ); in partu (i.e. during the delivery of Christ); and post partum (i.e. after the birth of Christ).... so I can understand how it is "essential" to our faith that Mary was a virgin ante partum, but why if she was no longer a virgin AFTER the birth of Christ would He not be able to save us?

Critical importance?

New one to me..... sorry, Mary's role is ancillary at best.... I don't call into question God's plan of salvation for us, but that being said you can be sure that we would be saved by the Cross of Christ NO MATTER what Mary did or did not do. Jesus was God and was NEVER dependent upon a human being .... again, Mary's role (wonderful as it was) was not salvific in the strict sense.

You're focusing on Mary herself (I think). But what I'm suggesting is that the focus is on what Christ does through Mary. His role is fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant; I'm arguing that everything must be viewed in relationship to Jewish Law and prophesies. God only reveals himself only from behind the veil of the Tabernacle in the old Covenant. Each element in the Tabernacle can be seen to have been portrayed at some point in Christ's life. As an example, we see his teaching on the “way of the truth” as being through a narrow gate, the light of Christ is symbolized by the menorah, I've mentioned once before in discussions about Matt 16 how the Apostles were unleavened and represented the Shewbread. Every element including the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies is somehow related to Christ's life. The scriptures seem to support Christ entered this world in a very mysterious way; God's way. Thus, Mary's womb must is that same container or Tabernacle as seen behind the Alter today. Would you suggest to me that whenever that Tabernacle becomes empty we can fill it with sin and not defile the Tabernacle? Thus, in my way of thinking, the Woman that bore Christ must be cleansed of original sin, and remain that way. I don't think this is so terribly original. I'll see if I can get some references. Just to make it clear, I'm not suggesting that Mary is in any form a deity, only special in the same way Moses would hold a Tabernacle special. Absent this spiritual protection Mary would no longer be Mother of God.

Take this away and we have an ordinary man being born to an ordinary woman. So in that sense, it's critical that Mary be Ever Virgin.

Anyway that's my half-penny's worth.

With Great Respect

JoeT

without an Ever Virgin Mary this is not possible.

Why? Where is this prophecied? And how would you explain away the fact that scripture records that she did not remain a virgin?


Then we must consider that Mary the Mother of Jesus, Mother of God, was kept in such a way.

Mary is not and cannot be mother of God. When did she give birth to the trinity? How did she pre-exist God?


Therefore, it becomes a matter of critical importance to the very existence to Christianity that Mary be immaculate and ever virgin.

Perhaps critical to your denominational beliefs, but not my faith.

The scriptures seem to support Christ entered this world in a very mysterious way; God’s way. Thus, Mary’s womb must is that same container or Tabernacle as seen behind the Alter today. Would you suggest to me that whenever that Tabernacle becomes empty we can fill it with sin and not defile the Tabernacle?
My only point is that Jesus could not be "contaminated" by sin... it's not possible... even if Mary was not a virgin... even if Mary was not immaculate... NOTHING would have changed.

Thus, in my way of thinking, the Woman that bore Christ must be cleansed of original sin, and remain that way.
I'm interested in hearing more... it is actually heresy to suggest that Christ could be born with sin.

Christ was born without sin by his own power (DIVINITY), not simply because Mary was without sin... the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."

Thanks for the chat Joe... we might be talking past each other... I hope we can clarify things in the next few posts... I do appreciate the charitable tone --- it's a nice change around here!

Peace,
S

My only point is that Jesus could not be "contaminated" by sin.... it's not possible.... even if Mary was not a virgin .... even if Mary was not immaculate.... NOTHING would have changed.

I'm interested in hearing more... it is actually heresy to suggest that Christ could be born with sin.


For once, I can agree with Scott.

But it is also important to note that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus, and that this had absolutely nothing to do with keeping sin from Jesus, but rather it was a sign:

Isa 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
NKJV

Once Jesus was born, the sign that this was the messiah has fulfilled it purpose. To claim that her virginity at Jesus birth had anything to do with causing sin to be imparted to Jesus is clearly contrary to what the Bible says. Further, the fact that Mary wdid not immaculate also, as Scott rightly says, affected Jesus' perfection. And once again, to claim that she was sinless is contrary to scripture.

My only point is that Jesus could not be "contaminated" by sin.... it's not possible.... even if Mary was not a virgin .... even if Mary was not immaculate.... NOTHING would have changed.

It’s beginning to become clear that the fault is mine. Somehow I’m not getting my point across. Try these two links, I won’t vouch for the website, but it looks more than safe.

The Assumption of the Mother of GOD (http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/assum.htm)
The Ark (http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/ark.htm)



I'm interested in hearing more... it is actually heresy to suggest that Christ could be born with sin.

Christ was born without sin by his own power (DIVINITY), not simply because Mary was without sin.... the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."
Well, we may be talking past each other. If the websites don’t make it clearer, I’ll take another stab at it.


Thanks for the chat Joe... we might be talking past each other.... I hope we can clarify things in the next few posts.... I do appreciate the charitable tone --- it's a nice change around here!

Yeah! I’m still wondering why though?

JoeT

keeping sin from Jesus
If Mary had to be sinless in order to conceive Jesus, then Mary's mother had to be sinless when she conceived Mary, and Mary's mother's mother had to be sinless when she conceived Mary's mother, and how far back do we have to go? Maybe Eve had begun a sinless line of women before The Fall?

If Mary had to be sinless in order to conceive Jesus, then Mary's mother had to be sinless when she conceived Mary, and Mary's mother's mother had to be sinless when she conceived Mary's mother, and how far back do we have to go? Maybe Eve had begun a sinless line of women before The Fall?

EXACTLY!!!

EXACTLY!!!

No, not quite. We call Mary's protection from original sin the “Immaculate Conception.” Mary is granted a singular privilege or grace being preserved from all stain of original sin at birth. The Church holds that at the moment her soul was infused into her body she was granted this Grace. There is no “scriptural proof” However, Genesis 3:15 suggests that Mary will will “crush” the head of the serpent. In Luke 1:28 we hear that Mary is “full of grace.” Tradition holds that Origen believed that Mary had a special advantage in grace. St. Chrysostom.

JoeT.

No, not quite. We call Mary's protection from original sin the “Immaculate Conception.” Mary is granted a singular privilege or grace being preserved from all stain of original sin at birth. The Church holds that at the moment her soul was infused into her body she was granted this Grace. There is no “scriptural proof” However, Genesis 3:15 suggests that Mary will will “crush” the head of the serpent. In Luke 1:28 we hear that Mary is “full of grace.” Tradition holds that Origen believed that Mary had a special advantage in grace. St. Chrysostom.

JoeT.
But that's what Protestants say about Jesus, that he was "granted a singular privilege or grace being preserved from all stain of original sin at birth." Why does the Catholic Church have to give Mary that same privilege? It was sufficient with Jesus. Mary doesn't need it. Otherwise, one is saying the Holy Spirit couldn't quite cut it with making Jesus sinless, so Mary (and all her female ancestors?) had to have that same privilege.

Actually, I could accept the female line of sinlessness much more easily than being asked to accept that only two people--Mary and Jesus--were sinless. Again, why Mary? It doesn't make sense. It isn't necessary.

The Holy Spirit's gift of purity was necessary for only one--Jesus.

Then WHY could not have Jesus just been born according to the way you claim Mary was born if it was all that simple?

AND NO it was not Mary that was professized (sp?) to curse Satan's head. That was the first prophecy of Jesus.
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/gn03-15.html

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring/[seed] and her offspring/[seed]; [he] will strike your head, and you will strike their/heel.
enmity between seeds = Jesus as the seed and is saying THE SEED will strike satans heel
Mary can not be her own seed.
strike his heel is speaking of Jesus death and therefore can not mean Mary.

