Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[NDfan]

Also Mary was taken up to heaven. Her body was never buried in the grave. Her body was pure was never left to rot. She was taken straight up to God. Now that is according to Church teachings. The same Church that gave us all other teachings. We either believe all of the teachings of the Church or we don’t.

Rinnie I believe most of the church’s teachings. But I believe with some of the Marian doctrines the church has taken the liberty of defining something that can’t be defined by scripture. We could say we believe scripture is suggestive of something. But we can’t then make that a required belief.

Also the only difference between Mary and Jesus is this, Mary did indeed need a savior, we agree and was indeed saved at her conception. But Jesus never needed a Savior he was a savior. Who was he going to be saved from himself. I was just pointing out your logic did not work. Because Jesus did indeed die.

No my logic works just fine. As pointed out in another thread Christ was murdered. HE did not die as a result of HIS own sin. HE lived in a sinful world which would jeopardize HIS life. I agree with what you said about Christ not needing a savior. Good way to say it But then that supports my point of Jesus not being able to inherit any sin from Mary because HE was the very savior of sin. If Mary needed a savior then she must have been a sinner.

He was crucified under p p suffered DIED and was buried. He was risen on the third day in fullfillment of scriptures. So they did both really die. Because he could not have been risen from the dead if he indeed had not died. Of course not his soul but neither does ours and thats a whole different mattter.

I think I covered this above

 

[NonCatholic]

Preaching that St Mary and St Joseph had other children is the real spin doctoring. The patristic support fot St Mary’s perpetual virginity is absolutely overwhelming–even the early reformers preached it. How sad it is for me to see this relatively modern heresy resurface time and time again.

You know you are on quicksand when you pick on the last part of the commentary, yet cannot refute the Scriptural facts, but I expect that since Scripture is secondary to the RCC…in my opinion and observation only. Even in the commentary, the evidences speak of Jesus having earthly brothers and sisters and this was way before the invention of another Mary. If she knew what was going on she would be almost as sick as Peter.

Anyway ever heard the saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…it a duck.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie I believe most of the church’s teachings. But I believe with some of the Marian doctrines the church has taken the liberty of defining something that can’t be defined by scripture. We could say we believe scripture is suggestive of something. But we can’t then make that a required belief.

No my logic works just fine. As pointed out in another thread Christ was murdered. HE did not die as a result of HIS own sin. HE lived in a sinful world which would jeopardize HIS life. I agree with what you said about Christ not needing a savior. Good way to say it But then that supports my point of Jesus not being able to inherit any sin from Mary because HE was the very savior of sin. If Mary needed a savior then she must have been a sinner.

I think I covered this above

yes Jesus was killed, don’t disagree with you there. But he still died and did not have sin. Now think our point was the Blessed mother right. If she had no sin you said why did she die. I said Jesus had no sin and he died. The point was still death. Now if being sinless meant you would not die, you are correct Jesus and the Blessed Mother would never have died. But scripture said we all die because we have sins. But it never said that if you are sinless you will not die. See what i mean. Now if you are asking did Mary have sin, I said that at her conception okay maybe for a second I guess but she was saved from sin at conception. What i am saying is she was saved from sin. So she was never brought into this world with sin like us. She was saved from sin before she ever entered this world. So from the moment of her conception she was saved. See what I mean. Her mother and father did have original sin, but it was her parents original sin that God saved her from right at conception. Make better sense now.

that is how I can say Mary lived her life without any stain of sin. God took care if that right off the bat. sorry Im not a good teacher. Hope you understand better.

 

[rinnie]

again my point I never said Jesus died as a result of his sin. I said Jesus had no sin but still died. See what I mean. Rather he was killed or not he still died. and was sinless. Just like the Blessed Mother died and was sinless.

 

[believers]

You know you are on quicksand when you pick on the last part of the commentary, yet cannot refute the Scriptural facts, but I expect that since Scripture is secondary to the RCC…in my opinion and observation only. Even in the commentary, the evidences speak of Jesus having earthly brothers and sisters and this was way before the invention of another Mary. If she knew what was going on she would be almost as sick as Peter.

Anyway ever heard the saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…it a duck.

