[dwashbur]

No, it doesn't sound snide, but it does take away part of Joe's belief, and you insist that he discuss the issue by your groundrules. That's not snide, but it's not fair.

Good point. The problem is, there's not any good way to level the playing field in this case.

[Wondergirl]

but it does take away part of Joe's belief, and you insist that he discuss the issue by your groundrules. That's not snide, but it's not fair.

The heading of this thread assumes Joe's ground rules. By the same token, then, that's not fair to non-Catholics who want to post.

[Athos]

The heading of this thread assumes Joe's ground rules. By the same token, then, that's not fair to non-Catholics who want to post.

In that case, the site rules were broken when Joe's citation of the Church Fathers and Catholic teaching was disregarded.

Again, there is no unfairness to non-catholics. These are perfectly free to state their opinions. They are not free to limit Joe's beliefs as noted in my first sentence above.

Since the part about Mary in my post was not answered, do I take this to mean you all now believe she was quasi-Divine?

[Athos]

Good point. The problem is, there's not any good way to level the playing field in this case.

I tried to give you a "helpful", but it wouldn't let me.

That's the point, isn't it? Catholics and Protestants discussing issues from different frames of reference.

[JoeT777]

Joe777,

where you been? I've been wondering where you were. Missed all of our discussions... you remember them... YOU being wrong.. me being right. It was fun. :) Glad your back.

Thanks, I've been around, but thought you guys needed a few months of rest from me being right all the time.

Mary was blessed by God and she was special because she was chosen to be the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ and in that way I acknowledge her.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.. . The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:28-30,35 At the very moment this occurs St. Anselm reminds us the Blessed Mary becomes Queen of heaven, she is the handmaiden of the Lord, His spousal queen.

The Queen of heaven was the big ticket lottery for 14 year old girls in antiquity? She was simply 'picked' like a fatted cow?

But NOwhere does the NT or OT suggest she was sinless. To make her deity is wrong and I personally think she would be appalled by it.

And shall open her mouth in the churches of the most High, and shall glorify herself in the sight of his power, And in the midst of her own people she shall be exalted, and shall be admired in the holy assembly. And in the multitude of the elect she shall have praise, and among the blessed she shall be blessed, saying: I came out of the mouth of the most High, the firstborn before all creatures Ecclesiasticus 24:5. This verse prefigures Mary being 'full of Grace'. How many people are declared to be 'full of Grace in the New Testament? Do you know?

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, Proverbs 8:22; foreshadows the incarnation which is to take place within Mary.
Children's children are the crown of old men: and the glory of children are their fathers. Proverbs 17:6

Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee. Come from Libanus, my spouse, come from Libanus, come: thou shalt be crowned from the top of Amana, from the top of Sanir and Hermon, from the dens of the lions, from the mountains of the leopards. Canticles 4:7-8. This verse heralds God's handmaiden binding Mary in a supernatural spousal relationship with God.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. Luke 1:28-29

Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. Ps 131:8: foreshadows both Christ and the Ark (Mary) rising to heaven, Christ ascends on his own authority, and Mary is assumed into heaven. How pure must Mary be to be assumed into heaven, just a nice farm girl, a little bit, a lot, or singularly pure (like no other) without knowledge of sin?

Having a golden censer, and the Ark of the Covenant covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron, that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament. Hebrews 9:4. As in Moses' day the ark of the covenant contains an everlasting life the bread of life (Cf. John 6), a priesthood ministered (Aaron's rod) with the bread of life; likewise Mary held within her the living bread of life, the high priest and the word of God
In John's Apocalypse we are given the vision of the Ark of the Covenant being in heaven, then in John's Apocalypese chapter 12 we read "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered." This is the allusion of both the Church and Mary. In Exodus we see are told of the Ark being covered in Gold, a symbol of purity. In the same way the Ark that carries Christ across the seas of death from conception to birth, Mary is the purest vessel, free of sin. Jew's admiration and reverence for the Ark of the Covenant enhanced his love for God. Likewise revere the Mother of God which in turn magnifies our love of God. Scripture tells us the Ark is so pure that any sin that comes in contact with it dies, as did Uzzah (Cf. 2 Kings 6:7). An Ark that contained the very essence of God such as Mary would be even more holy.

As King David leapt for Joy before the Ark; so too, did John the Baptist leap for Joy before Mary. (Cf. 2 Kings 6:16 and Luke 1:41) So too, we see David asking why the Ark should come to him, we see Elizabeth asking the same question (Cf. 2 Kings 6:9 and Luke 1:43). The similarities between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary don't end here. The Ark remains for three months in Obededom's house before it was taken to the City of David. Likewise Mary remains with Zachary for three months when the house was blessed with the birth of Elizabeth's child.
A life giving cloud overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant filling it with His Glory and May was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, likewise filling her with Glory.