Otherwise, one is saying the Holy Spirit couldn't quite cut it with making Jesus sinless,

So it was the Holy Spirit that made Christ sinless?

JoeT

So it was the Holy Spirit that made Christ sinless?

JoeT
Um, yeah. Now you're catching on. Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

Then WHY could not have Jesus just been born according to the way you claim Mary was born if it was all that simple?

AND NO it was not Mary that was prophesied to curse Satan's head. That was the first prophecy of Jesus.

Mary’s role is different. She had no power outside of that of being the Mother of God. Christ on the other hand was fulfilling prophesies of the Old Covenant. The temple which held him for 9 months was and remained a Tabernacle. Until Christ, God remained behind a veil. Behind that veil was the Holy of Holies, the dwelling place of God. In Mary’s womb, God remained behind a veil which was too, the dwelling place of God.

JoeT

Um, yeah. Now you're catching on. Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

Yeah, but it doesn't say that the Holy Spirit made Christ sinless. That's my point.

JoeT

Yeah but that doesn't make Mary equal with God but rather a servant to be an example to us that we should be servants too.

No, not quite. We call Mary's protection from original sin the “Immaculate Conception.” Mary is granted a singular privilege or grace being preserved from all stain of original sin at birth. The Church holds that at the moment her soul was infused into her body she was granted this Grace.

The church does not and never did hold to that. We see a rebuttal of that in scripture. Perhaps your denomination holds to that, but don't try to say that the whole church ever held to that unBiblical doctrine. Your denomination may be "a church", but it is not "The Church".

Mary herself denied it, and indicated that she had sin and required a Saviour:

Luke 1:46-48
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;
NKJV

If she had no sin, she would not have required a Saviour. She also referred to her "lowly" state, not her sinless or glorified state.


There is no “scriptural proof” However, Genesis 3:15 suggests that Mary will will “crush” the head of the serpent.

Only in poorer translations. In reality it says that He (Jesus) is the one to defeat Satan.

Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
NKJV


In Luke 1:28 we hear that Mary is “full of grace.”

"Grace" is undeserved merit. It is what we receive when we are saved. By definition, this argues against you because if she was sinless, she would have merited salvation and would have required no grace.

Eph 2:7-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

We who are saved all receive a fullness of grace. Indeed in Greek, the same term is used here referring to all who are saved:

Eph 1:4-6
He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.
NKJV

Therefore, the term which does not say "full of grace" but rather more rightly translated "highly favoured" refers to all who are saved. Mary is and was not sinless - she was saved through the grace of Jesus who she refers to as her Saviour. The word in Greek is "charitoo", which is defined as "to grace, i.e. indue with special honor"


Tradition holds that Origen believed that Mary had a special advantage in grace. St. Chrysostom.

Origen was declared a heretic.

"Origen got into theological trouble with the Church because of some extreme views adopted by his followers, the Origenists, whose views were attributed to Origen. In the course of this controversy, some of his other teachings came up, which were not accepted by the general church consensus. Among these were the preexistence of souls, universal salvation and a hierarchical concept of the Trinity. These teachings, and some of his followers' more extreme views, were declared anathema by a local council in Constantinople 545, and then an ecumenical council (Fifth Ecumenical Council) pronounced "15 anathemas"[18] against Origen in 553."
(Source: Origen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen))

I'll stand with God's word over your denominational tradition any day.

It’s beginning to become clear that the fault is mine. Somehow I’m not getting my point across. Try these two links, I won’t vouch for the website, but it looks more than safe.
I'm not sure what I'm looking for on those sites... they don't declare that Mary MUST have been anything or else Christ could not save us... or anything even close from what I skimmed over.

The doctrines and teachings about Mary DO NOT improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but are meant to help us live more fully by it.

Again, the fifth ecumenical council makes it quite clear that the proper subject of Jesus Christ... even in the womb... is his DIVINE PERSON. So, contrary to what some may believe, he was ALWAYS without sin (the Holy Spirit did not "make" Him so) and never could have been contaminated by sin.

In other words, if Jesus did not preserve Mary in the womb of her mother and protect her in life from personal sin, at the very moment the incarnate Word entered her body she would be instantly healed and made pure... but EVEN if she was NOT made sinless at that instant, it would change NOTHING... remember: DIVINE PERSON ---> can not inherit sin.

To suggest otherwise is blasphemy.

Be well.
S

Mary's role is different. She had no power outside of that of being the Mother of God.

She was not and could not be "mother of God".

1) God is a trinity - she was not mother of the Holy Spirit and the Father in any sense.
2) A mother pre-exists the chikld - she did not pre-exist God. Indeed, Her son created her.
3) She was merely a vessel through whom God entered the world. God was not conceived in her womb.


Christ on the other hand was fulfilling prophesies of the Old Covenant.

Yes He was.


The temple which held him for 9 months was and remained a Tabernacle. Until Christ, God remained behind a veil. Behind that veil was the Holy of Holies, the dwelling place of God.

Really? I could quote so many passages in the Old Testament where God spoke with men directly. Shall I?

Let me give you one conversation:

Judg 13:15-22
15 Then Manoah said to the Angel of the LORD, "Please let us detain You, and we will prepare a young goat for You." 16 And the Angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "Though you detain Me, I will not eat your food. But if you offer a burnt offering, you must offer it to the LORD." (For Manoah did not know He was the Angel of the LORD.) 17 Then Manoah said to the Angel of the LORD, "What is Your name, that when Your words come to pass we may honor You?" 18 And the Angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful?" 19 So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it upon the rock to the LORD. And He did a wondrous thing while Manoah and his wife looked on-- 20 it happened as the flame went up toward heaven from the altar-- the Angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar! When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground. 21 When the Angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and his wife, then Manoah knew that He was the Angel of the LORD. 22 And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God!"
NKJV

Where was the veil?



In Mary's womb, God remained behind a veil which was too, the dwelling place of God.

Do you deny the omnipresence of God? Are you saying that the trinity became flesh through Mary? Or are you denying the trinity?

ScottRC,
That is a superb answer and post regarding "Mary ever virgin".
Accurate and Very well done.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I'm not sure what I'm looking for on those sites.... they don't declare that Mary MUST have been anything or else Christ could not save us.... or anything even close from what I skimmed over.

The doctrines and teachings about Mary DO NOT improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but are meant to help us live more fully by it.
I wasn’t trying to suggest anything of the sort. But, obviously I need to work more on articulating my thoughts and providing scriptural confirmation.


Again, the fifth ecumenical council makes it quite clear that the proper subject of Jesus Christ... even in the womb.... is his DIVINE PERSON. So, contrary to what some may believe, he was ALWAYS without sin (the Holy Spirit did not "make" Him so) and never could have been contaminated by sin.
In my own defense, I’ve got to respond to this. My intent wasn’t to say that Mary MADE Christ pure; but rather because he was pure she too needed to be pure.

Now that I’ve trampled all through the rose garden; I’m going to drop this approach for now; at least until I can evaluate my position. Obviously I need to re-formulate and restate my thoughts to better conform to the Teachings of the Church.

JoeT

JoeT777,
Yes you are right.
Obviously, because baby Jesus in the womb was pure Mary HAD TO BE pure.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

In my own defense, I’ve got to respond to this. My intent wasn’t to say that Mary MADE Christ pure; but rather because he was pure she too needed to be pure.
... and this is blasphemy.

Christ did not NEED Mary to be anything...

Looking forward to chatting after you gather your thoughts.