Jesus definitely had siblings.

Luk 24:44
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Jesus quotes the Psalms

Jhn 15:25
But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Psa 69:4
They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away.

Jhn 2:16-17
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psa 69:9
For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Psa 69:4-9
Psa 69 (4) They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away. (5) O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. (6) Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel.(7) Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. (8) I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. (9) For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

 

[fbl9]

But FBL scripture does not say she was cleansed of original sin. That’s the meaning that is gleaned out of Luke 1:28. What I could see is if the church stated that she was clean while carrying Christ. But after the birth of Christ you can’t make the statement that she never sinned. Christ is the only one in scripture that we are told never sinned.

If Mary committed no sin why did she die? The wages of sin are death. If Mary died then how did that happen unless she was a sinner? Christ was murdered so we know HE didn’t die of natural causes as a result of HIS sin. But please answer this for me.

Blessings

And again we end up back at the beginning:shrug: Just what did it mean that Mary was “favored” by God always…and we know by His own words that she wasn’t favored by being His mother.Mary by being imaculate meant she is clean,now being clean she did not have the taint of orginal sin in her so,as mentioned,(sorry not in the mood to dig up the post an give credit where it is due ) she would not have the desire to sin.that’s the word she lacked concupiscene
Now as to Mary’s death we really have no definate knowledge of that…But this is known,there are claiments of her remains.

 

[fbl9]

So she was never brought into this world with sin like us. She was saved from sin before she ever entered this world. So from the moment of her conception she was saved. See what I mean. Her mother and father did have original sin, but it was her parents original sin that God saved her from right at conception. Make better sense now.

that is how I can say Mary lived her life without any stain of sin. God took care if that right off the bat. sorry Im not a good teacher. Hope you understand better.

yep:thumbsup: also a good one rinnie.

 

[Good_Fella]

Jesus’ very purpose of coming into the world was to come into direct contact with sin: he took it upon himself on the Cross. Secondly, if God could put a shield around Mary at her conception to protect her from sin, he could just as easily have done it to Jesus and cut out the middle-man (or woman).

“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.”
Job 14, 4

We were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Ephesians 2, 3

Human nature is wounded by a sinful inclination. We are sinful by nature once we are conceived in the womb. Jesus (the Son of Man) was conceived and born sinless because his mother was preserved free from the stain of original sin. If our Lord’s mother had been unclean, then Jesus would have been unclean in his humanity. Jesus is as fully human as he is divine. He subjected himself entirely to our fallen human condition - save sinfulness.

Though he was in the form of God,
Jesus did not deem equality with God
something to be grasped at.
Rather, he emptied himself
and took the form of a slave,
being born in the likeness of men.
He was known to be of human estate,
and it was thus that he humbled himself,
obediently accepting death,
death on a cross!
Philippians 2, 6-8

St. Paul tells us in his epistle that Jesus “did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at” and “he was known to be of human estate”, so it is evident that Jesus was as fully human as we are when he dwelt among us through his incarnation, albeit he is divine. If Mary hadn’t been preserved free from the stain of original sin, then the words of the psalmist David could have been applied to our Lord.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51, 5

But since Jesus did not contract a sinful human nature from his mother when he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, St. Paul can truthfully teach us:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who has been similarily tested in every way, yet without sin.
Hebrews 4, 15

God had to shield Mary from the stain of original sin because she was a human creature who, not unlike us, was implicated in the sin of Adam and in need of redemption. There was no need for God to directly shield his Only-begotten Son from original sin, for Jesus is a divine Person who has never been implicated with the rest of the human race, albeit he was made human by his incarnation: “made of a woman, made under the law” (cf. Gal 4:4). To suggest that God could have intervened by shielding his Son in the womb as he had protected Mary would presuppose that Jesus was also in need of redemption. But since a divine Person was to take on a wounded human nature, God ordained in his love and wisdom that his Only-begotten Son should not be entirely affected by the taint of original sin (concupiscence) upon his incarnation. This would be unfitting.

