Scripture and Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter teachccd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Old_Scholar said:
I** am not making false statements. It is you who have not studied your church history well enough but have accepted what you have been told, even though your own history and tradition will tell you different if you will only look.

This is a fallacy** of the Roman Catholic Church. There was no pope with authority over all the churches in those times. That false belief came long after Constantine.

Although Marcellus is called a pope now, actually he was only a presbyter, not a bishop. He was given the ecclesiastical administration duties during the latter part of a period of vacancy of the bishop’s chair.

Marcellus was required by Maxentius, who was furious at Marcellus reorganizing the Church, to lay aside his espicopal dignity and make an offering to the gods. Marcellus refused and he was condemned to work as a slave on the public highway. He was finally set free by the clergy but than again condemned to the work of attending to the horses brought into the highway station and he died there doing menial work.
This was one of your popes.

The bishop of Rome had no authority over any other churches at that time and today the Roman Church wants to believe that the bishop of Rome was pope with papal authority. That is simply not true.

I know Roman Catholics have bought the false pope bit but if you would simply study your own history, you would see it is just a fallacy brought on by those who wanted to establish a pope.

For example, Gregory I (the Great) was Bishop of Rome 590 – 604** and gives us clear proof that there was nothing like a papacy in his day or previous to it.** When John Bishop of Constantinople attempted to assert for himself the title of “universal bishop”, Gregory, in several letters to John as well as to others, pleads against the arrogance. He claims that such a title had been offered to the bishop of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon, and by others afterwards, but that none of his forebears had ever consented to so profane a title even when they offered it. And he refused to allow others to call him by such a title. He called such a title, “blasphemy”, and any who would accept it “the precursor of AntiChrist”. His words were:

***For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally… Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.

And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors. And yet not one of them would ever use this title … .***Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VIII, Epistle XXX. To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria

Gregory argues that Christ alone is the Head of His Church, and that there is none besides—neither apostles nor any other. Even while he claimed to be a successor of Peter and exerted authority as such within his jurisdiction at Rome, where Peter ended his life, Gregory also acknowledged that the Sees of Antioch and Alexandria were equally the Sees of Peter and their bishops equally his successors. Peter had founded the church at Antioch where he spent seven years, and he had sent his disciple Mark to found the church at Alexandria.

It was in the eighth century that a document appeared, purported to be a legal title granted by the emperor Constantine, in the fourth century, to Sylvester bishop of Rome. It granted to him Supremacy over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the whole world.

This appeared to give a legal claim to a papacy for the bishop of Rome with authority over all which he had no right previously as well as over the Papal States. **This document was proven to be a forgery however, by Lorenzo Valla in 1440 in his Declamatio. ** Unfortunately by that time, the papacy was set in place and its adherents were well under its control and unwilling to expose it as a false papacy.

That’s how the papacy got started. It is a false papacy with no real authority except what is given it by the Roman Catholics.

It may make Roman Catholics feel better about the pope and they are probably teaching their children of the headship of the ‘pope’ over God’s Church, and of his apostolic succession from Peter, but it is all fiction.

How much greater the blessing it is to know and understand the truth: that Christ is the only Head of the Church, and the true and only Source of its unity; and the Holy Spirit is His Vicar on the Earth!

Study your Church’s real history and enlighten yourself.
Click to expand...
My sources are the Brittanica Encyclopaedia and Websters Dictionary. I trust them to be more objective than you, however I’m sure they would welcome your correction to their data if it is factual.
 
pete_29 said:
My sources are the Brittanica Encyclopaedia and Websters Dictionary. I trust them to be more objective than you, however I’m sure they would welcome your correction to their data if it is factual.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of false statement in Old Scholar’s post, which many historians would just laugh at.
 
Old Scholar,

You did made a false statement. You wrote:
Old Scholar:
Sorry but at the time of Constantine, there was no pope!
Click to expand...
And we have shown you there are during his birth and his reign. The Christian Church which always been Catholic has always been there. History disproves your fallacies claims.

and it is shameful that you spread lies here. What a deceiver like. You are no better than Satan himself for deceiving us.
 
