Mary as Immaculate Conception

[Leslie_Polley]

Okay…this will be my last attempt to explain this to you…we’re waaaay past the point of diminishing returns.

The word “until” (Gr. heos hou) can mean exactly what you say it means; it implies a cessation of past action. We can agree on this, yes? Call this interpretation, “A”.

The word “until” can also be used in a manner that does NOT imply a cessation of past action. Numerous examples from scripture were given. We should be able to agree on this, also. Call this interpretation, “B”.
And not one of your scriptures proved your point, not one.
Now, if the word “until” can be used in a manner that does not REQUIRE cessation of past action, then you cannot assert that Matthew 1:25 PROVES your position because an equally plausible explanation exists.
Sorry it means what it means…sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as Sigmund Freud once said…
This is the position that you are in. You cannot claim “A” is the ONLY possible interpretation because both “A” and “B” are possible. To use an analogy, in a court of law you could not convict someone of a crime if reasonable doubt exists. Your argument againt the Perpetual Virginity of Mary based on Matthew 1:25 is not beyond reasonable doubt, and the article that I provided on heos hou explains this clearly.

Additionally, in a court of law, I would bring in additional evidence such as the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the beliefs of the Protestant Reformers and modern Protestants…well, you get the idea.
You bging in anything you chose to bring in…There is not ONE word in scripture that proves anything else…the other are seperate declarations by men, and are not Biblical
The preponderance of evidence is in my favor.
I don’t think so and neither does the BIBLE
Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Sure it shows how you think it would play out in court of law…I am more interested in how it plays out with God…One day we will all know for sure that the Word of God reigns.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

may I join your discussion group since I am the subject ?

 

[zach_dunn]

And not one of your scriptures proved your point, not one.

See, now this makes me think you are purposefully being intellectually dishonest. Read Randy’s post again. He is not trying to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin with this post, he is demonstrating that there is more than one meaning of the word “until.”

UNTIL…Prep> 1. Up to the time of: We danced UNTIL dawn…2. Before (a specified time). She could’t leave UNTIL Friday. conj. 1. Up to the time that: we walked UNTIL it got dark. 2. Before : you cannot leave UNTIL your work is finished. 3. To the point or extent that: I talked UNTIL I was hoarse. Now this is the Dictionary, not me…

This is also the dictionary:

Until
Conjunction

• up to the time that
• up to such time as

As you can see, these do not imply a cessation of a past action. This definition is verified by all of the Scriptures Randy gave. There you have it Leslie, there are two, count 'em two, definitions of the word “until,” you can no longer escape this fact and if you keep doing so no one will take you seriously.

Sorry it means what it means…sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as Sigmund Freud once said…

Now that we have undeniably established that there are two meanings of the word “until,” you cannot say that Mary had to have had sex with Joseph because we know that the word “until” can mean two different things here. And, with the help of Scripture and history, it is obvious that “until,” in Mt 1:25, means the past action continued.

You bging in anything you chose to bring in…There is not ONE word in scripture that proves anything else…the other are seperate declarations by men, and are not Biblical

Now she completely ditches the history of her faith and all of the the people who created her faith in the first place! All of these posts easily demonstrate that Mary was indeed a perpetual virgin, all evidence points to this fact. You have nothing on your side except your own twisted and one century old interpretation of the Bible.

I don’t think so and neither does the BIBLE

This is simply incorrect as Randy has repeatedly shown you.

Sure it shows how you think it would play out in court of law…I am more interested in how it plays out with God…One day we will all know for sure that the Word of God reigns.

It is truly saddening to see people with such hardened hearts . . . you have given us absolutely nothing in your favor and you expect us to just follow you? You have made yourself your own Pope and spoken “ex cathedra” on the seat of 21st century Protestantism, it only goes downhill from here.

 

[Louemma]

I think something that hurts our Lord’s heart even more is people not coming into full communion with His Church because they misunderstand its (and His) teachings about Mary, and then people in His Church saying stuff to the effect of “let’s just not worry about it, let’s focus on the things we have in common” when all this is saying is essentially “let’s agree to disagree.”

:twocents:

I don’t think rudeness is going to win anyone over into full communion with the Catholic church while they are in the process of investigating the Catholic faith.You may be right about misunderstanding but I am curious as to what you mean by (His Teachings) about Mary and where are these teachings from him about Mary?

 

[zach_dunn]

I don’t think rudeness is going to win anyone over into full communion with the Catholic church while they are in the process of investigating the Catholic faith.

You are correct in saying that being rude will not help anyone come into full communion with the Church, but whether or not someone is rude does not mean that the person should shy away from the faith if it is objectively true. That’s the problem with people nowadays, everything has to be fuzzy and warm, they don’t look for truth, no matter how they are told it, they look for what makes them feel comfortable and “happy” on the inside.

You may be right about misunderstanding but I am curious as to what you mean by (His Teachings) about Mary and where are these teachings from him about Mary?