[Jesus] was pure she too needed to be pure.
Not at all. Mary is the perfect example of the whole point of the Gospel message--even though we are steeped in sin and guilt, God comes to us wherever we are and sends His Holy Spirit to dwell within us. Like with Mary, despite our fallen state, God is willing and even eager to work miracles of love within us.

JoeT777,
Yes you are right.
Obviously, because baby Jesus in the womb was pure Mary HAD TO BE pure.


Then for Mary to be pure, her parents would have to both be pure, right back to Adam and Eve. If they were all pure, then Jesus' death on the cross was for nothing.

ScottRC described this claim accurately in post #146.

... and this is blasphemy.

Christ did not NEED Mary to be anything.....

Looking forward to chatting after you gather your thoughts.

No, but looking from our vantage, after the fact, we see that it was the way He chose to do it. Christ could have appeared on a great white stallion if He chose to do so. But what was done, was done through Mary.

JoeT

No, but looking from our vantage, after the fact, we see that it was the way He chose to do it. Christ could have appeared on a great white stallion if He chose to do so. But what was done, was done through Mary.
Granted... but appreciating for God's plan does not mean that we must try to force additional meaning upon the role of Mary, and certainly not at the expense of the truth about our Lord.

Even our non-Catholic friends here appreciate the awesome role of Mary... but I think our discussions about the Theotokos should be founded upon her humility... this simple handmaid of the Lord told us "Do whatever he tells you" and THAT is the most wonderful teaching she has given us.

Totus tuus,
Scott

No, but looking from our vantage, after the fact, we see that it was the way He chose to do it. Christ could have appeared on a great white stallion if He chose to do so. But what was done, was done through Mary.

What you claim He did with Mary is only true if we find that it is validated by God's word. It is not true simply because one of more men believe it.

In this case the claim is not just not found in scripture, it is refuted by scripture.

ScottRC
Agreed!!
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Even our non-Catholic friends here appreciate the awesome role of Mary .... but I think our discussions about the Theotokos should be founded upon her humility.... this simple handmaid of the Lord told us "Do whatever he tells you" and THAT is the most wonderful teaching she has given us.

That "simple handmaid" would reject being given attributes of deity.

Granted.... but appreciating for God's plan does not mean that we must try to force additional meaning upon the role of Mary, and certainly not at the expense of the truth about our Lord.

Even our non-Catholic friends here appreciate the awesome role of Mary .... but I think our discussions about the Theotokos should be founded upon her humility.... this simple handmaid of the Lord told us "Do whatever he tells you" and THAT is the most wonderful teaching she has given us.

Totus tuus,
Scott


Professor Scott:

I ran across this while preparing my “homework” you assigned last night. It seems that St. Jerome thought of Mary as Ever Virgin:

21. But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

JoeT

Question for the Prof: Unrelated to topic - What's a "camel dance"? St. Jerome seems to take some kind of pleasure in watching a "camel dance." Do you know what he means?

I ran across this while preparing my “homework” you assigned last night. It seems that St. Jerome thought of Mary as Ever Virgin:

Why would it matter what he thought? Would you not agree that God's word is more important?

Tj3,
No one that I know of has given Mary, the mother of Jesus, divine attribute status.
So what were you inferring when you said this "That "simple handmaid" would reject being given attributes of deity."
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Professor Scott:

I ran across this while preparing my “homework” you assigned last night.
I'm not sure if you're trying to be respectful or just a jerk... if it is the former, please know I don't expect you to do anything other than what pleases you.

If it is the latter, feel free to put me on "ignore".

It seems that St. Jerome thought of Mary as Ever Virgin:
So did Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius... and me. ;)

Not sure what point you are trying to make...

Question for the Prof: Unrelated to topic - What's a "camel dance"? St. Jerome seems to take some kind of pleasure in watching a "camel dance." Do you know what he means?
While I can't be sure, I heard the term used while in Africa referring to the practice of tying up one of the front legs of a Camel to prevent them from running away... when they try, they simply bounce and shake (dance)----- and so it's generally used as a reference to a futile attempt at something... but again, I can't be sure that's what Jerome is referring to.

Peace.

Tj3,
No one that I know of has given Mary, the mother of Jesus, divine attribute status.

Not true, one cannot be "mother of God" without being another god. Scripture says that only Jesus (God) was sinless, and yet this attribute of deity is attributed to Mary.

These are just a couple. Alphonse Liguori also said that God would have bow the knee to Mary, that Mary must be worshiped, and that she was omnipotent.

Not true, one cannot be "mother of God" without being another god.
Just FYI:

Adoption at the Third Ecumenical Council As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. The competing view at that council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning "Birth-giver to Christ." This was the view advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not his divine nature.

Nestorius' view was anathematized by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), since it was considered to be dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Because Mary is the mother of God the Son, she is therefore duly entitled Theotokos.

Calling Mary the Theotokos or the Mother of God (Μητηρ Θεου) was never meant to suggest that Mary was coeternal with God, or that she existed before Jesus Christ or God existed.
Theotokos - OrthodoxWiki (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos)

Scripture says that only Jesus (God) was sinless, and yet this attribute of deity is attributed to Mary.
You'd be correct if the teaching was that Mary did this on her own, but the teaching simply states that Mary was preserved from sin BY CHRIST... so, the charge of a "divine attribut" does not work here either.

These are just a couple. Alphonse Liguori also said that God would have bow the knee to Mary, that Mary must be worshiped, and that she was omnipotent.
I love his Stations of the Cross, but all in all I think St. Liguori was a nut! :D He was quite wrong if he indeed said any of those things.

Be well.

Tj3,
You and I have been through that before an I provided several bible passages that show that Mary was/is the mother of God the Son.
You however rejected what the bible said.
And it is just your opinion that Mary being the mother of God gives her divine status.
With God all things are possible and the bible tells us that God had a human female be the mother of His Son who at the moment of conception was God the Son.
So the bible says, so I believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Just FYI:

Adoption at the Third Ecumenical Council As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church.

As I have indicated before, my beliefs are not driven or directed by the teachings of any denomination or the councils of that denomination.


Nestorius' view was anathematized by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), since it was considered to be dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Because Mary is the mother of God the Son, she is therefore duly entitled Theotokos.

The problem here is that to correct one error, the denomination chose to go too far the other way, creating a second error.


Calling Mary the Theotokos or the Mother of God (Μητηρ Θεου) was never meant to suggest that Mary was coeternal with God, or that she existed before Jesus Christ or God existed.

The problem is that when you use extreme terminaology like this, regardless of whether the original intent was not so radical, over time we end up with people today who teach that Mary was indeed the mother of God, which requires that she be a god in her own right and pre-exist God..


You'd be correct if the teaching was that Mary did this on her own, but the teaching simply states that Mary was preserved from sin BY CHRIST...

It does not matter how. It is still contrary to scripture, and scripture still says that ALL have sinned except Jesus. There are no other exceptions, therefore one would have to be God to have not sinned.


I love his Stations of the Cross, but all in all I think St. Liguori was a nut! :D He was quite wrong if he indeed said any of those things.

Are you aware of that he was declared a doctor of your denomination?

Tj3,
You and I have been through that before an I provided several bible passages that show that Mary was/is the mother of God the Son.

Note that you change it from being "mother of God"?

She was the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world in the flesh.


You however rejected what the bible said.

Really? Show me where the Bible says that Mary is "mother of God".


And it is just your opinion that Mary being the mother of God gives her divine status.

Scripture tells us that no other human but Jesus was sinless, therefore Mary would have to be a god.

ScottRC,
Regarding Mary the mother of God that was another excellent and accurate post.