These correlating verses don't exist by mere coincidence. Like the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, through his Church, is showing us the relevance of the Blessed Mary to His Glory.

Christ was the last Adam.. the Bible is crystal clear about it. But there isn't a verse in the Bible that says that Mary was the new, second or last EVE. In fact, there really isn't much about Mary at all. Why? Because our focus should be on the LORD JESUS CHRIST. Not a created being.

A half a Truth is as good as a lie. In the same way, half of a revealed Truth leads us away from Truth. If there is a New Adam in the New Covenant, then there is a New Eve. As I stated before, Eve before the fall did not know sin. Mary, singularly preserved from ever knowing sin is rightly called the New Eve.

Even if you REASONED it out it doesn't make sense. She was born with sinful parents. 1+1=2. If she could suddenly be without original sin, then why couldn't he do that for all of us.

I can't count to four using all the fingers on both hands. There's nothing new, it wasn't me what figured it out; it was given the Catholic Church to teach the relevance of a doctrine that non-Catholic's hold in ridicule. Instead of ridiculing the Church, it is the Trinity that is harmed.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Good point. The problem is, there's not any good way to level the playing field in this case.

I'm not playing a game where rules are needed to make the playing field level. I'm looking for a truth when I ask a question, if you feel the proper way to respond is 'scripture alone', that's fine with me. If you give an opinion that's not yours I'd like to know that too. My faith isn't confined to a book. I get to live my faith in living color, as well as, through the lives of the Saint, Doctors, Bishops, and Popes of the Church – why do you want to tie a book around my neck and dump me in a sea of my own opinion? If you don't agree with what I've said you can always explain why.

But, there is a more important reason for quoting the authority of the Catholic Church, and that's to show that my explanation is not entirely of my own; I likely didn't originate the ideas I might express. Don't you agree that the originator of a certain line of thought ought to get the credit?

JoeT

[dwashbur]

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.. . The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:28-30,35 At the very moment this occurs St. Anselm reminds us the Blessed Mary becomes Queen of heaven, she is the handmaiden of the Lord, His spousal queen.

Anselm was wrong. He added something that has no basis in the actual story. I could say that Mary had great big dimples and therefore women with great big dimples are more blessed by God than those without. If we're going to start adding stuff that's not really there, this could go just about anywhere. Anselm was wrong.

And shall open her mouth in the churches of the most High, and shall glorify herself in the sight of his power, And in the midst of her own people she shall be exalted, and shall be admired in the holy assembly. And in the multitude of the elect she shall have praise, and among the blessed she shall be blessed, saying: I came out of the mouth of the most High, the firstborn before all creatures Ecclesiasticus 24:5. This verse prefigures Mary being 'full of Grace'. How many people are declared to be 'full of Grace in the New Testament? Do you know?

As you know, Ecclesiasticus isn't in our Bibles. But even so, it's a personification of wisdom; only gross assumption can see any prefiguring of Mary here. The Old Testament talks a lot about wisdom and personifies it, but that's exactly what it's talking about: godly wisdom. There's no reason to assume it "prefigures" anybody.

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, Proverbs 8:22; foreshadows the incarnation which is to take place within Mary.
Children's children are the crown of old men: and the glory of children are their fathers. Proverbs 17:6

The first is also speaking of wisdom, not a person. I have no idea what the second one has to do with anything.

Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee. Come from Libanus, my spouse, come from Libanus, come: thou shalt be crowned from the top of Amana, from the top of Sanir and Hermon, from the dens of the lions, from the mountains of the leopards. Canticles 4:7-8. This verse heralds God's handmaiden binding Mary in a supernatural spousal relationship with God.

The Song of Solomon is erotic poetry. It exalts the delights of married physical love. The church of the late Roman era and the early middle ages scrambled to figure out some way to make it allegorical because of the prevailing belief that sex was evil. The idea that the Bible might actually consider sex good, pleasant and desirable embarrassed a lot of church officials, so they came up with this lame allegory that doesn't work.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. Luke 1:28-29

This one, of course, hinges on the meanings of "full of grace" and "blessed." (For the moment, I'm blowing past the fact that the clause "blessed are you among women" isn't in the best manuscripts and probably isn't part of what Luke actually wrote. For the sake of argument, we'll go with it.) "Full of grace" is better translated with the NIV, "highly favored." It simply means God had something special for her to do, it says nothing about her nature. As for "blessed," I know that Catholic dogma makes a distinction between "blest" as a single syllable, and "bless-ed" as two syllables, but that distinction isn't in the original text. There are two words in the New Testament translated "blessed" (one syllable); one means "happy," while the other one, the one we have here, means "well spoken-of" or "renowned." In this case, it just means that other women would say nice things about her. This was fulfilled almost immediately when she visited Elizabeth. Again, it doesn't say anything about her nature, it just says people would like her.

Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. Ps 131:8: foreshadows both Christ and the Ark (Mary) rising to heaven, Christ ascends on his own authority, and Mary is assumed into heaven. How pure must Mary be to be assumed into heaven, just a nice farm girl, a little bit, a lot, or singularly pure (like no other) without knowledge of sin?

The supposed identification of Mary with the Ark of the covenant is one of the biggest flying leaps in the whole system. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing at all, that ever hints that Mary and the Ark have anything at all in common. This psalm is talking about the actual Ark of the covenant as it was being brought up to the temple. The "resting place" spoken of isn't heaven, it's the temple in Jerusalem. So unless Mary died and was buried in Solomon's temple, this has nothing to do with her.

I'm not going to address the other Mary/Ark comparisons, because they're based on nothing but conjecture and wishful thinking.

[dwashbur]

Don't you agree that the originator of a certain line of thought ought to get the credit?

JoeT

Absolutely. My biggest problem is that I often forget where lines of thought came from. I can tell you this much: I have pretty much never had an original thought in my life, so most everything I offer comes from someone smarter than me. I don't claim any special knowledge; I stand on the shoulders of giants.

[Wondergirl]

I'm looking for a truth when I ask a question

Are you? I've never gotten that impression.

[classyT]

Thanks, I've been around, but thought you guys needed a few months of rest from me being right all the time.


And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. .. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:28-30,35 At the very moment this occurs St. Anselm reminds us the Blessed Mary becomes Queen of heaven, she is the handmaiden of the Lord, His spousal queen.

The Queen of heaven was the big ticket lottery for 14 year old girls in antiquity? She was simply 'picked' like a fatted cow?



And shall open her mouth in the churches of the most High, and shall glorify herself in the sight of his power, And in the midst of her own people she shall be exalted, and shall be admired in the holy assembly. And in the multitude of the elect she shall have praise, and among the blessed she shall be blessed, saying: I came out of the mouth of the most High, the firstborn before all creatures Ecclesiasticus 24:5. This verse prefigures Mary being 'full of Grace'. How many people are declared to be 'full of Grace in the New Testament? Do you know?

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, Proverbs 8:22; foreshadows the incarnation which is to take place within Mary.
Children's children are the crown of old men: and the glory of children are their fathers. Proverbs 17:6

Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee. Come from Libanus, my spouse, come from Libanus, come: thou shalt be crowned from the top of Amana, from the top of Sanir and Hermon, from the dens of the lions, from the mountains of the leopards. Canticles 4:7-8. This verse heralds God's handmaiden binding Mary in a supernatural spousal relationship with God.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. Luke 1:28-29

Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. Ps 131:8: foreshadows both Christ and the Ark (Mary) rising to heaven, Christ ascends on his own authority, and Mary is assumed into heaven. How pure must Mary be to be assumed into heaven, just a nice farm girl, a little bit, a lot, or singularly pure (like no other) without knowledge of sin?

Having a golden censer, and the Ark of the Covenant covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron, that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament. Hebrews 9:4. As in Moses' day the ark of the covenant contains an everlasting life the bread of life (Cf. John 6), a priesthood ministered (Aaron's rod) with the bread of life; likewise Mary held within her the living bread of life, the high priest and the word of God
In John's Apocalypse we are given the vision of the Ark of the Covenant being in heaven, then in John's Apocalypese chapter 12 we read "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered." This is the allusion of both the Church and Mary. In Exodus we see are told of the Ark being covered in Gold, a symbol of purity. In the same way the Ark that carries Christ across the seas of death from conception to birth, Mary is the purest vessel, free of sin. Jew's admiration and reverence for the Ark of the Covenant enhanced his love for God. Likewise revere the Mother of God which in turn magnifies our love of God. Scripture tells us the Ark is so pure that any sin that comes in contact with it dies, as did Uzzah (Cf. 2 Kings 6:7). An Ark that contained the very essence of God such as Mary would be even more holy.

As King David leapt for Joy before the Ark; so too, did John the Baptist leap for Joy before Mary. (Cf. 2 Kings 6:16 and Luke 1:41) So too, we see David asking why the Ark should come to him, we see Elizabeth asking the same question (Cf. 2 Kings 6:9 and Luke 1:43). The similarities between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary don't end here. The Ark remains for three months in Obededom's house before it was taken to the City of David. Likewise Mary remains with Zachary for three months when the house was blessed with the birth of Elizabeth's child.
A life giving cloud overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant filling it with His Glory and May was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, likewise filling her with Glory.

