Mary and her children

[Trelow]

I realise that not many people could read - however, they could still listen.

As to what language people who could read could read in, it would depend on what was taught.

But let me ask this - why was Latin continually taught? Why not let the one who wants to learn to read, read in his own language?

And then - for those who couldn’t read, why not let them hear it in their own language?

Well, please, start up a thread that explains how other “flavours” of Christianity contradict themselves to it. I would most like to know.

Yes, Jesus is singular. The churches of Roman Catholicism are not. Else, why would some believe that Mary is a perpetual virgin, whilst others are taught that she is not?

OK, you are wrong The early church did not think so. Look to the above verses in the first post - do they sound like they were written by people who thought Mary was always a virgin?

…

You are trying to compare mary and the ark? I have to admit, that is the first time i have heard that! Please, argue your case from the Bible.

I’m going to bed. I appreciate your interest, but you clearly have no desire to learn. You are on a mission to save all the Catholics, whooo. I admire your conviction, but you’ve come to the wrong place. Most of us have been through it. If I remember or have time tomorrow I’ll answer as best as I can, but it doesn’t matter. You don’t care what the truth is. You haven’t been seeking answers, only confirmation of what you think. I know, I’ve been there.

The bible is our book, if you’re not going to read the whole thing, give it back.

I just don’t want to be in your shoes when Jesus asks you why you’ve been picking on His momma.

 

[hvg3akaek]

I’m going to bed. I appreciate your interest, but you clearly have no desire to learn. You are on a mission to save all the Catholics, whooo. I admire your conviction, but you’ve come to the wrong place. Most of us have been through it. If I remember or have time tomorrow I’ll answer as best as I can, but it doesn’t matter. You don’t care what the truth is. You haven’t been seeking answers, only confirmation of what you think. I know, I’ve been there.

I am truly disappointed with this statement. I use the term “statement” as it has no trace of argument, discussion, proof, or logic to it.

No desire to learn? How wrong you are, that is just one of the many things I long for. A greater knowledge, a greater understanding, to learn as much as I can.

Come to the wrong place? Well, I am sorry - but I was directed here by a Roman Catholic friend of mine, so bring your disagreements up with him

Don’t care what the truth is? How hollow (and insulting) a statement is that! Could I not simply turn it around and say that it is you that has no care for the truth? I will not, for I do hope that is not true, and I have no wish to insult you. But clearly, my entire motivation here is for the truth - if I was not worried about the truth, I would not be posting here at all!

And yes, I am seeking answers. Because Roman Catholics keep claiming to have them, but they do not satisfy, they do not hold up to scrutiny, and they do not hold up to the Bible.

Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

If the Bereans can do it, and can be praised for doing it, why is it wrong for you or I to examine if messages match up with the Scriptures?

The bible is our book, if you’re not going to read the whole thing, give it back.

I think this is arrogance on your part Is not the Bible God’s word to all mankind? Who are you to claim right over God’s word?

And I do read it. I read it alot, and I read the whole thing.

I just don’t want to be in your shoes when Jesus asks you why you’ve been picking on His momma.

Again, no evidence to back it up. It has as much meaning behind it as me saying:

“I just don’t want to be in your shoes when Jesus asks you why you’ve been giving God-like powers to a human being?”

 

[thistle]

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.

Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen

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).

 

[Bishopite]

Leviticus 25:49

 

[Bishopite]

Come to the wrong place? Well, I am sorry - but I was directed here by a Roman Catholic friend of mine, so bring your disagreements up with him

 

[Trelow]

I apologize for being so cranky. I’m tired and irritable.

Go the page that brought you here. www.catholic.com
Click on the link that about Mary and the saints, read, then ask for further clarification.

Ultimately every question boils down to the authority of the Church. Yes, it’s our book, when taken outside of the teaching authority of the apostles, crazy things happen, like taking a verse here and a verse there and trying to disprove something held as truth for all of Christendom.

God bless and good night. We’ll do the typology tomorrow if somebody doesn’t beat me to it.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Mary is Ever Virgin:

Exodus 13:2,12 does not say this. “Firstborn” does not mean there were no more, and it does not mean there were not any more.

Exodus 34:20 does not say this.

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 does not say this. The Greek word for “the” (“ho”) can mean the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.

Luke 1:31,34 does not say this. And your arguments are, frankly, preposterous

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.

Then what would she be getting married for?

Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

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).

Unless, of course, she had not yet had sex with her husband, and thus could not yet have a child!

