perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_J said:
So why did you say “Do you really not see the significance of a woman carrying Christ in her womb?” Did pocohombre say that he doesn’t see the significance? (I *don’t *mean that as a rhetorical question: I haven’t read every post on this thread, so I may have missed it.)
Click to expand...
Because his posts appeared to be dismissive or lacking the importance of that fact. He partially agreed with me in his reply.
 
pocohombre said:
Umm, some say it might be fitting but not necessary for immaculateness. Is immaculateness a Jewish word, a Jewish concept ? Was there a prophecy of "immaculateness’ ? Was there a tradition of it’s expectation ? Are there not Jewish terms and Jewish rites for sanctification ? Mary was a Jew right? Just trying to keep it in context, and not something some gentile Christians put terminology to a couple hundred years later.
Click to expand...
Isaiah 43:18-19
18 “Forget the former things;
do not dwell on the past.
19 See, I am doing a new thing!
Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?
 
Lochias said:
You brought it up, said your piece, and then closed it “but that’s for another thread”. A bit disingenuous, so I said mine. If you’re done, then I am.

Then why bring it up? 🤷 Okay.

Certainly. I will do so.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Kliska, Pocohombre, Lochias, and anyone else who prayed.

Wow, Lochias—accusing someone of being disingenuous is no little thing! I can assure you I was in no way disingenuous.

You brought up the Westboro Baptist Church topic, not me. You introduced it into the thread several times. What I did do, is disagree with your line of thought and I briefly stated why I disagree. Then I said it’s a topic for another thread, because with a little foresight I can see that that pursuing this subject will derail the thread. So I stopped myself from explaining my perspective any further, so as not to lead you or anyone else down that path. The forums rules are clear that we’re to limit ourselves to one topic per thread.

After noting that it was a topic for another thread, I said I would not be able to contribute to any such thread myself, so as not to give the impression that I’m saying “Start a new thread and I’ll meet you over there to discuss this more.” I’m just being realistic about my inability to give my time and attention to lengthy, involved internet discussions (and having that discussion about why I disagree with you about SS and the WBC would end up being a lengthy matter).

If you are being charitable and fair about why you’re not getting the refutation of your WBC argument at this point, you need to factor in several things: some people dislike contentious discussions or find them draining; some people know or “see” something intuitively but have a harder time articulating their perspective by verbal means; some people have too much going on in their “real lives” to devote their resources of time and attention to internet discussions; and so on.
 
pocohombre said:
…
Grace is in relation to the gift. It does not extend beyond the gift necessarily. Mary was full of grace, could receive no more, in relation to carrying the Christ child. and rearing him. She was full for the mission. What does that mean? Was it necessary to mean ever virgin, IC, even sinless, or Assumption ? Don’t get that from “full”.
Click to expand...
This is pocohombre’s dogma.
Fitting maybe, neat, but full proof essential for dogamtizing, no in my opinion…
Click to expand...
See above.
 
pocohombre said:
…
Is immaculateness a Jewish word, a Jewish concept ? Was there a prophecy of "immaculateness’ ? Was there a tradition of it’s expectation ? Are there not Jewish terms and Jewish rites for sanctification ? Mary was a Jew right? Just trying to keep it in context, and not something some gentile Christians put terminology to a couple hundred years later.
Click to expand...
See Genesis 3:15.

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]
 
pocohombre said:
Thank you.Have seen this before.Agreed that she was prepared but not immaculate at her inception, but pure in the Jewish sense, enough to receive the blessing.
Click to expand...
Taken from documents that can be found at CAF

The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what “immaculate” means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
 
Randy_Carson said:
Isaiah 43:18-19
18 “Forget the former things;
do not dwell on the past.
19 See, I am doing a new thing!
Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Jewish terminology, prophecy for something new. At what point does it begin? For sure a virgin shall conceive Messiah. The platform can still be Jewish. Further, why do you treat Mary in OT terms , like not touching her, as if she were an OT holy artifact ? Same old barriers between flesh and divinity .
 
pocohombre said:
…
Further, why do you treat Mary in OT terms , like not touching her, as if she were an OT holy artifact ? Same old barriers between flesh and divinity .
Click to expand...
OT holy “artifact”? Putting aside your crude characterizations (and your patronization of Marian dogma, in general) please read Ezekiel 44:1-3.