These correlating verses don't exist by mere coincidence. Like the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, through his Church, is showing us the relevance of the Blessed Mary to His Glory.


A half a Truth is as good as a lie. In the same way, half of a revealed Truth leads us away from Truth. If there is a New Adam in the New Covenant, then there is a New Eve. As I stated before, Eve before the fall did not know sin. Mary, singularly preserved from ever knowing sin is rightly called the New Eve.



I can't count to four using all the fingers on both hands. There's nothing new, it wasn't me what figured it out; it was given the Catholic Church to teach the relevance of a doctrine that non-Catholic's hold in ridicule. Instead of ridiculing the Church, it is the Trinity that is harmed.

JoeT

Joe, Joe, joe,

John the baptist lept for joy in Elizabeth's womb because of the BABY Mary was carrying. NOT because of Mary.

The Lord Jesus isn't called the NEW Adam. He is called the LAST Adam. And NO that doesn't mean there has to be a NEW Eve. For by ONE man sin entered the world... God held Adam accountable. The verse didn't say by one man and woman sin entered the world.

I never said Mary was picked like a fatted cow. But I'm saying her role was no more than it was a young virgin woman who needed a savior too. God loved her, she followed God, that made her special. God couldn't fix the sin problem by simply making her without original sin. If he could do that, then he could do it for everyone. There are no exceptions to the rule. Jesus wouldn't have had to suffer and die on a cross. It would have been pointless.

I can't comment on the verses you put up that is not from the Bible. They aren't the word of God.

I for the life of me don't understand why Mary has anything in the world to do with the trinity. I don't get it.

Isn't it interesting that the Apostles never wrote much about Mary in the NT? In fact... practically nothing. If she was deity and really important to the Godhead, you'd think they may have mentioned her. They had no trouble expressing that Jesus was the Word, he was with God and he was God. I just see nothing in Acts.. Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Peter.. John, Jude... why is that?

[JoeT777]

I just don't understand the need to add Mary into the divine mix? Why must we push the issue of her being sinless, which simply by definition of her being human means she had sins to deal with same as you and I. Why must we push the issue of her being forever a virgin?

Scripture clearly teaches the article of faith regarding the Holy Trinity. Holding the Holy Trinity as faith we declare “I believe …” Certainly you aren't saying, "I believe except those parts I'm unconvertible with"? Consequently, all other knowledge must by necessity recognize this truth first. As an example, never holding ‘gravity’ in my hands by inductive reasoning I can know that proportional force that draws bodies towards one another is related to the mass of the respective bodies does exist, which we call gravity. Now imagine if in daily life I decide that gravity is ‘just a definition’, i.e. not a big deal, and draw it into subjective reasoning and conclude the ramification of gravity are meaningless. What would happen then if visiting the Grand Canyon I should step off a cliff? No big splash, right? Do we take it as, just a matter of definition and whose definition do we use? Likewise, we find that the Ever Virgin Mary is a consequence of the reasoned Trinity; deny Mary is sinless and our God becomes man or our God and savior becomes a ‘second’ God or a ‘made’ God – which opens the door to paganism. That's why it is important.

The bible is clear that Jesus had siblings.

This is your opinion, the Catholic Church holds otherwise as do I.

Joseph went on to marry her... why on EARTH would we just assume they never had sex? I consider Catholics to be fellow brothers in Christ, but my goodness... what is your focus on?

So, your faith is the worship of SEX? Because you can’t live without SEX, nobody can?

More likely, the new Eve was ascetic. Jewish communities practiced different degrees of asceticism, as do the Religious of today’s Church. In antiquity Jews and Christians would exercise both the body and the mind with physical and spiritual exercises along with fasts for the purpose of strengthening virtue. It is dated as far back as the Prophets. The Essenes or Healers were the most notable. The Jewish sect of Pharisees also had an ascetic nature; you might say the Pharisees were the Puritans of the Old Testament Law. There are those who believe St. Paul might have lived an ascetic life because he described himself as a ‘Pharisee, the son Pharisees.’ Life in these communities sometimes included both men and women. It was a unique lifestyle marked by poverty, chastity, labor, solitude, and prayer. Many believe that Mary lived in one of these communities and had set out to live a life of Holy chastity. That being the case, she wouldn’t have been bound by the Jewish ordinance to marry and have children. You can pick up on this by noticing little comments in scripture, e.g. ‘Joseph was a just man’ was no simple eulogy made by his divine visitor. It implied that Joseph had lived a Holy life, a righteous life, “an ordinary sort of man on whom God relied to do great things,” Saint Josemaria Escriva.