Because into a soul that plots evil wisdom enters not,
nor dwells she in a body under debt of sin.
Wisdom 1, 4

The personal sin originally committed by Adam and Eve is a sin that has somehow affected our human nature, transmitted by propogation to all the human race in the form of the deprivation of original holiness and justice, forfeited by Adam and Eve. As a result, our human nature is not totally corrupted but wounded in its natural powers with an inclination to sin. Since Mary’s soul was sanctified at the first instant of her conception, and she was spared this deprivation, she was preserved from acquiring a sinful nature - the concomitant of the loss of the original state of holiness and justice, the absence of God’s sanctifying grace brought about by the fall of Adam and Eve.

Hence, Jesus was born into a sinful world but was sinless in his humanity like his mother. In Thomistic terms Mary was the conjoined-passive principle in the generation of the Son of Man. Jesus took his human nature from Mary. If the stain of original sin had been passed on to her, then Jesus would have been tainted by a sinful inclination. Original sin is contracted from both parents, since either of them have a fallen human nature. It makes no difference whether Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, the active-separate principle of his human generation. It is true that Jesus was never implicated in the deprivation of man’s original state of holiness and justice, but nevertheless he did “empty himself and took the form of a slave”, subjecting himself to our fallen condition: suffering and the dominion of death. But it was fitting that Jesus should be like us in all things but sin by virtue of his divinity.

“As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.”
Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446)

 

[NonCatholic]

Jesus definitely had siblings.

Luk 24:44
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Jesus quotes the Psalms

Jhn 15:25
But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Psa 69:4
They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away.

Jhn 2:16-17
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psa 69:9
For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Psa 69:4-9
Psa 69 (4) They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away. (5) O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. (6) Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel.(7) Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. (8) I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. (9) For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Very good point…wasn’t following till you got to the end…I hope I remember Psalm 69…thanks!

 

[NonCatholic]

Only a sinner needs a Savior; otherwise there is no saving to be done since the Savior’s task was to remove sin. Jesus was the only human to walk the face of the earth without sin.

Has anyone ever thought about Joseph, would God prevent him from his Holy Matrimony duties as a husband and the command to procreate?

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, **before they came together she was found to be with child **by the Holy Spirit

Matthew 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, **do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife;
**
So God sent an angel and told Joseph to take her as his wife; thus changing his mind about putting her away…and oh by the way…you can’t have any children with her I need to keep her a virgin.

Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 3:31-35
31 **Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. **32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.” 33 But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” 34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

Matthew 13:5-56
54 And when He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 **Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? **Where then did this Man get all these things?”

The problem of the identity of the four brothers and sisters of Jesus, mentioned in this place, did not exist in ancient times. Helvidius, the most ancient commentator on this passage, said that they were all the children of Mary and Joseph, born after Jesus was born. It was only in ages after men had invented religious doctrines incompatible with the obvious truth of Matthew’s words, that ingenious interpretations were devised to relieve the embarrassment. All such efforts fail in the light of the simple, obvious, and necessary meaning of Matthew 13:55,56. The truth was built into the passage by the Holy Spirit and is incapable of destruction.

Source: Coffman’s commentary on the NT

Summary: The Mary of the RCC is not the Mary in Holy Scripture.:hammering:

Believer - anything you would like to add besides Psalm 69

Psalm 6:7-8 7 Because for Your sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8 I have become estranged from my brothers And an alien to my mother’s sons. :coffeeread:

 

[Benadam]

The deepest and most sublime revelations from Scriptures are found in what is not explicit. The Jews call it ‘in the silence of’

So it is with the Emaculate Conception.

How could Jesus teach 'Only a good tree can produce good fruit" if the womb that bore Him produced the seed of sin? Especially knowing that the testimony that prepared His people to receive His presence first refered to Him as ‘seed’. What seed does not become a reproduction of it’s kind? No, the elegently consistent, comprehensive, ageless language of the bible is violated when one insists that Mary sinned.

God works within the order He established, and within that order a good seed can’t originate from evil. In the order God established a seed becomes a reproduction of it’s kind. The purpose of a seed in the order established by God is to become a reproduction of it’s kind.

 

[Benadam]

I am always amazed that folks can believe that child was produced from an egg that was not fertilized by any earthly means, that a pregnancy happened without an earthly origin, it’s really so radical that it’s rarely if ever grasped in a way that a person can know how they would respond if made real to them.

