Doctines on Mary "not in the Bible."

[ProVobis]

Indeed. How many thousands of years passed between the events described in Genesis and the writing of the actual book that recorded those events?

Much of the information was passed on by word of mouth as well.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“If” Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then…

In the thread linked above, he sullies Mary and the relationship between Jesus and Mary using excerpts from the writings of Tertullian, while rejecting all the writings of any other early Church father, including the beliefs of the original reformers. I have asked, repeatedly, for any other evidence showing the belief existed through the years as he professes it to be. Those requests have gone unanswered. If what he professes was God’s truth, surely He would not have left generation after generation without His truth for a much more modern generation to receive it. The only other option is to say, ‘God couldn’t protect His truth for ALL generations.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I no longer have the resource for the following, but had it saved in my Bible program.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, the oral Torah, oral Law, or oral tradition (Hebrew: תורה שבעל פה, Torah she-be-`al peh) is the oral tradition received in conjunction with the written Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible), which is known in this context as the “written Torah” (Hebrew: תורה שבכתב, Torah she-bi-khtav). The Mishnah is the record of the oral Torah.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, Moses and the Israelites received an oral as well as the written Torah (“teaching”) from God at Mount Sinai. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an oral tradition passed on by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation, and according to classical Rabbinic interpretation, the teachings of the oral law are a guide to that interpretation of the written law which is considered the authoritative reading. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions. Further, the basis of halakha (Jewish law) is the premise that the written law is inherently bound together with an oral law.

The “oral law” was ultimately recorded in the Mishnah, the Talmud and Midrash.

The laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. The explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse).

After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, it became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved; see Timeline of Jewish history.

 

[ClamDigger]

“If” Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then…

In the thread linked above, he sullies Mary and the relationship between Jesus and Mary using excerpts from the writings of Tertullian, while rejecting all the writings of any other early Church father, including the beliefs of the original reformers. I have asked, repeatedly, for any other evidence showing the belief existed through the years as he professes it to be. Those requests have gone unanswered. If what he professes was God’s truth, surely He would not have left generation after generation without His truth for a much more modern generation to receive it. The only other option is to say, ‘God couldn’t protect His truth for ALL generations.’

Wow. Does he not realize that Tertullian wrote all of these things after slipping into the heresy of Montanism?
Also, I would never trust Tertullian’s opinion on any woman, since he apparently had a great disdain for them and blamed the Fall on all women (who are, apparently, more evil than the devil himself) and held that the guilt of it should be ascribed to them.
Tertullian in "De Cultu Feminarum":

Do you not know that you are Eve? The judgment of God upon this sex lives on in this age; therefore, necessarily the guilt should live on also. You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die.

 

[onenow1]

I had said: It is my suggestion that we evaluate the claim on the basis of who introduced the claim, when was it done, where was it done and why was it done…I would do something similar WRT answering the question of whether Paul taught the Catholic doctrines of Mary (outside of his epistles)…the historical evidence makes it unlikely, given the silence in the first centuries. Take another tradition for example…that Paul authored 1 Corinthians and that it reliably reflects his teaching…we can easily find non-Christian scholars who would endorse both ideas based on the historical record…contrast that with the situation regarding the ImCon and the BoAs

Hi, Radical

Might I suggest, as St. Paul describes, Mary in Romans 5:18-19,
“…Just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act, acquittal and life came to all. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.”

Seems a pretty large roll and Mary gets the accolades from St. Paul even though he didn’t name her.
and St. John in,Rev.11:19, where he has a vision of th Ark of the covenant. The very next verse in Rev. 12: 1,< he sees this> and “a great sign appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.”