As I have indicated before, my beliefs are not driven or directed by the teachings of any denomination or the councils of that denomination.
I remember, but to attack the teaching, it might be a good idea to actually try to refute the ACTUAL teaching instead of attacking a straw man.

The problem here is that to correct one error, the denomination chose to go too far the other way, creating a second error.
I still don't understand what the "second error" was... since the quote I provided should have made it quite clear your objection to the term is not based upon the facts of the matter.

The problem is that when you use extreme terminaology like this, regardless of whether the original intent was not so radical, over time we end up with people today who teach that Mary was indeed the mother of God, which requires that she be a god in her own right and pre-exist God..
I can agree with you in principle here... I'm sure you've noticed I'm not a huge fan of Mariology.

It does not matter how. It is still contrary to scripture, and scripture still says that ALL have sinned except Jesus. There are no other exceptions, therefore one would have to be God to have not sinned.
I understand your objection... but don't agree with your conclusion.

Are you aware of that he was declared a doctor of your denomination?
Yep... doesn't mean he never made mistakes.:D

I remember, but to attack the teaching, it might be a good idea to actually try to refute the ACTUAL teaching instead of attacking a straw man.

I know what the actual teaching is, and I also know what the term "Mother of God" means. If you do not mean "Mother of God", then don't say it. As you will see on here, there are enough folk around who will defend the position that Mary was indeed "Mother of God".


I can agree with you in principle here... I'm sure you've noticed I'm not a huge fan of Mariology.

I have noticed some positives in your view re: Mary.


I understand your objection... but don't agree with your conclusion.

How can you conclude that a second person was sinless when scripture says that there was no other who was sinless? That is a contradiction.


Yep... doesn't mean he never made mistakes.:D

I can find very little that he wrote which is not blasphemous.

I know what the actual teaching is, and I also know what the term "Mother of God" means. If you do not mean "Mother of God", then don't say it. As you will see on here, there are enough folk around who will defend the position that Mary was indeed "Mother of God".
Hey, I respect your right to use whatever terms you are comfortable with... but most people I chat with are educated enough to understand what Theotokos means:

Jesus was/is God... Mary was/is his mother.

I'm pretty sure when Jesus introduced Mary he didn't refer to her as "the mother of my human nature" but as his mother... the mother of God incarnate Jesus Christ... the mother of God/Theotokos.

If someone can't grasp this concept and think it means Mary has sex with God or is divine, well... I'll just say that I don't have time for that.

I have noticed some positives in your view re: Mary.
Easy now... you may actually say something NICE to me... THE HORROR!:eek:

How can you conclude that a second person was sinless when scripture says that there was no other who was sinless? That is a contradiction.
This is better left for another thread...

I can find very little that he wrote which is not blasphemous.
My favorite:

My adorable Jesus, / it was not Pilate; / no, it was my sins that condemned You to die. / I beseech You, by the merits of this sorrowful journey, / to assist my soul on its journey to eternity./ I love You, beloved Jesus; / I love You more than I love myself. / With all my heart I repent of ever having offended You. / Grant that I may love You always; and then do with me as You will.

Peace

Hey, I respect your right to use whatever terms you are comfortable with... but most people I chat with are educated enough to understand what Theotokos means:

Jesus was/is God... Mary was/is his mother.

Mary was the vessel through whom God entered the world, but was not the mother of God. That is where the issue is. If I said that I had a blue car, and then said that it is not blue but red because I like to call red cars blue - I suspect that you would say that makes no sense.

We cannot use a term which says one thing and then say that it means something else. Especially, as I said, when I have seen plenty of folk defending the belief that Mary is in fact Mother of God!


I'm pretty sure when Jesus introduced Mary he didn't refer to her as "the mother of my human nature" but as his mother... the mother of God incarnate Jesus Christ... the mother of God/Theotokos.

She was not the mother of God because she did not give birth to the trinity, nor did she conceive God.

This is a key point - who is God? Is God Father, Son and Holy Spirit?


Easy now... you may actually say something NICE to me... THE HORROR!:eek:

I am nice to everyone.


This is better left for another thread...

If the topic of Mary being sinless is to be discussed on this thread, this is a critical point.

ScottRC,
Obviously, Tom Smith (aka Tj3) can not grasp the fact that the trinity is three persons and therefore the Word of God we call Jesus was conceived as a person in Mary's womb as the bible so says.
She did not conceive all three persons.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura).

We cannot use a term which says one thing and then say that it means something else. Especially, as I said, when I have seen plenty of folk defending the belief that Mary is in fact Mother of God!
Again, I agree in principle... but I use the term for the same reason the early Church did: it helps define a truth about Jesus ----> that he is God incarnate.

You do believe Jesus was/is God right? (Not being cute, but I've met quite a few non-Trinitarian "Christians" recently)

This is a key point - who is God? Is God Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
That's a VERY good point... worthy of a thread of its own.

If the topic of Mary being sinless is to be discussed on this thread, this is a critical point.
Fair enough... but I'm hoping we can come to some form of agreement on Theotokos first before we dive into that one.:D

ScottRC,
Obviously, Tom Smith (aka Tj3) can not grasp the fact that the trinity is three persons and therefore the Word of God we call Jesus was conceived as a person in Mary's womb as the bible so says.
She did not conceive all three persons.

Then unless you are denying the trinity, she was not the mother of God. She was the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world.

BTW, Fred, ad hominem arguments do not enhances or validate the credibility of your position.

Again, I agree in principle... but I use the term for the same reason the early Church did: it helps define a truth about Jesus ----> that he is God incarnate.

This came up several hunred years after the NT church and was a denominational council.


You do believe Jesus was/is God right? (Not being cute, but I've met quite a few non-Trinitarian "Christians" recently)

Yes, I most certainly do. I have debated many modalists and other non-trinitarians also.


That's a VERY good point... worthy of a thread of its own.

Yes, but in this case it is important because when we speak of Mary being the mother of God, who is God. It is Jesus only, or it is the trinity? Because though Jesus is God, if we say that God is Jesus only, then we have strayed from what the Bible says.


Fair enough... but I'm hoping we can come to some form of agreement on Theotokos first before we dive into that one.:D

I doubt that we are going to come any agreement other than possibly to agree to disagree.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be respectful or just a jerk.....




Jerk or respectful is a matter that's up to you. But, I've more often than not been described with more colorful language. Also, It's not my habit to leave one guessing whether I'm being a “jerk.” Seems to me your workings are wound a bit tight?

JoeT

This came up several hunred years after the NT church and was a denominational council.
So?

Yes, I most certainly do. I have debated many modalists and other non-trinitarians also.
You too? Wow... they are more and more of them these days... I have some questions I need some help with, I'll send you a PM later if I remember.

Yes, but in this case it is important because when we speak of Mary being the mother of God, who is God. It is Jesus only, or it is the trinity? Because though Jesus is God, if we say that God is Jesus only, then we have strayed from what the Bible says.
Again, I understand your objection... but continue to contend that Ephesus makes it quite clear we're talking about the second person of the Trinity only.

I doubt that we are going to come any agreement other than possibly to agree to disagree.
If we can do so without any polemics---- it is just fine by me.:D

Tj3,
Don't try to again twist what I say.
Mary conceived but one person of the trinity.
Obviously you can not grasp that.

Jerk or respectful is a matter that's up to you. But, I've more often than not been described with more colorful language. Also, It's not my habit to leave one guessing whether or not I'm being a “jerk.” Seems to me your workings are wound a bit tight?
That's up to you.;)

I would like to finally hear what you point was about Jerome... and if you found my comments about the "camel dance" helpful at all.