Old_Scholar said:
IThis is a fallacy of the Roman Catholic Church. There was no pope with authority over all the churches in those times. That false belief came long after Constantine.

Peter? Linus? Clement? Anacletus? You suppose that these are fictional inventions?
The bishop of Rome had no authority over any other churches at that time and today the Roman Church wants to believe that the bishop of Rome was pope with papal authority. That is simply not true.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Old Scholar,

You did made a false statement. You wrote:

And we have shown you there are during his birth and his reign. The Christian Church which always been Catholic has always been there. History disproves your fallacies claims.

and it is shameful that you spread lies here. What a deceiver like. You are no better than Satan himself for deceiving us.
Click to expand...
I have already shown you that there was no Pope—no one bishop in charge of the entire church at that time. There could have been someone who was called pope, though we have no proof of that, but for sure there was no one person in charge of all the churches. It just hadn’thappened yet. If you will read the references I gave you, you will find that history yourself.
 
Old_Scholar said:
I have already shown you that there was no Pope—no one bishop in charge of the entire church at that time. There could have been someone who was called pope, though we have no proof of that, but for sure there was no one person in charge of all the churches. It just hadn’thappened yet. If you will read the references I gave

you, you will find that history yourself.
Click to expand...
There was a Bishop. The Bishop of Rome is the Pope. You were just show 5 Popes who reign at that time.

Do come to this Catholic Forum and SPREAD YOUR PATHETIC LIES!!!

Here is the Blood List!

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
 
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

List of the Popes

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) – also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) – also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
 
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) – also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752) – Because he died before being consecrated, some lists (including the Vatican’s official list) omit him.
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45) Benedict IX appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice removed and restored (see below)
Sylvester III (1045) – Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61)
Alexander II (1061-73)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118)
Gelasius II (1118-19)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30)
Innocent II (1130-43)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81)
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-06)
Gregory XII (1406-15)
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—)
 
Old_Scholar said:
I have already shown you that there was no Pope—no one bishop in charge of the entire church at that time. There could have been someone who was called pope, though we have no proof of that, but for sure there was no one person in charge of all the churches. It just hadn’thappened yet. If you will read the references I gave you, you will find that history yourself.
Click to expand...
Another BS lie you proclaim.


Pope Saint Marcellinus - Bio

Pope St. Marcellus I

Pope St. Eusebius
 
Pope St. Sylvester I (314-335) was the one Pope who was involve in the Council of Nicea.

You said you want to look I already have you, OS. Your claims are so erroneous and stupid; they are almost laughable to be taken serious.

You already lost credibility here for spreading lies and proclaiming false doctrines.