God Bless
:compcoff:

 

[Radical]

The Early Church Fathers described her as without sin and,…

that is part of the who and when of the analysis that I suggested…if the first who lived hundreds of years after the fact, then that gap allows for the possibility that it was an innovation and not an original belief

…given the fact that the bodies of most saints were kept and honored,

the preserving of relics has been notoriously untrustworthy

… I find it highly unlikely that the body of the Virgin Mary wouldn’t have been kept and her tomb made a place of pilgrimage

if she as as venerated then as now, the place of her assumption would also have been a place of pilgrimage…any where Mary now allegedly appears becomes a pilgrimage spot, however, back in the first two centuries there wasn’t a lot of focus on her

What supports these new doctrines that she was sinful and that she wasn’t assumed into Heaven?

the historical evidence…again, please keep this in mind…the non-Christian historian could admit that these beliefs were with the Church from the very start w/o needing to also accept that they are truthful…but do you see those non-Christian historians (who would also deny the historicity of the resurrection) concluding that the Marian doctrines were there in the first century (like the belief in the bodily resurrection)? Surely you must see that a difference exists in the respective evidence…and surely you should be able to understand how that difference in evidence could lead to different conclusions.

 

[GaryTaylor]

that is part of the who and when of the analysis that I suggested…if the first who lived hundreds of years after the fact, then that gap allows for the possibility that it was an innovation and not an original belief

You must have missed the other thread so ley me help out with your History here.

Giving Mary such a title seems too grand to many protestants. For centuries most protestants have tried to ignore Mary, and have avoided all talk and discussion of her - except perhaps to condemn Catholic “excesses”. But this is a serious matter. To call Mary the “Mother of Jesus” and yet refuse to call her “Mother of God” is to diminish Jesus as well as Mary, for it is a denial that Jesus is truly or fully God.

It was this sort of thinking that led to the formal definition of the title Mother of God at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD.

Since the Gospels tell us that the Word did not unite with man, but was made man. “The Word became Flesh” and dwelt among us…" (John 1.14).

This is a crucial difference. Jesus was not two persons: the Son of God, and the Son of Mary, but one person, the Son of God and Mary. If this were not so, his death could not have saved us.

At the Incarnation, through the action of the Holy Spirit, God the Word took flesh and full humanity from the Virgin Mary. Both His Human Nature and His human body came from Mary, These united with His Divine Nature in Jesus.

This produced one person with one consciousness, both fully God and fully man, who is truly both Son of God and Son of Mary.

The Virgin Mary is therefore the Mother of ALL of the PERSON of Jesus Christ, and is therefore truly Mother of God the Son.

BUT DOESN’T CONCENTRATING ON THE VIRGIN MARY DISTRACT US FROM GOD AND FROM JESUS?

This is a common complaint of Protestants, but one I really fail to understand. Does admiring any part of God’s creation distract you from God? When you walk through a forest of tall, ancient trees and you admire their beauty, does it distract you from God?
Similarly when you admire people like St Francis, Mother Theresa, or other Christians who have given up their lives to serve God. Does that make you turn away from God - or is it more likely to make you think of the greatness of the God who inspired such people? So to it is wilth Mary.

An evangelical Christian once retorted indignantly to me “Mary isn’t my Mother.” To which I was forced to respond. “Then what you’re really saying is that Jesus is not your Brother.” And in truth it is as simple as that. If we as Christians are brothers of Jesus, then, as with Jesus, God is our Father and Mary is our Mother.

The bible also teaches, that all Christians become part of the body of Christ. Again this re-emphasises the fact that as Christians become one with Jesus they share with Him, the Fatherhood of God and also, the motherhood of Mary.

Mary’s Bodily Assumption into Heaven
I find it strange that Protestant Evangelicals never seem to wonder where Mary is now, or what her role might be. If they do chance to wonder, they generally keep it to themselves. Raise too many of the wrong topics, and questions may start being asked about whether you really are “one of the group”. Therefore it is quite common for Protestant evangelicals who are quite certain that Uncle Fred is in heaven, wearing his kingly crown, or that they themselves are heaven bound, to question Mary’s presence there.

So, let’s scotch that one straight away. If the Virgin Mary isn’t in heaven, then there’s very little chance that anyone else will ever get there. Mary is the supreme example, or prototype, of what happens to a person who fully places trust and faith in God. Everything we hope to become in Christ, She already is. . Out of the millions of “decisions” made for Christ, Mary’s was the first. Therefore, whatever promises the Holy Scriptures hold for us, Mary already possesses.