Luke 2:41-51 does not say this. Jesus was ‘special’ - what with being the Son of God and all. Jesus and Jesus alone went and talked with the teachers in the temple. There was no searching for other siblings because there were no other siblings missing.

Additionally, with Jesus being the oldest, other siblings could be very young, or not born yet.

John 7:3-4 does not say this. You think it disrespectful for the younger brothers to tease Jesus? Well, it may be, but they didn’t believe him (John 7:5)! Clearly, these “brothers” are not Jesus’ disciples - who are they then?

Mark 3:21 does not say this. His family thought he was crazy. Who else was in his family, other than his siblings? Well, there was Mary…did Mary think Jesus was crazy?

John 19:26-27 does not say this. And it would be quite reasonable if the other brothers were Jewish, and did not believe Jesus’ message.

John 19:25 does not say this. Once again, people can have the same names. How many Marys were there??

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 does not say this. (How many Marys again?)

Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:47 likewise do not say this.

Mark 6:3 does not say this. If they were cousins, why not use “anepsios”, as in Colossians 4:10?

Matt. 10:3 does not say this.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen

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.”

1. Luke was not written in Hebrew or Aramaic
2. Although there is no word for “cousin” in these languages, there is a better term than “brother”. See here.
3. Being written in Greek, there is a term for “cousin”, used in Colossians 4:10

Luke 22:32, Acts 1:12-15 - both already discussed. Jesus changes the Jewish meaning (blood, Matt 12:47) to encompass His followers (spiritual, Matt 12:49). After Jesus, the term can happily be used for either, so the next few cases (Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21, Rom. 9:3) do not add to your argument at all.

OT ones - answered here.

 

[NotWorthy]

Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant:
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

One of the most fascinating teachings of Mary taught by the Catholic Church is that she is the Ark of the New Covenant. It’s another teaching that may not have a “Scripturally versed”, but it definitely has a “Scriptural Basis”. And like so many of the other teachings, Mary as the Ark of the Covenant forms a foundation to help teach other doctrines of Mary. First of all, can someone describe what the Ark of the Covenant was? The Ark was a Tabernacle that housed the Spirit of God during Israel’s wanderings in the desert through Solomon’s building of the Temple.
Let’s begin with a couple of passages in the Old and New Testaments. In 2nd Samuel, the Israelites have lost the Ark of the Covenant in a battle with the Philistines. After some strange events, the Philistines give the Ark back to the King David and the Israelites. David recovers the Ark and brings it back to Israel. Strangely enough, Luke draws some striking parallels when he describes Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, while pregnant with Jesus in her womb. Let’s look at some of these parallels.

      **2 Samuel 6**

     *Luke 1*

• David arose and went back to Judah. (v2)
• Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judah.(v39)
• David says, “How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?” (v9)
• Elizabeth says, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (v43)
• The ark resided there for three months. (v11)
• Mary stays three months with Elizabeth.(v56)
• The people rejoice ….“amid the festivities”. (v12)
• Mary rejoices “in God my Savior”. (v47)
• They brought the ark “amid shouts of joy”. (v15)
• Elizabeth cries out in a loud voice “Blessed are you among women” (v42).
• David leaps and dances before the ark (v16)
• The babe leaps in Elizabeth’s womb at Mary’s greeting (v41)
  Pretty striking similarities, aren’t they? But let’s take a closer look at one of the passages.*** When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb*** (Luke 1:41-42). The Geek word used here for “cried out” is “anafametzen” which means 'shouts of joy’. The word is rarely used, only five times in the Old Testament, and only in connection with a liturgical celebration, and then only when the Ark of the Covenant is present. It literally means “to cry aloud, to proclaim, or to intone” This is a very powerful witness then, for Luke use of this word. If it is only used in liturgy, and only when the Ark is present, then we can see that Luke is drawing a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant!!
  
  The parallel is made clearer earlier in Luke when the angel Gabriel tells Mary that**“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow (epischiadze) you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God (Luke 1:35)”. Compare this with Exodus 40:34 - Then the cloud covered (epischiadze) the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. **Let’s take a look at this term “overshadow,” (epischiadze), a very unique Greek word. If you can picture what is happening in both scenes, the imagery is identical. Just as the glory of the Lord overshadowed and dwelt in the Ark, so does the glory of the Lord overshadow and dwell in the Blessed Virgin Mary.
  
  To understand the repercussions of this Bible truth, we must first understand what the function of the old Ark was. The Ark was the holiest object created. This is evidenced by the death of the Israelite who touched the Ark, to keep it from falling, and was struck dead. It was created of the finest material and the inside was lined with the purest gold. Anybody care to guess what other teaching of the Church draws from this analogy? Just as the old Ark was made perfect as a dwelling place for the Most High, so too, was the new Ark made perfect (Immaculate Conception) as a dwelling place for God.