I bet dollars to donuts that if any one of us were expereincing a human bond with someone who conceived without sex our mind would reel at all the implications abut what kind of person it is that can be a part of something like that.

To know by experience this radically mysterious and miraculous kind of reproducing of ones kind generated by life unimagineably elevated would naturally make one reject any former means of the same.

 

[mardukm]

But Mary did not represent the permanent place GOD would abide in HIS incarnate state.

I don’t understand the relevance of this.

Scripture tells us that Jesus was born into sin but committed no sin.

Where does Scripture say that? I recall Scripture saying that he who knew no sin became sin for us, but this is in reference to the Sacrifice, not his birth.

What you are suggesting is that Jesus could have been affected by Mary’s sinful state requiring her to be sinless. That would mean that GOD can be tainted by sin which is impossible. This is where the argument runs into Jesus human nature vs HIS GODLY nature. And again I will refer right back to scripture which shows that when Jesus touches unclean people they are cleansed. It’s not the other way around. That people had to be clean to touch Jesus.

As I explained earlier to brother Mickey, Mary’s Immaculateness was necessary for the sake of Christ not because Christ needed it to be holy, but BECAUSE Christ was/is holy. It was the dignity that was required of the All-Holy God. The dogma of the IC makes this explicit - “in consideration of the merits of Christ Jesus our Savior…” The dogma of the IC explicitly affirms NOT that it is necessary to preserve the holy divinity of Christ, but BECAUSE OF that very holy divinity.

Again Mary did not represent the permanent abode for GOD. GOD also was not incarnate when HE resided in the Temple. There’s a big difference.

As above, I don’t see the relevance of this argument.

As far as other purposes for Mary, I do believe HE had other purposes for her. Are you proposing that Mary’s sole purpose in life was to bring forth the Messiah?

It was her PRIMARY purpose, as already explained to brother Mickey.

And I don’t disagree. But where we differ in our thinking is the need for Mary to be sinless right from birth until she died. GOD abided in her as Christ for 9 months. After GOD left the Temple it was destroyed and rebuilt and destroyed again.

God never left Mary.

I will ask you the same question I posed to another on this board. If Mary was sinless then why did she die? The wages of sin are death. If Mary was taken to Heaven alive as a non-sinner then why doesn’t scripture record it?

That Mary died is a theologoumenon in the Latin Catholic Church. That she died is a sure doctrine in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches.

Mary died because that is the nature of the natural, unglorified human body. What you don’t understand is that the dogma of Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s spiritual conception, not her physical conception. I suggest you read up on the matter in the NewAdvent site. This current argument you give is a straw man. The dogma of the IC in no way proposes that Mary did NOT die.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Wrong. This is real simple:

If God could stop Mary from inheriting Original Sin, he could skip a step and stop it directly at Jesus. The Catholic reasoning is nothing but special pleading.

This reflects another difference between the Protestant view and the Catholic and patristic view - God works THROUGH His creation. That is the basis of Sacramental theology. It is a basic difference which separates Protestantism from apostolic Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, ACOE; and to a lesser extent, High Anglicanism and High Church Lutheranism).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Canto]

If Mary was taken to Heaven alive as a non-sinner then why doesn’t scripture record it? Certainly John who cared for Mary would know this and would have written about such a significant event. Yet we see nothing from him or any other writers who lived during and after that time in that area.

Maybe Mary was still alive when scripure was written

Is John going to write about Mary’s assumption yet not make explicit the Trinity or the Canon of the Bible etc?