Mary’s Bodily Assumption is also a long-standing teaching of the Ancient Churches. The celebratory festival in August dates from at least the 400s in Palestine, and had reached Gaul by the 500s. The setting of a Festival Day for a doctrine is evidence not only of a strong and almost universally-held belief in that doctrine, but also of a long-standing belief - since it is rare for Festival to be celebrated for a belief or incident for which there is not some long attestation. As a comparison, the date of December the 25th for the celebration of Christmas was set only in 354 AD by Pope Julius I.

Early references to the Assumption of Mary include Timothy of Jerusalem in around 380 AD, who wrote: “Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension,”

Gregory of Tours in 580 wrote: “Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who, we believe, was a virgin before and after childbirth, was, as we have said before, carried to Paradise preceded by the Lord amidst the singing of angelic choirs.”

Apocryphal writings detailing the Assumption have been dated back to the 200s.

John 19.25: Near the cross of Jesus, stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing near by, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on the disciple took her into his home.

This is not just a personal bequest of his Mother to John, but, being from the cross itself, has a greater significance. First of all, if Jesus were merely asking John to take care of Mary, He would have made His first request to John. But if you look at the passage, you will see that His first statement is to Mary. The emphasis is therefore upon Mary being Mother to John, not John “looking after” Mary. John here represents all the disciples of Jesus, and hence all Christians, who are given Mary as their Mother.

Gary

 

[Radical]

The historical evidence makes it unlikely? So you believe God could not protect His truth, …

no, but I believe that man can choose to walk away from the truth…the scriptures are very clear on that

…or did not provide His truth for all generations?

the truth is still available…just not where you think it is

There are the writings of the early Church fathers, throughout the years. The teaching was taught for generation after generation to the present day in the Catholic Church.

I know that you and your Church like to make this sort of claim…WRT the perpetual virginity you couldn’t produce any evidence of that teaching for the first few generations (up to about 170 AD +/-). WRT the bodily assumption and the immaculate conception how many generations (at the start) do you skip again and gloss over with your “generation after generation” claim?

Show us unbroken teachings, as you say it was, to the present day.

I have never claimed that such existed. We all know the history (though some better than others) Once a belief in Mary was adopted by the hierarchy of the Church that belief was enforced by intimidation and violence. Dissenters were persecuted. A belief that is supported by threat and the sword is not to be admired for its longevity. The question of whether the teaching can be traced back to the apostolic era or whether it is a later innovation won’t be answered by focusing on the endorsement of that belief by the ECFs of much later centuries. That endorsement, for the most part, is only evidence of that belief and the development of it, well after the fact.

I don’t see why you didn’t respond to this on the other thread,…

well, partly b/c I find your questions disingenuous…but for the most part, I have answered your questions

…with the SAME topic.

the perpetual virginity is the same as the immaculate conception?

You prefer to come to another thread of the SAME topic and beat the same drums, but not respond to requests…

the same drum applies…there is that absence of the teaching in the first generations that you can’t explain away…and that fact seems to irk you considerably.

 

[Radical]

Hi, Radical

Hello, thanks for your pleasant tone…

Might I suggest, as St. Paul describes, Mary in Romans 5:18-19,
“…Just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act, acquittal and life came to all. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.”

Seems a pretty large roll and Mary gets the accolades from St. Paul even though he didn’t name her.

I understand that to be a description of Jesus

…and St. John in,Rev.11:19, where he has a vision of th Ark of the covenant. The very next verse in Rev. 12: 1,< he sees this> and “a great sign appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.”

I don’t see Mary in that verse either

God Bless

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

the truth is still available…just not where you think it is

well, partly b/c I find your questions disingenuous…but for the most part, I have answered your questions

Where was this truth, as you profess it and not where I would think it would be, for generation after generation? The Church has records of heretical challenges all throughout it’s history. Where was this challenge, again as you profess it to be?

the same drum applies…there is that absence of the teaching in the first generations that you can’t explain away…and that fact seems to irk you considerably.

