Protestants, who have been around awhile, question about the Virgin Mary

[rinnie]

Again, the statement was made that the Holy Spirit leads us ,we are not orphans .You said nothing of my statement that some make that we are not orphans because of head bishop/pope . Now you add we have tradition to guide us also. The Lord does discern just how much we really rely on Him and how much on other good things that may represent Him. Protestants have bishops ,deacons ,elders and for sure a “center”. They ,just like Orthodox have no pope ,but many(Pappa=bishop) .Are we not “Christians”, that is those who are in Christ, of Christ and by Christ .That is those whose lives have the risen Christ as their “Center”.

Huh? So you feel that you are not orphans because you do not have S.T. or you are orphans because you do not have S.T.?

 

[rinnie]

Well we have discussed some scriptures, and I acknowledge your evidence for IC.,just disagree to interpretation. Next is tradition and I find the first hundred years I have studied/read to be in line with the interpretations I am led to believe in. I understand your position that indeed the doctrines did surface, were defined later and that during the early "silent " time of the first hundred years must have been present, for how else could they have appeared later if they were not in the fomer.

How can you believe the doctrines indeed did surface, but yet still deny them? And by the way david the doctrines did not just surface, they never existed prior because they never came into question.

Everything about the Blessed Mother was believed by all of the Early Church.

Next you acknowledge the EVIDENCE, but now disagree with the interpretation. Kind of goes hand in hand with the scripture huh?

Therefore the world inspires what they say and listens to them. WE ARE FROM GOD anyone recognizes GOD listens to US.

So it all comes back to Apostolic Authority does it not. How can we distinguish the truth from a falsehood. The Bible tells us. Apostolic Authority.

 

[JustaServant]

I do not believe my theology on Mary is any different from the apostles,oral or written ,nor different from any early church father 100 years after the church started

Your argument is with the ECFs.
Within 100 years of Christ’s Resurrection:

“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7.

“[T]hey blessed her, saying: O God of our fathers, bless this child, and give her an everlasting name to be named in all generations. And all the people said: So be it, so be it, amen. And he brought her to the chief priests; and they blessed her, saying: O God most high, look upon this child, and bless her with the utmost blessing, which shall be for ever.” Protoevangelium of John, 6:2.

“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100

 

[brumano]

Amen. As just like Genesis,what hath the Lord really said ? Though you rightfully give proper honor to the role of the Holy Spirit as our leader and ever present, not being left as orphans, many Catholics say that without a head bishop/pope we would be “orphans”. Certainly the Orthodox and Protestants feel “shepherded”, and though one can knock 20,000 Protestants denominations you can not sat that about Orthodoxy.

The Scriptures you keep basing your posts on all support Catholic Doctrine, now your speaking of Jnc14, especially v18, I think. c14 is all adressed to the twelve at the Lord’s supper; it’s adressed to the world through the scriptural church. Keep in mind everything that is being said in Jn. and remember what you agree with us about, that God is 100% faithful, and when He says that He would not leave them or us orphans He really means it. An orphan has no parents, mother or father of any kind to take care of them, spiritual children as they are, where does the Lord then provide a mother? You guessed it, Jnc19vs 26 and 27 again comes back to remind you.

 

[david_ruiz]

The Protoevangelium of James is circa 120-150 AD

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey… having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race… Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the virgin Mary loosed through faith.” (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, Book III c. 180 AD)

Here, St. Irenaeus uses “virginity” as a sign of sinlessness (i.e. Mary was sinless just as Eve was sinless before the Fall).

Are you going to change the parameters again, and say that it must be before 100 AD?

No. Most think it was written around 145 AD I would not consider this a church Father "writing ,but spurious.James did not write this.Do you have documentation to show how virginity now means sinless, according to Iraneius ? Might be, but a simple reading of your quote has no qualms in protestant views of Mary also. Thank-you

 

[david_ruiz]

Your argument is with the ECFs.
Within 100 years of Christ’s Resurrection:

“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7.

:2 There is one only physician, of flesh and of
spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life
in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible
and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.is Lightfoot translation .Do not se IC or Assumption ,even perpetual virginity.

“[T]hey blessed her, saying: O God of our fathers, bless this child, and give her an everlasting name to be named in all generations. And all the people said: So be it, so be it, amen. And he brought her to the chief priests; and they blessed her, saying: O God most high, look upon this child, and bless her with the utmost blessing, which shall be for ever.” Protoevangelium of John, 6:2.

Another spurious book,not regarded by most as a church father book.

“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100

Looks good .very scriptural ,but where is IC or Assumption or ever -virgin?

 

[david_ruiz]

The Scriptures you keep basing your posts on all support Catholic Doctrine, now your speaking of Jnc14, especially v18, I think. c14 is all adressed to the twelve at the Lord’s supper; it’s adressed to the world through the scriptural church. Keep in mind everything that is being said in Jn. and remember what you agree with us about, that God is 100% faithful, and when He says that He would not leave them or us orphans He really means it. An orphan has no parents, mother or father of any kind to take care of them, spiritual children as they are, where does the Lord then provide a mother? You guessed it, Jnc19vs 26 and 27 again comes back to remind you.