 

[NotWorthy]

Let’s look at what was kept in the original Ark of the Covenant and compare it with what is in the Ark of the New Covenant.

      **Mary as the Ark Revealed by the Items inside the Ark**
         **Inside Ark of the Old   Covenant**

1. The stone tablets of the Law—the word of God inscribed on stone
2. The urn filled with manna from the wilderness—the miraculous bread come down from heaven.
3. The rod of Aaron which budded to prove and defend the true High Priest
   **
   Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant**
4. The body of Jesus Christ—the word of God in the flesh.
   2) The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (Jn 6:41)
5. The actual and eternal High Priest

Last, let’s look at Revelation. As we see in Rev 11:19-12:1 “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. 1 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;” That’s right, the ark of the New Covenant in all her splendor in Heaven (the Assumption)!!

So what did the Early Church teach about Mary’s role as the Ark of the New Covenant?

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 – 373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the 2nd 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 Wonderworker (c. 213 – c. 270) an early Christian teacher wrote: “Let us chant the melody which 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.”

 

[hvg3akaek]

 

[hvg3akaek]

You are welcome here. Don’t let the over zealous Catholics get to you, I’m one sometimes but I mean well as I’m sure you do too. .

Thankyou I appreciate that.

Again, some people use ad hominem arguments, what we are all looking for is truth, for which we can give a plethora of evidence.

Great! I am eagerly awaiting it

Well, what you perhaps are saying is that Catholicism doesn’t hold up to the scrutiny of what you’ve been taught the Bible says. Remember even within Protestantism there is plenty of disagreements of what Scripture actually means

Seriously, it is not “what I have been taught the Bible says”, but “what I read of the Bible”. And do not worry, it is not only the Roman Catholic churches I find lacking, but the Protestant ones too. They all are made up of sinful beings - it is no surprise that they are all lacking.

And yes, there is disagreement between denominations over what certain scriptures mean - the same happens within and between Roman Catholic churches as well. however, the important thing is that the differences not be vital. There were disagreements within the early church - for example, the eating of food sacrificed to idols. That does not matter, and if some wish to abstain from it, how does that effect their salvation? Then, there are major things that we must agree on - such as the divinity of Jesus. Fortunately, every protestant church I have experience with agrees with this. (individual persons within the church may not, but that is the same within Roman Catholicism).

The Bereans did read the Scriptures, yes that’s true and God bless them for that. I’m afraid, though, that they didn’t just read the Bible and then know precisely what it meant, Paul had to show them what the OT Scriptures meant and then they understood what was the correct interpretation. This is against sola scriptura since it presumes one can just read the scriptures and know what it means; even the Bereans in Acts 17 needed Paul to show them the correct interpretation of scripture.

Actually, I cannot find the verse where it says that Paul had to show them what the scriptures meant…

The verses say that Paul told them the message (taught them, preached to them), and they “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”. They checked up on Paul, not just accepting his word as law (or Tradition).

I say if they could do that for Paul, and be praised for it, we can happily do that for any person giving a sermon today!

(but I do think this topic is going a little off the main point now…possibly go to the Sola Scripture one for further words?)

-hvg3

 

[hvg3akaek]

I apologize for being so cranky. I’m tired and irritable.

Thanks I won’t hold it against you.

Ultimately every question boils down to the authority of the Church.

Thank you, so much, for this statement!

That was my main reason for not making this thread sooner. I have many disagreements with how the Roman Catholic Tradition runs, but ultimately, every one of them comes back down to scripture vs scripture & tradition. And thus, I only started posting in a "sola scripture’ thread.

Even when I claimed that, i was told by Roman Catholics that it was not the case, that these differences could stand without RC Traditions. I am happy to finally see aRC who can admit that it all comes down to S vs S+T

 

[Goth_Catholic]

It’s 2 in the morning, I’m not gonna read extra long posts.