His teachings are these:

• Mary is the mother of God
• Mary was immaculately conceived
• Mary was a perpetual virgin
• Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, at the end of her life

These teachings come straight from the word of God. And now I’ve put the thread back on track, Randy.

 

[guanophore]

I think something that hurts our Lord’s heart even more is people not coming into full communion with His Church because they misunderstand its (and His) teachings about Mary, and then people in His Church saying stuff to the effect of “let’s just not worry about it, let’s focus on the things we have in common” when all this is saying is essentially “let’s agree to disagree.”

:twocents:

I agree that our disunity hurts the heart of Jesus (and Mary). Lou has proposed that Protestants need not malign Catholics for seeking the intercession of Mary. This is a generous conciliatory measure, in my estimation. The one who is not against us is for us.

I agree that it is important to defend what the Apostles believed and taught about Mary. However, if we could start by getting a concession from non-Catholics that it is not idolatry to request her intercession, we would be on the right road.

 

[zach_dunn]

I agree that our disunity hurts the heart of Jesus (and Mary). Lou has proposed that Protestants need not malign Catholics for seeking the intercession of Mary. This is a generous conciliatory measure, in my estimation. The one who is not against us is for us.

I agree that it is important to defend what the Apostles believed and taught about Mary. However, if we could start by getting a concession from non-Catholics that it is not idolatry to request her intercession, we would be on the right road.

Ok, I gotcha! But I would disagree with you when you say that “the one who is not against us is for us,” there are plenty of relativists out there, you know.

 

[Louemma]

You are correct in saying that being rude will not help anyone come into full communion with the Church, but whether or not someone is rude does not mean that the person should shy away from the faith if it is objectively true. That’s the problem with people nowadays, everything has to be fuzzy and warm, they don’t look for truth, no matter how they are told it, they look for what makes them feel comfortable and “happy” on the inside.

His teachings are these:

• Mary is the mother of God
• Mary was immaculately conceived
• Mary was a perpetual virgin
• Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, at the end of her life

These teachings come straight from the word of God. And now I’ve put the thread back on track, Randy.

Zach,sweetheart I’m not looking for warm fuzzy feelings.I’m looking for the truth,bottom line!
I’ve read what you listed but I would agree with the first three 100%
but I’m going to need scripture on the 4th one.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach,sweetheart I’m not looking for warm fuzzy feelings.I’m looking for the truth,bottom line!

I’m sorry, I made a broad generalization! But I still think that’s what most of the people are looking for, this is only what Paul predicted:

2 Timothy 4:3
“3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings.”

I’ve read what you listed but I would agree with the first three 100%
but I’m going to need scripture on the 4th one.

Many people will try to cite Revelations 12 in defense of this, but I know you won’t buy it. So I’ll just have to fill you in on a little secret . . . the word of God is not limited to the Scriptures!

 

[Louemma]

I’m sorry, I made a broad generalization! But I still think that’s what most of the people are looking for, this is only what Paul predicted:

2 Timothy 4:3
“3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings.”

Many people will try to cite Revelations 12 in defense of this, but I know you won’t buy it. So I’ll just have to fill you in on a little secret . . . the word of God is not limited to the Scriptures!

Now why in the world would I not buy Revelation 12 as Mary being taken into Heaven,body and soul at her death?Because maybe that is stretching the scriptures to fit what your saying
No the woman in revelation 12 is Israel and you know this
If the word of God is not limited to scriptures then how did you come across a piece of information on Mary being resurrected Body and Soul into the Kingdom of God?

 

[adriancombe]

Now why in the world would I not buy Revelation 12 as Mary being taken into Heaven,body and soul at her death?Because maybe that is stretching the scriptures to fit what your saying
No the woman in revelation 12 is Israel and you know this
If the word of God is not limited to scriptures then how did you come across a piece of information on Mary being resurrected Body and Soul into the Kingdom of God?

I am curious why you assume the Mother of Jesus in Revelation 12 has to be Israel and not Mary.

 

[zach_dunn]

Now why in the world would I not buy Revelation 12 as Mary being taken into Heaven,body and soul at her death?Because maybe that is stretching the scriptures to fit what your saying
No the woman in revelation 12 is Israel and you know this

One thing I don’t understand about non-Catholics is that they don’t think one image in the Bible can refer to more than one thing. I don’t think it’s stretching the Scriptures to say that Revelation 12 refers to Israel and Christ’s Church, do you? I also don’t think it’s stretching the Scriptures to say that it also refers to Mary, because it fits . . . you say that I might be stretching the Scriptures to fit what I’m saying, I say that you might be shrinking the Scriptures to fit what you say.

If the word of God is not limited to scriptures then how did you come across a piece of information on Mary being resurrected Body and Soul into the Kingdom of God?

It’s called sacred Tradition (capital “t”), and I’m sure you’ve heard of this before. This truth has been handed down from the Apostles to the present day through Christ’s Church, this is possible because Christ said that the devil (and thus, error) would never overcome the Church [Mt 16:18]. And there you have it.