Actually, what I find ‘irksome’ is when one ignores questions, points and requests put forth to maintain their steady drum beat.

You measure by the absence in the first generations, yet have failed to produce the beliefs you profess for generation, after generation, after generation, much longer an absence than you are relying on to denounce a Catholic belief.

Talk about disingenuous…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Odd you don’t see it?

From the KJV, your Protestant right?

Then these would be the Cross Referrence’s?

Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Isaiah 29:6 the LORD Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with windstorm and tempest and flames of a devouring fire.​

Ezekiel 13:13 "'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: In my wrath I will unleash a violent wind, and in my anger hailstones and torrents of rain will fall with destructive fury.​

Hebrews 9:4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.​

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”​

Revelation 4:5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God.​

Revelation 7:15 Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.​

Revelation 8:5 Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar, and hurled it on the earth; and there came peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning and an earthquake.​

Revelation 11:13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.​

Revelation 12:1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.​

Revelation 14:15 Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, “Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.”​

Revelation 14:17 Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle.​

Revelation 15:5 After this I looked and in heaven the temple, that is, the tabernacle of the Testimony, was opened.​

Revelation 16:1 Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go, pour out the seven bowls of God’s wrath on the earth.”​

Revelation 16:18 Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake.​

Revelation 16:21 From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213-c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes the words from the earliest centuries: “Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is 'the dwelling of God . . . with men”’ (CCC 2676).

The early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, including her being the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[GaryTaylor]

MOF

While the apostle John was exiled on the island of Patmos, he wrote something that would have shocked any first-century Jew. The ark of the Old Covenant had been lost for centuries — no one had seen it for about 600 years. But in Revelation 11:19, John makes a surprising announcement: "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple?’

At this point chapter 11 ends and chapter 12 begins. But the Bible was not written with chapter divisions — these were added in the twelfth century. When John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; it was a continuing narrative.

What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven? “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child” (Rev. 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John. She was seen bearing the child who would rule the world with a rod of iron (Rev. 12:5). Mary was seen as the ark and as a queen.

Gary

 

[Cat_Herder]

that is part of the who and when of the analysis that I suggested…if the first who lived hundreds of years after the fact, then that gap allows for the possibility that it was an innovation and not an original belief

Then you could say that the New Testament canon is an innovation, because it wasn’t settled until 393 AD.

the preserving of relics has been notoriously untrustworthy

According to who? The iconoclasts who wanted to destroy them all?

if she as as venerated then as now, the place of her assumption would also have been a place of pilgrimage…

You do realize what happened in Jerusalem in 70 AD, don’t you? It’s kind of hard to make any kind of pilgrimage to the Holy Land when there are angry Romans trying to kill you.

any where Mary now allegedly appears becomes a pilgrimage spot, however, back in the first two centuries there wasn’t a lot of focus on her

There wasn’t a lot of focus on the Holy Spirit in the first two centuries either. Why isn’t there any substantial evidence of any devotion to the Holy Spirit during that time period? What conclusion would you draw from that and why is that a different conclusion than you are drawing about Mary?

some Protestants would see no more credibility in the Venerators of Mary than they would in Joseph Smith…if you can understand why someone would think it acceptable to dismiss JS’s claims, then you should be able to figure out why someone would think it acceptable to dismiss certain claims wrt Mary

I don’t see how anyone can read Revelation 12 and compare the Marian doctrines to Mormonism with a straight face.