Catholic tradition holds that Joseph was much older then Mary. He very well could have been married before making the so called “brothers and sisters” Joseph’s kids. Jesus was only Mary’s firstborn son, never mections him being Joseph’s. And if Mary had surviving biological children then what Jesus did on the cross would have been a great offence unto them. “Son behold thy mother, mother behold thy son. And from that day forth he took her into his home.” It’s not exactly but i’m tired.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant:

…

Wow. Without any intention of insulting anyone, that has to be one of the most (Edited by Moderator) RC ideas that I have seen to date…

But seriously, if such an idea were the case, why did none of the inspired writers make a bigger deal about it? Why does Mary only hang around for bits, flashes, of the gospels? Why does the author of Hebrews, when talking in chapter 9 about the ark, not mention this? Why does John, when referring to the ark in heaven, in Revelation 11:19, not mention it was Mary? No, I mean actually say “And it was Mary, the Mother of God”, or some such statement?

As it is, we are left with the image of a woman, which is akin to representing the Church (Rev 19:7 and 21:9), or Israel/Judah? Or even finishing the whole Eve thing (Gen 3:15)? Leaping at once and insisting it is Mary, instead of saying Mary played her part representing this, seems to be basing your Biblical understanding on your Traditions, instead of basing understanding on the Bible.

Simply put, there is too much suspension of belief to accept that Mary is anything more than someone who was blessed by God and gave birth to Jesus.

At best, Luke used similar language to draw attention to the importance of Jesus, not of Mary. Mary was not the special one - Jesus was.

But still, all this does not go to show how the RC view of perpetual virginity is soundly based in the bible…even less so how the idea that Mary had kids is not soundly based in the bible.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Catholic tradition holds that Joseph was much older then Mary. He very well could have been married before making the so called “brothers and sisters” Joseph’s kids. Jesus was only Mary’s firstborn son, never mections him being Joseph’s. And if Mary had surviving biological children then what Jesus did on the cross would have been a great offence unto them. “Son behold thy mother, mother behold thy son. And from that day forth he took her into his home.”

Hello!

Thanks for your words, but unfortunately, I was wanting explanations from the bible, not from RC Tradition.

However, that does show yet another “Roman Catholic” belief which differs from previous ones presented here. How can so many contrary beliefs exist within Roman Catholicism?

Your other points have been previously addressed

 

[Goth_Catholic]

However, that does show yet another “Roman Catholic” belief which differs from previous ones presented here. How can so many contrary beliefs exist within Roman Catholicism?

Not in the mood. Never said I belived it. (Hell, at 2:30 in the morning I’ll belive what the invisable drunk Irish monk down the street has to say.) Merely stating what I was taught in sunday school years ago

 

[sacredcello]

Even when I claimed that, i was told by Roman Catholics that it was not the case, that these differences could stand without RC Traditions. I am happy to finally see aRC who can admit that it all comes down to S vs S+T

I don’t believe he said that it was Scripture + Tradition that comprises the authority of the Church’s teaching. Did he? No.
Apostolic teaching (tradition) is based entirely on scripture.

I would love to read your thoughts on the previous posting about Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, based on scripture.

Perhaps after some time to reflect on it…

Good night!

 

[cor]

1. Luke was not written in Hebrew or Aramaic
2. Although there is no word for “cousin” in these languages, there is a better term than “brother”. See here.
3. Being written in Greek, there is a term for “cousin”, used in Colossians 4:10

Some say that certain NT books may have originally been written in Hebrew (IIRC, this theory is popular among some Messianic Jews) and that what we have are copies of the Greek translations. Even if the inspired autographs were in Greek, they may have been committed to writing from an Aramaic oral tradition – in which case they wouldn’t have changed “brothers” into the Greek word for “cousin”

Also, in the Bible where it speaks of Jesus’ “brothers” – they may not have been able to use the Aramaic expression you talk about in your link with facility because the group of people referred to as “brothers” may not all have been sons of a father’s brother – some of the “brothers” may have been sons of a father’s sister for example. Do you see what I mean?

Also, the question to ask is what did the early Church believe about this? The impression that I have – and please someone correct me if I’m mistaken – is that no one in the early centuries of Christian history contended that Mary had other children. Don’t you think that if she did, it would have been mentioned by the early Christians and that some would have spoken their disagreement with those saying that she didn’t?

 

[sacredcello]

II would love to read your thoughts on the previous posting about Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, based on scripture.

Perhaps after some time to reflect on it…

Good night!

Oh, dear. I’m sorry I asked. Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the ark of the New Covenant is not a “wacky idea.” She is our Mother, given to us be Jesus from the cross.

Please be a little more respectful.

I just spent an entire year in a Protestant/Catholic bible study in which I had to endure these insults to the Blessed Mother. I am convinced that very little good can come from this sort of dialogue. It is a gift of faith to know who she is, just as our faith in Jesus and the Holy Trinity is a gift. (the latter is not specifically mentioned in the bible, but is understood from apostolic teaching).