For the record, I'm just a DRE... not a professor... yet.:D

Tj3,
Don't try to again twist what I say.
Mary conceived but one person of the trinity.
Obviously you can not grasp that.

Mary is then not the mother of God. She is the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world in the flesh.

So?

The early Church did not teach it, but rather a denomination of the church later on taught it. Just a clarification for accuracy.


You too? Wow... they are more and more of them these days... I have some questions I need some help with, I'll send you a PM later if I remember.

I am always glad to help where I can.


Again, I understand your objection... but continue to contend that Ephesus makes it quite clear we're talking about the second person of the Trinity only.

And for the same reason, I need to continue to object to the disclarity is the statement which has misled many.


If we can do so without any polemics---- it is just fine by me.:D

Polemics is Biblical.

That's up to you.;)

I would like to finally hear what you point was about Jerome.... and if you found my comments about the "camel dance" helpful at all.

For the record, I'm just a DRE.... not a professor.... yet.:D



That's up to you.;)
I would like to finally hear what you point was about Jerome.... and if you found my comments about the "camel dance" helpful at all.
For the record, I'm just a DRE.... not a professor.... yet.:D

Professor Scott (future tense):

If it's up to me we'll keep it respectful.

Yes, the camel dance was helpful. In paragraph 18? Of Against Helvidius, St. Jerome stops to make, as it turns out, a satirical remark about Helvidius' attempts to “dance” around the issue of Jesus having brothers. St. Jerome's piece is an unrelenting attack on the idea and the "camel" seems to add a bit of humorous context St. Jerome.

In my opinion, Against Helvidius starts with the assumption of an Immaculate and Virginal Mary, ante partum. It further suggests the “holiness” of Mary's womb, but doesn't necessarily couch it the same why I previously mentioned. And in the paragraph 21 (presented in another post St. Jerome suggests that not only was Mary Ever Virgin, but so too was Joseph.

… Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication… the conclusion is that [Joseph] who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

So, we have “expert witness”, who has testified based an objective analysis of the issue and determined that Mary was Ever Virgin. What I don't know is whether this view is doctrinal requirement of faith. I've simply always took it as a matter of fact.

JoeT

So, we have “expert witness”, who has testified based an objective analysis of the issue and determined that Mary was Ever Virgin. What I don’t know is whether or not this view is doctrinal requirement of faith. I’ve simply always took it as a matter of fact.
I as well...

… Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication… the conclusion is that [Joseph] who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

So, we have “expert witness”, who has testified based an objective analysis of the issue and determined that Mary was Ever Virgin. What I don’t know is whether or not this view is doctrinal requirement of faith. I’ve simply always took it as a matter of fact.

JoeT

I have an expert witness also:

Matt 13:55-57
55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?" 57 So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house."
NKJV

Now all scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore my witness has impeccable credibility and was not just a witness to the events, but also a participant.

Your expert witness, in comparison was a man (compared to my witness who is God), spoke according to his personal opinions (my witness spoke from perfect knowledge) and your witness came along over 3 centuries afterward (my witness was there when the events happened).

In Matthew 13:55 we see the clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom, who were children of Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Ever Virgin Mary: refer to Matt 27:56, and John 19:25. With proper Hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings. Following are selected thought from St. Jerome who argued vehemently that to hold that Christ had siblings was an error:

17. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. … Shall we say they are brethren by race? … Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, Behold, your brethren seek you, for all men alike were entitled to the name … Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's, that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

If we were to argue for the literal interpretation of brother so as to insist on Jesus having siblings in this instance, then wouldn't that redefine John 19:26-27? Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.” Being redefined in our errant insistence on a literal interpretation would add John to James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude as siblings of Christ; which of course is nonsense.

Mary is Ever Virgin.

JoeT

Mary is Ever Virgin.
Even if what you say is true (and I don't believe it is), omission from the NT doesn't mean there weren't any.

Mary was a sinful human being just like the rest of us.

With proper Hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings.

Most scholars agree that adelphos means physical brothers, whereas if a broader relationship is indicated, the word which would be used is anepsios. The term is used here:

Col 4:10-11
10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him),
NKJV

Further, we have prophetic testimony from the OT. In a Messianic reference in Psalms we find:

Ps 69:8
8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
And an alien to my mother's children;
NKJV

It is hard to argue that His mother's children are nor his brothers and sisters.

Tj3,
Mary was/is the mother of Jesus Christ, God the Son.
Whether you accept it or don't will not change that fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tj3,
Mary was/is the mother of Jesus Christ, God the Son.
Whether you accept it or don't will not change that fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Fred,

I agree that what I accept changes nothing, just like what you accept changes nothing. The same is true of all men, including each person on here, your priest, my Pastor, and your pope.

The truth comes from God's word, which is why I presented what God's word said. You presented your opinion (which, as we just discussed, changes nothing)

BTW, no one was arguing that Mary was not the mother of Jesus. You went further and argued that she was mother of God. That means something entirely different than simply being the vessel through whom the Son of God entered the world in the flesh.

Tom

Tj3,
I believe what the bible says about Mary and I have long ago provided the verses that tell us clearly that Mary id the mother of Jesus Christ, God the Son.
You have repeatedly indicated you don't believe that.
It is your right to believe as you wish.
In this case I agree to disagree with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Jesus Christ, God the Son
Mary had a baby whom she named Jesus.

When did Jesus become "the Christ"?

Wondergirl,
Jesus became the Christ when he was conceived in Mary's womb as foretold in the Old Testament.
He has been The Christ ever since.
The Christ is the promised one, the Messiah.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

When did Jesus become "the Christ"?
Jesus is eternal... there was never a time in history where he "was not".

Tj3,
I believe what the bible says about Mary and I have long ago provided the verses that tell us clearly that Mary id the mother of Jesus Christ, God the Son.
You have repeatedly indicated you don't believe that.


Hey Fred - is lying endorsed by your denomination? Because I never said any such thing and you know it. So you are deliberately and blatantly lying. What does scripture say about liars?

Rev 21:7-8
8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
NKJV

Be careful.

Jesus is eternal.... there was never a time in history where he "was not".

True. That is also true of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Which why Mary, while being the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world in the flesh, cannot be the mother of God. No woman ever conceived God in her womb, no woman pre-existed God, and no woman gave birth to the trinity.

Mary is indeed the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, but it defies both scripture and the laws of logic to claim that this makes her the mother of God.

Why does the Catholic church say the Mary was always a virgin, in Luke 2, it talks about Mary's "Firstborn Son".
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born,
7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

In Mathew 13 it names Jesus brothers and "All his sisters" meaning at least three.

53When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there.
54Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked.
55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
57And they took offense at him.
But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
58And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

No doubt, they have an explanation to gloss over the truth again, like, "they were cousins and they used to call their cousins brothers and sisters in those days."
From this article:
Ttp://www.theworkofgod.org/LIBRARY/Apologtc/R_Haddad/4dgmMary.htm

Who, then, exactly were the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?

It is best to start by looking at St. John 19, 25. There it is evident that the Virgin Mary had an older sister whose name was also Mary: "Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."