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 44:1-3[/BIBLEDRB]
 
stewstew03 said:
See Genesis 3:15.
[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]
Click to expand...
“it (he) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”. Most translations have no reference to "her " in the crushing or bruising. It is all about Eve’s seed and that Christ will crush Satan’s head and shall have his heel bruised. Mary does not crush ,nor is she bruised in this prophecy . Is Rheims a Catholic translation bible ?
 
pocohombre said:
“it (he) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”. Most translations have no reference to "her " in the crushing or bruising. It is all about Eve’s seed and that Christ will crush Satan’s head and shall have his heel bruised. Mary does not crush ,nor is she bruised in this prophecy . Is Rheims a Catholic translation bible ?
Click to expand...
Oh your so wrong, Mary is the one who crushes the serpent’s head. Remember, this is the only time we see that its the woman and her offspring, every other time is the man’s offspring.

Plus why do you think Jesus calls her “woman” in John 2, and John 19:25-27, I don’t think that it was by mere coincidence.
 
pocohombre said:
“it (he) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”. Most translations have no reference to "her " in the crushing or bruising. It is all about Eve’s seed and that Christ will crush Satan’s head and shall have his heel bruised. Mary does not crush ,nor is she bruised in this prophecy . Is Rheims a Catholic translation bible ?
Click to expand...
King James version:

“And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed”

Eve’s seed is Christ? No, the woman is clearly Mary as “her seed” refers to Christ. There was no enmity between Eve and satan, as Eve brought sin into the world through her lack of obedience.
 
pocohombre said:
“it (he) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”. Most translations have no reference to "her " in the crushing or bruising. It is all about Eve’s seed and that Christ will crush Satan’s head and shall have his heel bruised. Mary does not crush ,nor is she bruised in this prophecy . Is Rheims a Catholic translation bible ?
Click to expand...
Also take in mind, if your profound when you read the bible, that John goes step by step, parallel to Genesis, you will see that in the 7th day, which is the Wedding of Cana, there’s only 2 people mentioned by name, Jesus and his mother Mary.
 
stewstew03 said:
OT holy “artifact”? Putting aside your crude characterizations (and your patronization of Marian dogma, in general)
Click to expand...
Crude no. Do you not say her womb is like the Ark of the Covenant. Can anything holy be crude ? I said holy artifact.
 
pocohombre said:
Further, why do you treat Mary in OT terms , like not touching her, as if she were an OT holy artifact ? Same old barriers between flesh and divinity .
Click to expand...
Not touching her? I have no idea what you mean. Are you somehow making a connection to Joseph not touching her sexually? 🤷

Poco, you’ve been swinging wildly in this thread for a couple of hundred posts now like a boxer who is all punched out.

You’ve been given all you need in order to understand the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

At this point, prayer is needed…not more typing.

:tiphat:
 
stewstew03 said:
King James version:

“And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed”

Eve’s seed is Christ? No, the woman is clearly Mary as “her seed” refers to Christ. There was no enmity between Eve and satan, as Eve brought sin into the world through her lack of obedience.
Click to expand...
“her seed” refers to to the antecedent character- “Eve”. Of course all righteous are Eve’s seed, Mary and Jesus included… I have heard this before ,that there was no enmity with Eve. That is flat out wrong in my zealous opinion. Who killed the prophets that Jesus talks about ? Who killed all the two year olds 2000 years ago ? Did satan take a 3000 year hibernation from planet earth and woke up when Mary came on the scene ? Did he say, "I will not war against the One, True, Holy, Patriarchal, Judaism, the salvation of the world ? Were all the OT folk in league with Satan, and all in hell, including Eve ? There was enmity between Him and Eve before and after the fall. How do you think you are even a Christian today, except that Eve and her seed carried forth the promise of our saviour.
 
stewstew03 said:
See Genesis 3:15.
Click to expand...
For clarity from Jimmy Akin:
The essential difference between these two renderings — or at least the one people always ask about — concerning who will crush the serpent’s head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns — she and her — implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns — he and his — implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.
Click to expand...
The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top