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

2 John 1:12 Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you and speak face to face, that your joy may be full.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

** The key to understanding Mary is this:
We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ, the Son of the Living God! The less we think of Him, the less we think of Her; the more we think of him, the more we think of Her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate Her Motherhood; the less we adore His Divinity, the less reason we have of respecting Her…
Noone…who thinks logically about Christ can understand such a question as: “Why do you speak so often of His Mother?”…
You may say “Our Lord is enough for me. I have no need of her”. BUT HE NEEDED HER, whether we do or not. And what is more important, Christ gave us His Mother as our Mother…

Another way to look at this is in the comparison of King David’s words upon seeing the recently regained ark (2 Sam 6:9) and Elizabeth’s exclamation upon seeing Mary (Luke 1:43). Also, the people of Jerusalem shouted with joy on the same ocasion 2 Sam 6:15), while Elizabeth also reacted with a “loud cry” to Mary (Luke 1:42), saying “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!”
Furthermore, as David leapt for joy when the ark was brought to Jerusalem (2 SAm 6:14-16, 1 Chron 15:29), so did John the Baptist in Elizabeth’s womb when the ark of the New Covenant was near (Luke 1:44). It was what each ark contained (The written and incarnated Word of God) that caused the joy in each case, and that is the whole point of the Catholic verson of Mary.**

 

[Peter_J]

What you are suggesting is that Jesus could have been affected by Mary’s sinful state requiring her to be sinless. That would mean that GOD can be tainted by sin which is impossible. This is where the argument runs into Jesus human nature vs HIS GODLY nature. And again I will refer right back to scripture which shows that when Jesus touches unclean people they are cleansed. It’s not the other way around. That people had to be clean to touch Jesus.

NDfan, can you show me where the RCC teaches that " Jesus could have been affected by Mary’s sinful state requiring her to be sinless". (It’s kind of a trick question.)

P.S. I hope you don’t mind my responding to an “old” post. I didn’t visit this thread for a couple days, then when I did I discovered that there were about 80 new posts.

 

[Peter_J]

Typically, the one who makes the affirmative claim has to provide proof of the claim.

I agree with you there, ckempston. We Catholics are certainly not in the business of saying “Mary must have been immaculately conceived because no one’s proven that she wasn’t.”

 

[Good_Fella]

Only a sinner needs a Savior; otherwise there is no saving to be done since the Savior’s task was to remove sin.

Has anyone ever thought about Joseph, would God prevent him from his Holy Matrimony duties as a husband and the command to procreate?

In his Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius lX states that Mary was granted this “singular privilege and grace by God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.” The merits of Christ’s sacrifice were applied to Mary in advance, as they were applied to the Old Testament saints before Jesus died on the cross. Mary was in need of a saviour because she was implicated in the universal sin of Adam and Eve. But she was not redeemed by having been forgiven through the repentance of personal sins she herself may have committed. Her redemption assuredly took place at the first instant she was conceived in her mother’s womb, not at the precise moment of her death.

Thus in the Magnificat Mary humbly acknowledges her need for a saviour, but in the same breath she confidently asserts that she has been saved. God redeemed Mary by preserving her free from the stain of original sin. Like us she needed a saviour, but her redemption was realized in a unique manner unlike ours. Original sin is marked by the absence of sanctifying grace in the human soul upon its creation and union with the body. In the Annunciation the angel Gabriel hailed and addressed Mary in allusion to her spiritual state and privileged position with God: Mary was endowed with a perfect and lasting grace when God favourably fashioned her soul upon her conception by virtue of her Divine Maternity.

And Mary said,
“My soul proclaims the glory of the Lord,
my spirit rejoices in God my savior
for he has looked with favour on his lowly servant.
From this day all generations will call me blessed;
the Almighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.”
Luke 1, 46-49

The same evangelist who penned the angel’s strange greeting and Mary’s declaration of joy and praise clearly typifies Mary as a type of ark of the Covenant (cf. Lk 1:39, 2 Sam 6:2; 1:41, 6:16; 1:43, 6:9; 1:43, 6:11). For the Jews the ark of the Old Covenant was the most sacred article of religious worship, God himself being the highest object. It held the Ten Commandments, Aaron’s rod, and the manna from heaven. And the ark was fashioned with the purest gold. Luke reveals Mary’s soul and thereby body was fashioned pure and spotless by the grace of God, for she was highly favoured to conceive and bear the Word made flesh.