Turning next to the Gospel of St. Mark 15, 40, speaking on the same point: "There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (Less) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome." Who is this "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses?" Of the Marys mentioned in St. John 19, 25 it must be Mary the wife of Clopas, not Mary the "mother of Jesus," as the Virgin Mary is never mentioned by any other title except as "mother of Jesus." Further, we know that the father of James the younger was Clopas, the husband of Mary of Clopas (St. Mark 3, 18), making Mary of Clopas James' mother. As for Jude, he was also a son of Clopas and the Virgin Mary's sister as Scripture speaks of him as a brother of James the younger: "James son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James" (Acts 1, 13 [Douai]). Consequently, Our Lord had cousins by the names of James, Joseph and Jude.13

One can safely state then that the "brothers" of Our Lord as mentioned in St. Matt. 13, 54 -57 being James, Joseph, Jude etc. are in fact the same James, Joseph and Jude just determined to be His cousins. This was St. Jerome's assertion in the early fourth century:

"Suppose that the Brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the Brethren of the Lord to be not the sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, his mother's sister."14

St. Augustine was no less strident in his defence of the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity:

"It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): 'This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it...' What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this -'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,' except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - 'It shall be shut for evermore,' but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth."15

It would be forcing credibility to believe that the Virgin Mary and Her older "sister" both had the same names and also had children with the same names. One can expect, also, that after St. Joseph died the Virgin Mary would have gone with Our Lord to live with or nearby Her older "sister," explaining why She was travelling with those mentioned in St. Matt. 12, 46. It is a clear example of the word "brother" being used to refer to a first or second cousin.
From this article:

It is also important to examine closely three major events in Our Lord's life referred to in the Gospels: (i) the return of the Holy Family from Egypt to Nazareth after the death of Herod; (ii) the finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem after being lost for three days; (iii) Our Lord giving His Mother to the care of St. John at His crucifixion. Our Lord, according to tradition, was 10, 12 and 33 years of age respectively when these events occurred. Yet, never is there any mention of brothers or sisters of His being present, which one would naturally expect if they had actually existed.16

So, if all the brothers of Jesus can be traced to Mary of Clophas, then they must be Jesus' cousins and not brothers of the womb.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Mary is indeed the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, but it defies both scripture and the laws of logic to claim that this makes her the mother of God.
I understand why you believe this.

Because an angel came and told Mary that she would give birth to a little boy whom she had to call Jesus. She didn't have intercourse with her husband, Joseph, and therefore was still a virgin. You lose your virginity when you have intercourse

She didnt have intercourse with her husband, Joseph, and therefore was still a virgin. You lose your virginity when you have intercourse
We're discussing what happened AFTER the birth of Jesus (Thread title: Why was Mary called the "EVER virgin").

True. That is also true of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Which why Mary, while being the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world in the flesh, cannot be the mother of God. No woman ever conceived God in her womb, no woman pre-existed God, and no woman gave birth to the trinity.

Mary is indeed the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, but it defies both scripture and the laws of logic to claim that this makes her the mother of God.

So, it defies logic to claim that Mary is not the Mother of God.

Here is the logical syllogism.

1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

Now, if we put your belief into a logical syllogism it would look like this:

1. Mary is not the mother of God.
2. Mary is Jesus' mother.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

And that is precisely why the Church declared Mary the Mother of God centuries ago. Because many were claiming that Jesus is not God:
Mary: Mother of God (http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp)

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,
Yes, you are right.
Excellent post.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

So, it defies logic to claim that Mary is not the Mother of God.

Here is the logical syllogism.

1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

Now, if we put your belief into a logical syllogism it would look like this:

1. Mary is not the mother of God.
2. Mary is Jesus' mother.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

And that is precisely why the Church declared Mary the Mother of God centuries ago. Because many were claiming that Jesus is not God:
Mary: Mother of God (http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp)

Sincerely,

De Maria

In logic one must always be careful to validate their premises.

For example, your first syllogism has faulty logic. First, God is a trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not just Jesus. By making Jesus alone God, we have a defined heresy. Jesus is God, but Jesus is one person of the trinity.

Second, Jesus is fully God and fully man. Mary was not the mother of God's divinity which pre-existed her. Your syllogism eliminates the fully human part of Jesus, and thus comes up with the heresy of the early gnostics.

In logic one must always be careful to validate their premises.

For example, your first syllogism has faulty logic. First, God is a trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not just Jesus. By making Jesus alone God, we have a defined heresy. Jesus is God, but Jesus is one person of the trinity.

Show me where I said that Jesus alone is God.


Second, Jesus is fully God and fully man. Mary was not the mother of God's divinity which pre-existed her. Your syllogism eliminates the fully human part of Jesus, and thus comes up with the heresy of the early gnostics.

Nope. Your conclusion eliminates the divinity of Jesus.

My syllogism does not eliminate the fully human part of Jesus. It makes clear that the human being born of that woman is God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,
Tj3 can not comprehend the fact that Jesus Christ is a person, one person in a TRINITY of three and prior to being born as a human being was The Word of God, as the bible tells us The Word became man.
Mary was His mother and therefore the mother of God the Son, Not God the Father, or God The Holy Spirit.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

De Maria,
Tj3 can not comprehend the fact that Jesus Christ is a person, one person in a TRINITY of three and prior to being born as a human being was The Word of God, as the bible tells us The Word became man.
Mary was His mother and therefore the mother of God the Son,. not God the Father, or God The Holy Spirit.


Fred,

Abuse and lies do not enhance your position. Can you not just rely on the truth?

De Maria,
I do not believe that I was abusing or lying about Tj3.
I was expressing my opinion which I believe to be true from what he has been posting here.
But I will try to tone my posts like that down with more gentle wording or I will refrain from commenting.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura).

De Maria,
I do not believe that I was abusing or lying about Tj3.
I was expressing my opinion which I believe to be true from waht he has been posting here.

An "opinion" which you know to be false because you have been told so many times.

Therefore either you are deliberately lying - which is abusive.

Tj3,
I'm sorry that you believe that way.
I am trying to be honest with you.
My opinion is an honest one for it is what I believe to be true.
But as I said, I will try to tone down my responses with gentler words or refrain from commenting.
I hope that make you happy.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
I'm sorry that you believe that way.
I am trying to be honest with you.

If that is true, then with all due respect, your memory is impaired. You should seriously have that checked out.


But as I said, I will try to tone down my responses with gentler words or refrain from commenting.

That would be a nice change. I look forward to the new Fred.

Tj3,
Thank you.
Fred

Mary is the Mother of God, attested to by the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. She is perpetually virgin, immaculately conceived, and assumed into heaven. The Nazarene woman, Mary, was born without ever knowing original sin being “FULL OF GRACE.” Her conception and birth was kept free from the stain of original sin and remained pure throughout her life.

Mary's Immaculate Conception:

The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom "the first-born of every creature" would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. Pope Pius IX ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

You might recall the Tabernacle is the tent-like sanctuary of the Hebrews before the erection of Solomon's Temple, made permanent by King Solomon. The Tabernacle called, beth Yahweh, house of Yahweh included an outer court surrounded by a wall; an inner court; Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies contained the veil that separated the Ark from the inner court. It contained the incense altar, the table of the Bread of Presence (12 loaves), the menorah, It was. This sanctuary housed the Ark of the Covenant, see Ex. 25-31 and Ex. 36 – 40 for additional information on the Tabernacle.

Mary was Ever Virgin:

You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius 383 c.

Roman Catholic beliefs:

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Pope Pius IX ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854


JosephT

[QUOTE=JoeT777]Mary is the Mother of God, attested to by the Council of Ephesus in 431AD... [/quotes]

Whop cares about private interpretations of men? I am interested in what the Holy Scriptures say. And they deny that Mary is the mother of the trinity.

[QUOTE=JoeT777]Mary is the Mother of God, attested to by the Council of Ephesus in 431AD.....[/quotes]

Whop cares about private interpretations of men? I am interested in what the Holy Scriptures say. And they deny that Mary is the mother of the trinity.

You should.

You should.

I am - that is why you see my standard of doctrine is scripture, and I do not rely upon the private interpretations of men as some others do.