Well at least you agree that scriptures in John there can apply to you ,howbeit not directly except via the church.I agree that the body ,the church is evangelical a spreader of seeds,planters waterers pruners etc etc.yet each has the indwelling and receiver of the promises of the Comforter .It is not just for clergy.That is OT. Again ,you do not addresss Pope

 

[david_ruiz]

]How can you believe the doctrines indeed did surface, but yet still deny them?

Don’t believe they are apostolic

And by the way david the doctrines did not just surface, they never existed prior because they never came into question.

Yes ,like the trinity ,the gateway argument for almost anything.

Everything about the Blessed Mother was believed by all of the Early Church.

What is “early” ? Tough to prove it was in the earliest

Next you acknowledge the EVIDENCE, but now disagree with the interpretation. Kind of goes hand in hand with the scripture huh?

I acknowledge your evidence,your interpretation,your basis for belief.Doesn’t mean it is so.You can always present eveidence,but you forget the contrary evidence .You can easily acknowledge contrary eveidence without believing it .Some of this stuff has been argued for centuries my friend, even before any Protestantism.

So it all comes back to Apostolic Authority does it not. How can we distinguish the truth from a falsehood. The Bible tells us. Apostolic Authority.

No,apostolic authority tells us of its authority.Sacred tradition tells us of its authority.The bible tells us of its authority (as well as the role of the church ,and of oral tradition)

 

[david_ruiz]

Huh? So you feel that you are not orphans because you do not have S.T. or you are orphans because you do not have S.T.?

You brought up the orphan thing not me .No such thing as an christian “orphan”. pope or no pope ,ST or no ST.

 

[david_ruiz]

Funny how again he is in direct conflict with the words of God. Jesus said the gates of hades will not prevail, david says the gates of hades prevailed after 100A.D.

Your speculating on what I said from your own paradigms, not mine.

 

[david_ruiz]

The Orthodox have Bishops to lead them also do they not? Apostolic Succession?

Tell me david what was the reason Jesus left the 12 Apostles if not to teach us. Why was Timothy told to stick to the teachings of the Early Fathers of the Church? What for then david? Is this not scripture.

How david do you feel about this scripture.

2 Peter When we TOLD you about the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ we were not slavishly repeating cleverly invented myths. NO we SEEN his majesty with our own eyes…

So we HAVE CONFIRMATION of the words of the prophets and you will be right to pay attention to it as a lamp for lighting a way through the dark, until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds. At the same time WE MUST RECOGNISE that the INTERPRETATION of SCRIPTURAL prophecy is NEVER a matter for the INDIVIDUAL. No prophecy EVER CAME from HUMAN inititave. When people spoke for GOD it was the Holy Spirit that moved them.

As there were false prophets in past history of our people YOU TOO will have your FALSE TEACHERS.

Lets stop there david, FALSE TEACHERS, seems there that is proof that we need teachers. Some will be TRUE some will be FALSE.

Such SELF_WILLED people with no reverence are not afraid of offending against the glorious ones.

Lets go back david, where is this confirmation of the words of the prophets when there is no Sacred Tradition? How do you understand Sacred Scripture without putting it together with S.T?

The bible itself tells you ST and SS. Do you see the problem now david? What is not written is passed down by word of mouth. Just as the bible tells us.

Where is the word of mouth S.T.? You do not have it, so it must be false?

The bible says Children you are from God and have overcome them because he who is in you is greater then he who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore the world inspires what they say and listens to them.

WE ARE FROM GOD whoever recognises GOD listens to US. This is how we can distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood.

This tells you david, read it for yourself the Christian prophets RECOGNIZED evangelists and preachers with APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY.

How can one have truth from the Holy Spirit to teach and preach in the name of Christ without Apostolic Authority? I ask you that. When Christ tells us this is how we can distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood. This is gospel truth david. Read it.

1 John 4

So tell me David, scripture itself tells us how to distinguish, its Apostolic Authority. How can you deny that? Where is Apostolic Authority in the protestant church’s?

Thank-you rinnie .You have passion.May i kindly say we are talking of Popes of which you make no direct reference to. You know those outside your church believe in teachers bishops, apostles, etc .Apostolic is as apostolic does. You know much of what we preach is of apostolic origins hence authority(the apostles creed). It is funny how division over marion doctrine ,even amongst Catholics ages ago would end with each side saying similar things to each other like what you are saying and much more ,They would even anathemize each other -all over Mary doctrines.

 

[david_ruiz]

David how and when was she baptised? When did God spill his blood as you say and reconciled her? Before the death of his Son Jesus Christ. I don’t th ink so.