The evangelist is acknowledging a traditional belief and practice of Marian devotion that had existed in the infant church in Palestine. The Jewish Christians venerated Mary as they had once venerated the ark of the Old Covenant while still belonging to the Judaic faith (cf. 1 Chron 15-16). They spontaneously perceived Mary as the pure and undefiled ark of the New Covenant. Writing his gospel about seven to twelve years after Mary’s death and Assumption (cf. Rev 11,19; 12:1), Luke confirms the Marian devotion of his time when he describes Mary’s conception of Jesus in the words of the angel Gabriel.

“The holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”
Luke 1, 35

The word “overshadow”, which the angel Gabriel used, is the same word (‘episkiasei’) used to describe God’s glory cloud “overshadowing” the ark of the Old Covenant (cf. Ex 24: 15-16; 40: 34-38; 1 Kg 8: 10-11; Job 14:4; 2 Mac 2: 4-8). Like the ark of the Old Covenant, Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was overshadowed by God’s glory cloud (‘shekinah’) and became the “Holy of Holies”, having been originally fashioned pure and undefiled according to God’s specifications, so the faithful in Luke’s time believed in their devotion to Mary (cf. Lk 1:1-4).

Joseph was a devout Jew as well as “a just and honest man”, so I’m sure he had no intentions of having conjugal relations with Mary after having agreed to a celibate marriage (rare but not unheard of among the Jews), according to oral tradition (cf. Lk 1:34). Still as a devout Jew he must have perceived or known that his marriage was no ordinary marriage in light of the Incarnation. The Messiah was expected to be of paternal lineage. The truth is Joseph honoured Mary’s vow of chastity to God. When Luke wrote “I do not know a man”, he was not using the present tense verb arbitrarily as we would do with no definite knowledge of the future outcome. He wrote his gospel after the life of Mary signifying her permanent state of virginity, not an instant of time, in complete acknowledgement of a traditional awareness of the church in Palestine.

If Joseph had broken God’s commandment to procreate, then so did Paul who remained celibate. The apostle must have approved of Mary’s choice to remain a virgin and chaste in view of her divine vocation, for he teaches us that marriage can foster worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s close relationship with God (cf. 1 Cor 7:28). Indeed, Paul says, “So that he that marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage (procreation) will do better” ( 1 Cor 7:38). Paul is clearly telling us that the greater good lies in abstinence for the sake of the kingdom. He does wish that everyone was celibate like him ( 1 Cor 7:7).

PAX :harp:

 

[NonCatholic]

LOL!

I am Orthodox and we stand united with Catholics on this. The undivided Church believed in the perpetual virginity of St Mary–that is why it goes unchallenged by protestants. It has been taught this way for 2000 years and your challeges are fruitless…

Luke 1:46-47
46 And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior."

Only a sinner needs a Savior; otherwise there is no saving to be done since the Savior’s task was to remove sin. Jesus was the only human to walk the face of the earth without sin.

Has anyone ever thought about Joseph, would God prevent him from his Holy Matrimony duties as a husband and the command to procreate?

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, **before they came together she was found to be with child **by the Holy Spirit

Matthew 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, **do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife;
**
So God sent an angel and told Joseph to take her as his wife; thus changing his mind about putting her away…and oh by the way…you can’t have any children with her I need to keep her a virgin. Would that make any sense whatsoever?

Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 3:31-35
31 **Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. **32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.” 33 But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” 34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

Matthew 13:5-56
54 And when He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 **Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? **Where then did this Man get all these things?”

Helvidius (106 A.D.), the most ancient commentator known on this passage, said that they were all the children of Mary and Joseph, born after Jesus was born. It was only in ages after men had invented religious doctrines incompatible with the obvious truth of Matthew’s words, that ingenious interpretations were devised to relieve the embarrassment. All such efforts fail in the light of the simple, obvious, and necessary meaning of Matthew 13:55-56. The truth was built into the passage by the Holy Spirit and is incapable of destruction.

Source: Coffman’s commentary on the NT

In addition, **Psalm 69:8-11 7 **Because for Your sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8 I have become estranged from my brothers And an alien to my mother’s sons. 9 For zeal for Your house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me.

**Summary: The Mary of the RCC is not and cannot be the Mary in Holy Scripture.:hammering:
**
Can anyone, especially Mickey, add some confusion or refute to what Scripture clearly teaches on this?