Saint Joseph was a just man, a tireless worker, the upright guardian of those entrusted to his care. May we always guard, protect and enlighten families. Pope John Paul II.

Evidence exists in early Christian writings of an early tradition (c 150 A.D.) which included an Immaculate Mary. While we can’t rely on all these writing like we can the Gospels they tell of the nature of early Christian worship. Some are pseudepigraphic in nature, one such writing is The Gospel of James sometimes, called Protoevangelium of James. The problem is that while this work can be dated to 150 A.D. the authorship is questionable. The Gospel of James claims to have been written by James, presumably James the Just, however most scholars are of the opinion that it is pseudography. In any event The Gospel of James provides us a look into early Church Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and a veneration of Mary and at least proposes one idea of why Mary chose an ascetic life. At least it shows that the Immaculate Conception wasn’t a recent construct.

Those who practiced a divinely inspired asceticism usually take a solemn vow; " He who takes a solemn vow contracts a spiritual marriage with God, which is much more excellent than a material marriage" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa). Such a vow cannot be broken. Both the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, as does the Protoevangelium of James, indicate both St. Joseph and the blessed Virgin Mary had made such vows CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James.

JoeT

[dwashbur]

Scripture clearly teaches the article of faith regarding the Holy Trinity. Holding the Holy Trinity as faith we declare “I believe …” Certainly you aren't saying, "I believe except those parts I'm unconvertible with"? Consequently, all other knowledge must by necessity recognize this truth first. As an example, never holding ‘gravity’ in my hands by inductive reasoning I can know that proportional force that draws bodies towards one another is related to the mass of the respective bodies does exist, which we call gravity. Now imagine if in daily life I decide that gravity is ‘just a definition’, i.e. not a big deal, and draw it into subjective reasoning and conclude the ramification of gravity are meaningless. What would happen then if visiting the Grand Canyon I should step off a cliff? No big splash, right? Do we take it as, just a matter of definition and whose definition do we use? Likewise, we find that the Ever Virgin Mary is a consequence of the reasoned Trinity; deny Mary is sinless and our God becomes man or our God and savior becomes a ‘second’ God or a ‘made’ God – which opens the door to paganism. That's why it is important.

You haven't established this at all, merely asserted it several times. Nothing about the Trinity requires anything about Mary. This is especially the case since you refuse to address my contention that the sin nature comes through paternity, so Jesus was able to be sinless even though Mary wasn't. Until you address that question directly, you haven't really gotten anywhere.

So, your faith is the worship of SEX? Because you can’t live without SEX, nobody can?

That's not what hauntinghelper said, and I think you know it. Sorry, Joe, but this looks like a dodge.

More likely, the new Eve was ascetic.

This is assumed without evidence. There's nothing "likely" about it.

Jewish communities practiced different degrees of asceticism, as do the Religious of today’s Church. In antiquity Jews and Christians would exercise both the body and the mind with physical and spiritual exercises along with fasts for the purpose of strengthening virtue. It is dated as far back as the Prophets. The Essenes or Healers were the most notable.

Not so. Some of the prophets were celibate, yes, but we know of at least two, Isaiah and Hosea, who were married. As for the Essenes, the evidence is contradictory, because there are some reports that they were celibate but there are others that say they married. Whoever the people at Qumran were, they had at least a few women around because some are buried in their cemetery. So your assertion doesn't square with the evidence.

The Jewish sect of Pharisees also had an ascetic nature; you might say the Pharisees were the Puritans of the Old Testament Law. There are those who believe St. Paul might have lived an ascetic life because he described himself as a ‘Pharisee, the son Pharisees.’ Life in these communities sometimes included both men and women. It was a unique lifestyle marked by poverty, chastity, labor, solitude, and prayer.

Are you joking? One of the primary duties of a Pharisee was to marry and raise children, especially sons. Check your facts again, Joe, because somebody has given you horrible information. Paul described himself as a son of Pharisees, which indicates that they did in fact have sons. And in fact, there's evidence to suggest that in order to be a Pharisee, you HAD to be married. I have maintained for a long time that Paul was married at some time in his life, and this is one of the reasons. The lifestyle you attribute to the Pharisees is just about as opposite to the truth as it can be.

Many believe that Mary lived in one of these communities and had set out to live a life of Holy chastity.

"Many" who? In the gospels, the few times she' s mentioned after Jesus reached manhood, she's traveling with his disciples. On the cross, Jesus entrusts her to John's care. This "community" you claim is a myth.
[/QUOTE]

[snip]

You haven't made any kind of case here, and much of the info you're offering is just wrong. If you want to believe these things about Mary, I don't have a problem with that. But the evidence is firmly against you and you need to address that fact if you want to persuade anyone else.