WHen are you getting this 7-8 days? What are you talking about? Are you trying to say Eve was saved from Original sin before Christ died on the Cross, and she was not free from Original sin until she caused it

There were baptisms of sorts in OT Are you saying no one in OT was reconciled ? Is Eve in the tormenting hell ? Did you see Jesus spill His blood for you ? No. I did not either . Yet ,we believe it by faith ! Did Eve see God spill His own blood .NO. She saw it by faith . The lambs blood was a foreshadow of the Lamb to come .Eve was not dumb to it all.

 

[Patavium]

No. Most think it was written around 145 AD I would not consider this a church Father "writing ,but spurious.James did not write this.Do you have documentation to show how virginity now means sinless, according to Iraneius ? Might be, but a simple reading of your quote has no qualms in protestant views of Mary also. Thank-you

David,

I don’t know if you have noticed, but you are the one reading quotes from the Early Church supporting the doctrines of Mary, and you are rejecting them with numerous excuses. YET, you cannot seem to find ONE EXPLICIT quote supporting your argument from the Early Church.

With respect to St. Irenaeus’s Against Heresies

He further says

“The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree *. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten" (Against Heresies 5:19:1 – 189 AD)

Doesn’t this remind you to our discussion several pages ago of the parallel between Mary and Eve?*

 

[Ubenedictus]

No. Most think it was written around 145 AD I would not consider this a church Father "writing ,but spurious.James did not write this.Do you have documentation to show how virginity now means sinless, according to Iraneius ? Might be, but a simple reading of your quote has no qualms in protestant views of Mary also. Thank-you

i saw this one coming, you will simply cut out anything that is beyond 100AD, which leave a little that you can certainly explain away. At the end tradition isnt a unified whole since you will keep slashing them unless they are from 100AD. Funny enough even the name ‘catholic church’ cant be found in writting before 100AD same goes for the word trinity, and consubtantiality the list goes on. That period didnt have any marian heresy to contend so the church fathers of that period will only mention mary in a larger discussion. When tradition cant be treated as a whole then i would have a problem calling it tradition.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

:2 There is one only physician, of flesh and of
spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life
in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible
and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.is Lightfoot translation .Do not se IC or Assumption ,even perpetual virginity.
Another spurious book,not regarded by most as a church father book.

Looks good .very scriptural ,but where is IC or Assumption or ever -virgin?

when i give those quote you will simply say it was after 100AD. So why waste my time?
Ubenedictus

 

[Patavium]

i saw this one coming, you will simply cut out anything that is beyond 100AD, which leave a little that you can certainly explain away. At the end tradition isnt a unified whole since you will keep slashing them unless they are from 100AD. Funny enough even the name ‘catholic church’ cant be found in writting before 100AD same goes for the word trinity, and consubtantiality the list goes on. That period didnt have any marian heresy to contend so the church fathers of that period will only mention mary in a larger discussion. When tradition cant be treated as a whole then i would have a problem calling it tradition.
Ubenedictus

Yes, and even if we could find any supporting sources. David could easily change the parameters to before 50 AD.

David, again… You have the history of the marian doctrine in this thread, and you have yet to show the history of those opposing the marian doctrine. We have shown evidence from the Early Church, arguments based on the bible, and also the support of your very own Protestant reformers to the marian doctrine.

What did you show? a few interpretations of the scripture, no historical arguments, and a small discussion about the meaning of Full of Grace in the biblical greek (which was refuted here, and was not refuted even by the protestant themselves that mentioned it).

 

[Ubenedictus]

Well at least you agree that scriptures in John there can apply to you ,howbeit not directly except via the church.I agree that the body ,the church is evangelical a spreader of seeds,planters waterers pruners etc etc.yet each has the indwelling and receiver of the promises of the Comforter .It is not just for clergy.That is OT. Again ,you do not addresss Pope

i thought the bible is very clear that scripture isnt up for personal interpretation.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

No,apostolic authority tells us of its authority.Sacred tradition tells us of its authority.The bible tells us of its authority (as well as the role of the church ,and of oral tradition)

explain please.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

You brought up the orphan thing not me .No such thing as an christian “orphan”. pope or no pope ,ST or no ST.

yeah no christian orphan because a christian has the holyspirit and should follow the teaching of the apostles who make it clear that a christian should be a member of a congregation gathered around her bishop.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Thank-you rinnie .You have passion.May i kindly say we are talking of Popes of which you make no direct reference to.

i think you forgot about the orthodox patriarch.

You know those outside your church believe in teachers bishops, apostles, etc .Apostolic is as apostolic does. You know much of what we preach is of apostolic origins hence authority(the apostles creed). It is funny how division over marion doctrine ,even amongst Catholics ages ago would end with each side saying similar things to each other like what you are saying and much more ,They would even anathemize each other -all over Mary doctrines.

mary doctrine? Is that what you called it? The council of ephesus anathemise a bishop because he wouldnt assent to the title ‘theotokus’. His refusal of assent showed a hole in his christological faith. Marian doctrines exists because they clear up the question of the existence of Jesus the God man.
Ubenedictus