 

[Louemma]

I am curious why you assume the Mother of Jesus in Revelation 12 has to be Israel and not Mary.

Was Jesus not originally sent to the nation of Israel?Jesus came out of the nation of Israel and if you read in Revelation 12:17 it reads that the Dragon was enraged at the woman(Israel) and went to make war with the rest of her off springs.
In other words Jesus came from out of Israel.

 

[Louemma]

One thing I don’t understand about non-Catholics is that they don’t think one image in the Bible can refer to more than one thing. I don’t think it’s stretching the Scriptures to say that Revelation 12 refers to Israel and Christ’s Church, do you? I also don’t think it’s stretching the Scriptures to say that it also refers to Mary, because it fits . . . you say that I might be stretching the Scriptures to fit what I’m saying, I say that you might be shrinking the Scriptures to fit what you say.

It’s called sacred Tradition (capital “t”), and I’m sure you’ve heard of this before. This truth has been handed down from the Apostles to the present day through Christ’s Church, this is possible because Christ said that the devil (and thus, error) would never overcome the Church [Mt 16:18]. And there you have it.

Well Zach I will check out the Sacred Tradition.
However you do realize this is not a salvation issue so I hardly think that adding Matt.16:18 is to any purpose here.People who do not pray to Mary is certainly not against the church.

 

[adriancombe]

Was Jesus not originally sent to the nation of Israel?Jesus came out of the nation of Israel and if you read in Revelation 12:17 it reads that the Dragon was enraged at the woman(Israel) and went to make war with the rest of her off springs.
In other words Jesus came from out of Israel.

The problem is you are apparently cherry picking to reach this conclusion.

There is often a literal and spiritual meaning to Scripture. The problem comes when you take one figure in the passage literally but another one that is parallel spiritually and try to match them up for no reason (except apparently to meet some doctrinal presupposition).

In other words:

Literal:

“man child” = Jesus
“woman” = Mary

Spiritual:
“man child” = those Jews who accept the Gospel - or - the Gospel itself

“woman” = Israel.

Does this make sense?

 

[zach_dunn]

Well Zach I will check out the Sacred Tradition.

Good! Just go at it with an open mind, which I’m confident you were already going to do. But I’ll admit that at times it can be hard to see things a different way then you’re used to.

However you do realize this is not a salvation issue so I hardly think that adding Matt.16:18 is to any purpose here.People who do not pray to Mary is certainly not against the church.

I know what you’re saying, I added the Mt reference in defense of Tradition, not of the Marian dogmas.

 

[zach_dunn]

Was Jesus not originally sent to the nation of Israel?Jesus came out of the nation of Israel and if you read in Revelation 12:17 it reads that the Dragon was enraged at the woman(Israel) and went to make war with the rest of her off springs.
In other words Jesus came from out of Israel.

Revelation 12:17
“17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.”

I find that this verse is very compatible with Mary too. Mary is the new Eve and mother of all the faithful. She is our mother, we are Christians, aka those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus, and the devil is constantly waging war on us, wouldn’t you say?

 

[jrgiancola]

Well, logic seems to provide the answer to me. Mary was the mother of the Son of God. Jesus was placed into her womb by the Holy Spirit. Mary, therefore, was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, since marriage is required to legitimize a child. In some spiritual way, not completely understood by me anyway, the Holy Spirit was the “husband” of Mary. She therefore had to be created without any sin, and had to remain chaste the remainder of her life. I realize this is simplistic, but I don’t know any fancy way of stating it. Perhaps someone more learned than myself can put it into religious terms. Joe

 

[zach_dunn]

Well, logic seems to provide the answer to me. Mary was the mother of the Son of God. Jesus was placed into her womb by the Holy Spirit. Mary, therefore, was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, since marriage is required to legitimize a child. In some spiritual way, not completely understood by me anyway, the Holy Spirit was the “husband” of Mary. She therefore had to be created without any sin, and had to remain chaste the remainder of her life. I realize this is simplistic, but I don’t know any fancy way of stating it. Perhaps someone more learned than myself can put it into religious terms. Joe

I agree with you here. Mary has a special relationship with each member of the Trinity, daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit. What you say makes great sense to me, but don’t be discouraged if Leslie doesn’t buy it!

 

[prodigalson12]

Well, logic seems to provide the answer to me. Mary was the mother of the Son of God. Jesus was placed into her womb by the Holy Spirit. Mary, therefore, was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, since marriage is required to legitimize a child. In some spiritual way, not completely understood by me anyway, the Holy Spirit was the “husband” of Mary. She therefore had to be created without any sin, and had to remain chaste the remainder of her life. I realize this is simplistic, but I don’t know any fancy way of stating it. Perhaps someone more learned than myself can put it into religious terms. Joe

Then…as you are saying here, you are on the no need to be married to that Joseph character then right???.. They just explained his virtue, and that’s it, poof, he’s not in the picture any more???..