[JoeT777]

Some literature of ascetic life styles in antiquity.


Ascetic behavior in Greco-Roman antiquity: a sourcebook
By Vincent L. Wimbush (Ascetic behavior in Greco-Roman ... - Google Books )


Orientalia, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Volume 41
By F. Young, M. Edwards, P. Parvis (Orientalia, Clement, Origen ... - Google Books )


JoeT

[dwashbur]

Some literature of ascetic life styles in antiquity.


Ascetic behavior in Greco-Roman antiquity: a sourcebook
By Vincent L. Wimbush (Ascetic behavior in Greco-Roman ... - Google Books )


Orientalia, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Volume 41
By F. Young, M. Edwards, P. Parvis (Orientalia, Clement, Origen ... - Google Books )


JoeT

I'm familiar with them, but they only tell us about certain groups after the destruction of Jerusalem, as well as some pagan practices outside Palestine. I suggest you check some actual Jewish sources to find out about the Pharisees and such.

And you're still dodging the main question.

[JoeT777]

I'm familiar with them, but they only tell us about certain groups after the destruction of Jerusalem, as well as some pagan practices outside Palestine. I suggest you check some actual Jewish sources to find out about the Pharisees and such.

And you're still dodging the main question.

This is the best synopsis I've found. There seems to be little question among the scholarly historians and archeologists that there was some movement among the Pharisees toward asceticism. One scholar wrote in another paper the were various 'ranks' of asceticism among the Pharisees (those who fasted, who were chaste, who abstain from meat, who lived in and off the wild lands, etc.).

ASCETICS: By : Kaufmann Kohler

JewishEncyclopedia.com - ASCETICS: Pharisees

I'm not dodging, I'm not out to prove anything. You might recall it was my question put to the forum participants - but I'll get you a response.

JoeT

[dwashbur]

This is the best synopsis I've found. There seems to be little question among the scholarly historians and archeologists that there was some movement among the Pharisees toward asceticism. One scholar wrote in another paper the were various 'ranks' of asceticism among the Pharisees (those who fasted, who were chaste, who abstain from meat, who lived in and off the wild lands, etc.).

ASCETICS: By : Kaufmann Kohler

JewishEncyclopedia.com - ASCETICS: Pharisees

That article mentions Pharisees a total of once, and only in passing. You need better sources. It's also irrelevant, because none of it says anything about Mary being anything approaching ascetic. That's still an idea that you created out of whole cloth. ClassyT has already shot down your "New Eve" terminology, because there's no such thing, and you have no evidence at all that she even thought about an ascetic life.

I'm not dodging, I'm not out to prove anything. You might recall it was my question put to the forum participants - but I'll get you a response.

JoeT

You brought the subject up, and raised the question of how Jesus could be sinless if Mary wasn't. I gave you an answer, and you have consistently evaded any comment about it. That's dodging. So, how about it?

[JoeT777]

You haven't established this at all, merely asserted it several times. Nothing about the Trinity requires anything about Mary.

You seem to misunderstand my question. It's what the Holy Trinity is that produces my question. I won't repeat, but to say that Christ is one person, with two natures, God/man yet homoousion (consubstantialem), of one essence or substance . That is Christ is wholly man and wholly God, not conjoined, but God incarnate. Consequently, Christ's conception, birth, and rearing is of extreme importance to us if we are to maintain this view. If Christ the Messiah is created by God, then he can't be God as God is uncreated, now can he? Therefore, if God's spirit creates the flesh he wore as Jesus then he is created and not a God. If the Messiah is the Perfect Lamb, not knowing or experiencing sin, then he can't be born of a woman after Eve; otherwise he is given the putrid flesh of a sinner – how does one composed of sin be Perfect? The only way I can't raise an objection is for the Blessed Mother to be a New Eve, sinless. The Catholic Church holds that this was precisely the case.

I don't think you've grasp the complexity of harm done to the Holy Trinity without a Blessed New Eve.

Whether she was ascetic is only a way by which we can understand how this would be in 'our' world. But, in her world she may have had all the attributes of an ascetic and yet not necessarily of a community of ascetics.

This is especially the case since you refuse to address my contention that the sin nature comes through paternity, so Jesus was able to be sinless even though Mary wasn't. Until you address that question directly, you haven't really gotten anywhere.

She was singularly protected from her conception from sin, a feat more understandable than creating God.

This is assumed without evidence. There's nothing "likely" about it.

There is no Scriptural evidence for the Holy Trinity yet we profess our faith in it. How so? If we accept this as a profession of faith, then are we not obliged to profess his mother as the Blessed Virgin?