I am - that is why you see my standard of doctrine is scripture, and I do not rely upon the private interpretations of men as some others do.


Gee, that must be awful. Just think one small mistake and you are distorting God’s word. I surly wouldn’t want that responsibility. Thank God for the Roman Church.

JoeT

Tj3,
No one says that Mary is the mother of the Trinity (Three Beings), Only that she is the mother of God the Son (one being of the Trinity).
With God all things are possible. Do you believe that?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
No one says that Mary is the mother of the Trinity (Three Beings), Only that she is the mother of God the Son (one being of the Trinity).

So you say God is not a trinity?

Gee, that must be awful. Just think one small mistake and you are distorting God's word. I surly wouldn't want that responsibility. Thank God for the Roman Church.

JoeT

Wow! Accusing God of making mistakes while suggesting that the men in your denomination don't!

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV

Tj3,
NO!!
Not at all!
Please read what I said slowly so you can get it.
I mentioned the trinity (Three beings in One God)
No where, in no way did I say that God is not a trinity.
I have many times said that I believe in the Catholic Theology and Bible that God Is The Divine Trinity.
Of course you do know that it was The Church who first put forth the theology of The Trinity.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
NO!!
Not at all!
Please read what I said slowly so you can get it.
I mentioned the trinity (Three beings in One God)
No where, in no way did I say that God is not a trinity.

And if Mary is not the mother of the trinity, then she is not the mother of God. God pre-existed her, and no member of the trinity pre-existed the rest. They all existed from eternity.


Of course you do know that it was The Church who first put forth the theology of The Trinity.

Actually, it was well before the church - the trinity is taught in the OT. Though I do agree that The Church taught it well before your denomination came into being.

If Mary is the mother of God, who is the father of God?

Jesus never called Mary "mother". He called her "woman".

Tj3,
I see that you still can not grasp that Mary IS the Mother of God The Son as the bible so indicates.
By the way My church is and was the very first Church. Jesus founded it on the Rock he called Peter as the bible so says.
That is a biblical and historical fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Why does the Catholic church say the Mary was always a virgin, in Luke 2, it talks about Mary's "Firstborn Son".
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born,
7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

In Mathew 13 it names Jesus brothers and "All his sisters" meaning at least three.

53When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there.
54Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked.
55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
57And they took offense at him.
But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
58And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

No doubt, they have an explanation to gloss over the truth again, like, "they were cousins and they used to call their cousins brothers and sisters in those days."
There is no Biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: "But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus" (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

This is what I looked up and what I think... It says clearly that Joseph had no union with Mary UNTIL she gave birth to a son... who was her firstborn... therefore it does mention the other children you talked about, and I do believe that Jesus had 4 stepbrothers and more than 2 sisters...

Tj3,
I see that you still can not grasp that Mary IS the Mother of God The Son as the bible so indicates.

Then you are denying the eternal nature of Jesus? Scripture says only that she was the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world in the flesh, NOT that she was the mother of divinity.


By the way My church is and was the very first Church. Jesus founded it on the Rock he called Peter as the bible so says.

Scripture does not say that anywhere - oddly, no matter how many times it is shown to you what the context is, and what the word means in Greek, you ignore the facts. History shows that your denomination started in 325AD.

There is no Biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: "But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus" (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

This is what I looked up and what I think...It says clearly that Joseph had no union with Mary UNTIL she gave birth to a son...who was her firstborn...therefore it does mention the other children you talked about, and I do believe that Jesus had 4 stepbrothers and more than 2 sisters...

Unless you are insinuating that Mary had more than one husband, you are mistaken. Because it is clear from Scripture that James, Joses, Simon and Judas are the sons of one woman named Mary. And since Scripture identifies James as son of Clopas. And also identifies another woman named Mary as wife of Clopas whose children are James and Joses. Then that means that woman is the mother of all James, Joses, Simon and Judas.

This same woman is mother of Salome. And since Mary of Clopas is identified as sister of Mary, that means that she and Salome are the "sisters" that is to mean, the "kin" of Jesus.

Here are the relevant Scriptures:

Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity -- Apolonio's Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a27.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

Then you are denying the eternal nature of Jesus?

No, you are.

Here's the logical syllogism again.

1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is Jesus' mother.
3. therefore Mary is the mother of God.

But you deny this, therefore here is your logic in syllogism.

1. Mary is not the mother of God.
2. Mary is Jesus' mother.
3. therefore, Jesus is not God.

So, it is you who deny the divinity of Jesus.

Mary: Mother of God (http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp)


Scripture says only that she was the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world in the flesh, NOT that she was the mother of divinity.

No one says that Mary is eternal.

No one says that Mary is God.

But the Catholic Church says that Jesus is God the Son from all eternity and that God the Son decided to be born of Mary so He took on flesh and was conceived in her womb and was born to her in a little cave in Bethlehem and grew up to die on the Cross for our salvation.


Scripture does not say that anywhere - oddly, no matter how many times it is shown to you what the context is, and what the word means in Greek, you ignore the facts. History shows that your denomination started in 325AD.

Not so. We simply won't accept your false history. History shows that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

De Maria

So you say God is not a trinity?

There you go twisting words. You know that Arcura is a devout Catholic and Catholics believe in the Trinity. So what good does it do you to twist his words except to create strawmen and to poison wells.

In essence, it is just another indication that you don't have any compunction to misrepresent the teaching of the Catholic Church which Arcura represents admirably.

De Maria,
I see that you know Tj3 well and accurately.
You are correct.
Authentic History proves beyond doubt that The Church began 2000 years ago with Peter as it's first leader and that it still exists bigger than ever today.
Also, as the bible so indicates, Mary IS the mother of God the Son.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

No, you are.

Here's the logical syllogism again.

1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is Jesus' mother.
3. therefore Mary is the mother of God.


That is true ONLY if you deny that Jesus is eternal, and the trinity. And if you make Mary divine.

Authentic History proves beyond doubt that The Church began 2000 years ago

The Church began 2000 years ago. Your denomination began 300 years later.


with Peter as it's first leader and that it still exists bigger than ever today.

Jesus is the only head that the one and only true church has ever had. Peter would have had to have been over 300 years old to be your denomination's first leader.

That is true ONLY if you deny that Jesus is eternal, and the trinity. And if you make Mary divine.

Mary doesn't need to be divine for God to be born of her.

Do you deny that Jesus is God?
Do you deny that Mary is Jesus' mother?

If you deny either of those then you deny Scripture. If you affirm both of those, then you affirm the logical consequence. Mary is the mother of God.

However, if you deny that Mary is the mother of God, then you deny that Jesus is God. Because if you deny that Mary is the mother of God, then she can't be the mother of Jesus who is God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Mary doesn't need to be divine for God to be born of her.

But she does, and for divinity to be born of Mary, she would have to pre-exist God.


Do you deny that Jesus is God?
Do you deny that Mary is Jesus' mother?

Rather than your suggestions, let me tell you what I do believe:

- God is from eternity - Mary is not. Mary could not have conceived or birthed divinity
- God is a trinity. Mary did not give birth to the trinity.
- God created Mary, therefore Mary did not conceive divinity.

God chose Mary as a vessel through whom He would enter the world in the flesh. Mary is the mother of Jesus in the flesh.

I believe what scripture says. I do not extrapolate beyond what scripture says. Nowhere in scripture does it say that God began with Mary giving birth.

The Church began 2000 years ago.

The Catholic Church.


Your denomination began 300 years later.

False.