 

[ClamDigger]

that is part of the who and when of the analysis that I suggested…if the first who lived hundreds of years after the fact, then that gap allows for the possibility that it was an innovation and not an original belief

“Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life.” --St. Ephraem

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” --St. Athanasius

“What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life.” --St. Gregory of Nyssa

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” --St. Ambrose

“‘There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ The rod is the mother of the Lord–simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself… Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord.” --St. Jerome

Seems like she was a pretty big deal to me…

the preserving of relics has been notoriously untrustworthy

So? Even if the bodies aren’t their real bodies, why wouldn’t anyone have even claimed to have her body? There is an incident that the Emperor Marcian asked for her relics from the Patriarch of Jersusalem in the 400’s and was told that she had been assumed three days after her death. Why would he make such an outlandish claim, which would bring less fame and pilgrims to Jerusalem, were it not true?

if she as as venerated then as now, the place of her assumption would also have been a place of pilgrimage…any where Mary now allegedly appears becomes a pilgrimage spot,

The place of her assumption was her tomb. She was assumed directly outside of it.

however, back in the first two centuries there wasn’t a lot of focus on her

Really? Interesting that you were living in those times when the most sacred Christian doctrines were generally kept hidden so that Pagans would not mock them.

the historical evidence…again, please keep this in mind…the non-Christian historian could admit that these beliefs were with the Church from the very start w/o needing to also accept that they are truthful…but do you see those non-Christian historians (who would also deny the historicity of the resurrection) concluding that the Marian doctrines were there in the first century (like the belief in the bodily resurrection)? Surely you must see that a difference exists in the respective evidence…and surely you should be able to understand how that difference in evidence could lead to different conclusions.

Are you a non-Christian historian (who would also hold that, though the Virgin Birth was with the Church from the very start, it wasn’t a real historical event) or a Christian?

 

[ClamDigger]

I don’t see Mary in that verse either

God Bless

If you do not see Mary in the Woman of the Apocalypse, who do you see? Who else gave birth to Christ (Revelation 12.5)?

 

[Radical]

If you do not see Mary in the Woman of the Apocalypse, who do you see? Who else gave birth to Christ (Revelation 12.5)?

God’s people…both Israel and the Church

 

[Cat_Herder]

God’s people…both Israel and the Church

Daughters (Israel and the Church) do not conceive and bear their fathers (God).

How about Genesis 3:15? Who do you say this Woman is?

 

[Radical]

Daughters (Israel and the Church) do not conceive and bear their fathers (God).

If the Church and/or Israel couldn’t conceive and bear, then Mary, who is but one member of the Church and/or Israel, would be even more incapable

How about Genesis 3:15? Who do you say this Woman is?

You mean who was the “woman” of Gen 3:15…at a time when there was only one woman who existed? I can’t help but note that at verse 12 Adam blames the “woman” and that woman is Eve. At verse 13 God addresses the “woman” and that woman is Eve. At verse 16 God addresses the “woman” and that woman is Eve. So then, when God mentions the “woman” at verse 15, I have to conclude that it is Eve yet again…it seems more than obvious from over here.

 

[Cat_Herder]

If the Church and/or Israel couldn’t conceive and bear, then Mary, who is but one member of the Church and/or Israel, would be even more incapable

The question is not whether or not Israel or the Church can bear children; it is whether they could bear a specific Child.

[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 12:5[/BIBLEDRB]

You mean who was the “woman” of Gen 3:15…at a time when there was only one woman who existed? I can’t help but note that at verse 12 Adam blames the “woman” and that woman is Eve. At verse 13 God addresses the “woman” and that woman is Eve. At verse 16 God addresses the “woman” and that woman is Eve. So then, when God mentions the “woman” at verse 15, I have to conclude that it is Eve yet again…it seems more than obvious from over here.

It is actually more than obvious that this Woman CANNOT be Eve because Eve was not at enmity (mutual opposition, click for Webster’s definition) with the devil. Eve was the devil’s collaborator in bringing sin into the world.

 

[ClamDigger]

God’s people…both Israel and the Church

How can it be both Israel and the Church? Israel is not the Church or vice-versa. Israel “gave birth to” Christ, but it (obviously) did not give birth to all believers (or even many believers). And, Christ gave birth to the Church, not the other way around. So, I can only think of one person who has consistently been called both the Mother of Christ and the Mother of believers in Christ, and that is Mary.

“Eve is called mother of the human race, but Mary is the Mother of salvation.” --St. Ambrose