Not so. Some of the prophets were celibate, yes, but we know of at least two, Isaiah and Hosea, who were married. As for the Essenes, the evidence is contradictory, because there are some reports that they were celibate but there are others that say they married. Whoever the people at Qumran were, they had at least a few women around because some are buried in their cemetery. So your assertion doesn't square with the evidence.

This is something you might want to check out afresh.

Are you joking? One of the primary duties of a Pharisee was to marry and raise children, especially sons. Check your facts again, Joe, because somebody has given you horrible information. Paul described himself as a son of Pharisees, which indicates that they did in fact have sons. And in fact, there's evidence to suggest that in order to be a Pharisee, you HAD to be married. I have maintained for a long time that Paul was married at some time in his life, and this is one of the reasons. The lifestyle you attribute to the Pharisees is just about as opposite to the truth as it can be.

No, I'm not joking, in fact I'm more than serious. The Tradition of the Apostles have, since the ascension of Christ, held similar views – which of course is my source, handed me through the Magisterium of the Church. There is nothing said that Mary 'had' to bear children, especially if she had taken a vow of chastity, and more likely had this vow been made in the Temple.

You haven't made any kind of case here, and much of the info you're offering is just wrong. If you want to believe these things about Mary, I don't have a problem with that. But the evidence is firmly against you and you need to address that fact if you want to persuade anyone else.

Again, I'm not making a case, I've asked a question. It's up to you to answer or not. If you want me to put any credibility into your answer it needs to be substantiated; if, in doing so, you want to limit yourself to the Scripture that's fine.

JoeT

[dwashbur]

You seem to misunderstand my question. It's what the Holy Trinity is that produces my question. I won't repeat, but to say that Christ is one person, with two natures, God/man yet homoousion (consubstantialem), of one essence or substance . That is Christ is wholly man and wholly God, not conjoined, but God incarnate. Consequently, Christ's conception, birth, and rearing is of extreme importance to us if we are to maintain this view. If Christ the Messiah is created by God, then he can't be God as God is uncreated, now can he? Therefore, if God's spirit creates the flesh he wore as Jesus then he is created and not a God. If the Messiah is the Perfect Lamb, not knowing or experiencing sin, then he can't be born of a woman after Eve; otherwise he is given the putrid flesh of a sinner – how does one composed of sin be Perfect? The only way I can't raise an objection is for the Blessed Mother to be a New Eve, sinless. The Catholic Church holds that this was precisely the case.

Your logic doesn't hold up here. What did the angel say? The power of the Most High will overshadow you, so what is born from you will be called the Son of God. It doesn't say anything about being created. You said "f God's spirit creates the flesh he wore as Jesus then he is created and not a God," but even if Mary was sinless, this is still the case. Why? Because that flesh was still created. Mary's status has nothing at all to do with it. And he was obviously "putrid flesh" since he was hungry, he wept, and he died. Your argument makes no sense. And you are still missing my point that having a mother does NOT convey sin, having a human father does. Hence, since Jesus had no human father, he did not have sin. You're making this so much more complicated than it needs to be, it's making my head spin.

I don't think you've grasp the complexity of harm done to the Holy Trinity without a Blessed New Eve.

You're right, I don't grasp it, because it doesn't exist. You're creating a cure for which there is no known disease.

Whether she was ascetic is only a way by which we can understand how this would be in 'our' world. But, in her world she may have had all the attributes of an ascetic and yet not necessarily of a community of ascetics.

And she may have had a wart on her nose. This is speculation, nothing more. Again, the gospels and Acts tell us that she hung out with the disciples and apostles most of the time. Attributing asceticism to her is just silly. It has no basis in fact.

She was singularly protected from her conception from sin, a feat more understandable than creating God.

Repeating an assertion does not make it true. You still haven't answered the main objection.

There is no Scriptural evidence for the Holy Trinity yet we profess our faith in it. How so? If we accept this as a profession of faith, then are we not obliged to profess his mother as the Blessed Virgin?

There's plenty of scriptural evidence for the trinity. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's grossly misinformed.

No, I'm not joking, in fact I'm more than serious. The Tradition of the Apostles have, since the ascension of Christ, held similar views – which of course is my source, handed me through the Magisterium of the Church. There is nothing said that Mary 'had' to bear children, especially if she had taken a vow of chastity, and more likely had this vow been made in the Temple.

And there's the rub. There is zero evidence that she took any kind of vow, zero evidence for the tradition you speak of, zero evidence that women even took vows of chastity, zero evidence that the words "brothers and sisters" in the gospels mean anything other than brothers and sisters - Jesus apparently had several of both - and all of the traditions that the Catholic church bases this stuff on are at least two to three centuries after the events themselves. You are welcome to accept the authority of your church, but I don't. I follow the evidence, and the evidence says that a) Mary was a normal young woman who was chosen for a unique privilege, b) after that she married Joseph and had several other children, and c) died and was buried like any other person.