John Henry Cardinal Newman on when the Catholic Church was born:

Today the birthday of the Catholic Church, for the Gentiles came to it. From eternity in the councils of God. At length in time it began to be; it was conceived and lay in the womb. Its vital principle faith, therefore with Abraham especially it began. It remained in the womb of former dispensations its due time; long expectations; burstings of hope, till the time came; and was born when Christ came.
Newman Reader - Sermon Notes (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/sermonnotes/file2.html)



Jesus is the only head that the one and only true church has ever had. Peter would have had to have been over 300 years old to be your denomination's first leader.

If you twist history around your little thumb. But Scripture says when Jesus appointed Peter as the Church leader:

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

But she does, and for divinity to be born of Mary, she would have to pre-exist God.

Rather than your suggestions, let me tell you what I do believe:

- God is from eternity - Mary is not. mary could not have conceived or birthed divinity
- God is a trinity. Mary did not give birth to the trinity.
- God created Mary, therefore Mary did not conceive divinity.

God chose Mary as a vessel through whom He would enter the world in the flesh. Mary is the mother of Jesus in the flesh.

I believe what scripture says. I do not extrapolate beyond what scripture says. Nowhere in scripture does it say that God began with Mary giving birth.

Then you are denying Christ's Divinity. Because Jesus Christ is God even before He was matriculated in Mary's womb. And He is God after He was born of Her womb. Therefore Mary is the Mother of God because she is the mother of Jesus who is God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Catholic Church.

The Catholic denomination began in 325AD - we've been through this before.


If you twist history around your little thumb. But Scripture says when Jesus appointed Peter as the Church leader:

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Sigh - you never get tired of taking that out of context.

Jesus Christ is God even before He was matriculated in Mary's womb.

He was God long before He was in Mary's womb - that is why Mary is not the mother of God. You have just admitted that Mary cannot be the mother of God.

If Mary is the mother of God, who is the father of God?



This is a good question that deserves an answer.

Tj3,
You are wrong about the Catholic Church and that Mary needed to be divine to give birth to God the Son and you have been wrong for a long time.
I have corrected you about that for years and provided biblical and historic proof which you continue to try to discredit or deny.
That's the facts; THE TRUTH.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
.

Tj3,
You are wrong about the Catholic Church and that Mary needed to be divine to give birth to God the Son and you have been wrong for a long time.

Fred, all you ever do is tell us about your private beliefs and interpretations. I do not consider you the authority - I consider the word of God to be the authority.

This is a good question that deserves an answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl
If Mary is the mother of God, who is the father of God?

Good question Wondergirl. I couldn't find your post to answer it directly but the answer is simple.

Jesus' earthly mother is Mary. He has no earthly Father. However His earthly step father is St. Joseph.

The logical syllogism holds for St. Joseph.

1. Jesus is God.
2. St. Joseph is Jesus' earthly step father.
3. St. Joseph is God's earthly step father.

To deny it is to deny Jesus' Divinity.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Fred, all you ever do is tell us about your private beliefs and interpretations. I do not consider you the authority - I consider the word of God to be the authority.

If you considered the Word of God the authority, then you wouldn't deny that Mary is the mother of God:

Luke 1 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Sincerely,

De Maria

3. St. Joseph is God's earthly step father.

To show you how silly these syllogisms that you created are, let's assume that your claims are facts.

1)
Jesus is the Son of God.
Mary is the Mother of God.
Therefore Mary is the Grandmother of Jesus.

2)
Mary is the Mother of God.
Jesus is the Son of God
Therefore Mary is the wife of God the Father.

I could go on and on. The key issue is that once you leave out the truth of the trinity from the premise of the syllogism, you can come up with all sorts of silly conclusions.

If you considered the Word of God the authority, then you wouldn't deny that Mary is the mother of God:

Luke 1 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?


This actually argues against you. Elizabeth did NOT say "mother of God", but rather chose another term indicating authority, used of both men and of God. Jesus is Lord, yes, and Mary was the mother of Jesus in the flesh, but it is interesting that she chose the term "Lord" rather than "God" to describe Mary's status.

This actually argues against you. Elizabeth did NOT say "mother of God", but rather chose another term indicating authority, used of both men and of God. Jesus is Lord, yes, and Mary was the mother of Jesus in the flesh, but it is interesting that she chose the term "Lord" rather than "God" to describe Mary's status.
Merriam-Webster online dictionary: lord -- a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due

This actually argues against you. Elizabeth did NOT say "mother of God", but rather chose another term indicating authority, used of both men and of God. Jesus is Lord, yes, and Mary was the mother of Jesus in the flesh, but it is interesting that she chose the term "Lord" rather than "God" to describe Mary's status.

Let me get this straight, you are arguing that the Holy Spirit inspired St. Elizabeth to say that Jesus is not God?

Merriam-Webster online dictionary: lord -- a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due

Define: Lord
# Godhead: terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God
# overlord: a person who has general authority over others
# a titled peer of the realm
# make a lord of someone
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Let me get this straight, you are arguing that the Holy Spirit inspired St. Elizabeth to say that Jesus is not God?

My but aren't you the master twister. Once again, use your energy in defending your position rather than trying to tell other people what to believe or what they believe.

Its interesting that Wondergirl and TJ are arguing that Jesus is not God.

Define: Lord
# Godhead: terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God
# overlord: a person who has general authority over others
# a titled peer of the realm
# make a lord of someone
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Exactly what I said.

Exactly what I said.

So when St. Elizabeth said Mother of my Lord, she meant Mother of God.

Its interesting that Wondergirl and TJ are arguing that Jesus is not God.

It is pretty sad when you must deliberately lie about what others have said to defend your position.

So when St. Elizabeth said Mother of my Lord, she meant Mother of God.

You did not read that definition.

It is pretty sad when you must deliberately lie about what others have said to defend your position.

The evidence is in the messages. We're talking about St. Elizabeth saying that Mary is the mother of my Lord.

Wondergirl said:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Merriam-Webster online dictionary: lord -- a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due

And you said:
This actually argues against you. Elizabeth did NOT say "mother of God", but rather chose another term indicating authority, used of both men and of God. Jesus is Lord, yes, and Mary was the mother of Jesus in the flesh, but it is interesting that she chose the term "Lord" rather than "God" to describe Mary's status.

Since the Jews used the designation Lord for God, then if you think then in what sense was the baby in that womb her Lord? He isn't her husband. He isn't a Judge. He is God.

The evidence is in the messages. We're talking about St. Elizabeth saying that Mary is the mother of my Lord.

Lord simply means a person in authority. It's use is not exclusive to God. If you want to see someone refer to God, look at what Thomas said:

John 20:27-28
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
NKJV

If "my lord" meant "My God", then Thomas would not have added the "My God" comment. But He did because it is important to note that Jesus is not just Lord (which could mean that He was just a man with authority), but He is also God.

Mary is referred to as "mother of my lord", not "mother of God" or "mother of my God". She was the mother of Jesus in the flesh, not the mother of divinity.

Lord simply means a person in authority. It's use is not exclusive to God. If you want to see someone refer to God, look at what Thomas said:

John 20:27-28
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
NKJV

If "my lord" meant "My God", then Thomas would not have added the "My God" comment.

Yes, he would. It is a Hebrewism. Jews frequently repeat the same thing in different words.

Another example is:
Zacharias 9 9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion, shout for joy, O daughter of Jerusalem: BEHOLD THY KING will come to thee, the just and saviour: he is poor, and riding upon an , and upon a colt the foal of an .

That's just one being described as an and a foal of an .

3 Kings 1 38 So Sadoc the priest, and Nathan the prophet went down, and Banaias the son of Joiada, and the Cerethi, and Phelethi: and they set Solomon upon the mule of king David, and brought him to Gihon.

Sincerely,

De Maria