Again, her status has nothing to do with the Trinity. You have not made your case. You claim you're just asking a question, but the majority of your posts on this topic are assertions, not questions; you make a claim that, if we deny Mary being immaculate, we do violence to the concept of the Trinity. This is not the case. QED.

[TUT317]

You seem to misunderstand my question. It's what the Holy Trinity is that produces my question. I won't repeat, but to say that Christ is one person, with two natures, God/man yet homoousion (consubstantialem), of one essence or substance . That is Christ is wholly man and wholly God, not conjoined, but God incarnate. Consequently, Christ's conception, birth, and rearing is of extreme importance to us if we are to maintain this view. If Christ the Messiah is created by God, then he can't be God as God is uncreated, now can he?

JoeT

Hi Joe,

I'll stick my neck out here and say your deductions seems to be sound.

I can also see you are wrestling with Plato here. I am sure you are familiar with Saint Augustine's treatment of Plato's forms. Perhaps to a lesser extent Saint Anselm's use of the Platonic forms in his Ontological Argument.

In a nutshell I think you are saying that if Jesus participates in the perfect form of God then he cannot be an 'exact copy' of that form. He becomes a lesser being, i.e. human. If we want to claim that he is exactly God then he must be identical to the form of God.

The problem is that the physical world is only a poor copy of perfection. This obviously includes humans and every other physical thing.

For an actual form to exist in the physical world in must be perfect in every way. Being born of a human (sinful by character and by nature) immediately negates the possibility of someone being born as a perfect entity. In other words, this immediately takes them down to the level of a imperfect copy of perfection.

How close am I to your argument?

Tut

[JoeT777]

Hi Joe,

I'll stick my neck out here and say your deductions seem to be sound.

I can also see you are wrestling with Plato here. I am sure you are familiar with Saint Augustine's treatment of Plato's forms. Perhaps to a lesser extent Saint Anselm's use of the Platonic forms in his Ontological Argument.

I don't know that I'd call it wrestling. I thought I did pretty good – maybe the grammar wasn't so good.

In a nutshell I think you are saying that if Jesus participates in the perfect form of God then he cannot be an 'exact copy' of that form. He becomes a lesser being, i.e. human. If we want to claim that he is exactly God then he must be identical to the form of God.

Something like that, let's make it simpler.

• Christ is God with all the Divinity and Perfection implied,

• Jesus is man, human.

• the Messiah is Jesus Christ, the hypostatic Union of human with the Divine Nature of God, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, the perfect God/man, Christ.

How then does the perfect Messiah and man reconcile themselves in the Second Person of the Trinity whom we call Christ?

The problem is that the physical world is only a poor copy of perfection. This obviously includes humans and every other physical thing.

There is nothing imperfect in creation, man was made perfect but because of sin is fallen, i.e. has become imperfect. (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 26-28). Man was not made evil, but rather good.

For an actual form to exist in the physical world [it] must be perfect in every way.

If God created heaven and earth then everything contained therein is good. (I really don't understand what you are driving at).

Being born of a human (sinful by character and by nature) immediately negates the possibility of someone being born as a perfect entity.

This is my point. There are two variants, of sorts, of the human species. We'll call the first variant 'AE-human': Adam and Eve prior to the fall – those without knowledge of sin. The other variant comes after the fall which we'll call P-human variant: this is the human that inherits Adam and Eve's sin and its consequence, and act of war which caused a privation of sanctifying grace.

In other words, this immediately takes them down to the level of a imperfect copy of perfection.

Close, we are talking about the same 'them'. Your outline of the premise was good enough, but I was left with some confusion at the end. I contend that in order to hold Christ wholly man he must be born of woman and to be wholly god he must be uncreated. If he is born of the P-human variant then he inherits original sin; which we've already shown can't coexist with the Divinity, God would be born of the sin of flesh. If God were to 'make' man from the flesh of the P-human then this says:

1) His creation is not 'good' - which is not true.
2) His creation is incapable of holiness – God has shown this statement false in AE-human - man did exist sacred and holy in utopia.
3) He is effectively 'creating' Himself in Christ – duplicating God which of course doesn't exist in the Holy Trinity.

We can conclude that God will not 'make' Christ the perfection of God which would not be wholly God in Hypostatic Union with wholly man.

Consequently we are only left with one possibility. The Hypostatic Union took place between God and a man born of a woman that was of the AE-human variant, i.e. Christ was born of a New Eve. We can further surmise that like the original AE-human woman, this woman was without knowledge of sin. We call her the Blessed Virgin Mary, Christ's mother, the mother of God.


JoeT