From NewAdvent.org
Date of birth unknown; d. 31 December, 335. According to the “Liber pontificalis” (ed. Duchesne, I, 170) he was the son of a Roman named Rufinus; the legendary “Vita beati Sylvestri” calls his mother Justa. After the death of Miltiades (Melchiades), Sylvester was made Bishop of Rome and occupied this position twenty-one years. This was the era of Constantine the Great, when the public position of the Church so greatly improved, a change which must certainly have been very noticeable at Rome; it is consequently to be regretted that there is so little authoritative information concerning Sylvester’s pontificate. At an early date legend brings him into close relationship wtih the first Christian emperor, but in a way that is contrary to historical fact. These legends were introduced especially into the “Vita beati Sylvestri” (Duchesne, loc. cit., Introd., cix sq.) which appeared in the East and has been preserved in Greek, Syriac, and Latin in the “Constitutum Sylvestri”–an apocryphal account of an alleged Roman council which belongs to the Symmachian forgeries and appeared between 501 and 508, and also in the “Donatio Constantini”. The accounts given in all these writings concerning the persecution of Sylvester, the healing and baptism of Constantine, the emperor’s gift to the pope, the rights granted to the latter, and the council of 275 bishops at Rome, are entirely legendary. The pope, however, took part in the negotiations concerning Arianism and the Council of Nicæa, and the expression ‘omoo&úsion was probably agreed upon with him before the council. The pontiff also sent legates to the first œcumenical council. Still it is not certain whether Constantine had arranged beforehand with Sylvester concerning the actual convening of the council, nor whether there was an express papal confirmation of the decrees beyond the signatures of the papal legates (cf. Funk in “Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen”, I, 95, 501 sq.).
Click to expand...
During Sylvester’s pontificate were built the great churches founded at Rome by Constantine, e.g. the basilica and baptistery of the Lateran near the former imperial palace where the pope lived, the basilica of the Sessorian palace (Santa Croce), the Church of St. Peter in the Vatican, and several cemeterial churches over the graves of martyrs. No doubt the pope helped towards the construction of these churches. Sylvester’s memory is especially connected with the tiitular Church of Equitius, which takes its name from a Roman presbyter who is said to have erected this church on his property. It was situated near the thermæ of Diocletian, and still exists. Parts of the present building may date from the fourth century. No doubt the pope contributed to the development of the liturgy of the Church at Rome. During his reign, moreover, the first martyrology of Roman martyrs was probably drawn up. Sylvester is connected also with the establishment of the Roman school of singing. on the Via Salaria he built a cemeterial church over the Catacomb of Priscilla, the ruins of which have lately been brought to light. In this church he was buried. His feast is given under 31 December in the “Depositio episcoporum”, or list of the burial days of the Roman bishops, which was compiled barely a year after his death; the same date is given in the “Calendar” of Philocalus. This day, therefore, is doubtless the day of his burial. For his possible relations with Armenia, see GREGORY THE ILLUMINATOR.
Click to expand...
 
I had to say this post has been completely derailed from it the original topic which deals mainly with Mary and the Scripture.
 
Believe me, as a Christian to another Christian, I am only trying to get people to read the Bible, check their history and see what the truth is.

Regarding your listing of popes, you have published a list put out by New Advent, a known RCC site. Why not go back far enough to see what the early church had to say about it.

Here is the list of the apostles themselves, listed in the Constitution of the Apostles:

At the Church of Jerusalem, James, the brother of our Lord was the first bishop, followed by Simeon, the son of Cleopas and then the third bishop was Judas, the son of James.

The Church of Caesarea of Palestine, it was Zacchaeus who was the first bishop after whom Cornelius and then the third one was Theophilus.

At the church at Antioch, Peter ordained Euodius and the next bishop was Ignatius, ordained by Paul.

At Alexandria, Mark ordained the first bishop who was Annianus. Then Luke ordained Avilius.

At the church of Rome, Paul ordained Linus, the son of Claudia as the first bishop and upon his death, Peter ordained Clemens.

The church at Ephesus, it was Timotheus, ordained by Paul and after him, John ordained by John.

At the church at Smyrna, Aristo was the first, then Stratæas, the son of Lois and the third was Aristo.

At the Church at Pergamus, it was Gaius.

The church at Philadelphia had Demetrius ordained by Peter.

The church of Cenchrea, it was Lucius, ordained by Paul.

The church at Crete had Titus as the first bishop.

The church at Athens, it was Dionysius.

At the church of Tripoli in Phoenicia, it was Marathones.

The church at Laodicea in Phrygia, it was Archippus.

The church of Collossae, it was Philemon.

The church of Borea in Macedonia, it was Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon.

Of the churches of Galatia, it was Crescens.

Of the parished of Asia, it was Aquila and Nicetas.

Of the church of Aeginae, it was Cripsus.

Those were the bishops ordained and entrusted by the apostles according to the writing of Peter in the Constitution of the Apostles.

You can research it or not. It is book VII, Section IV.
 
Old_Scholar said:
Believe me, as a Christian to another Christian, I am only trying to get people to read the Bible, check their history and see what the truth is.

Regarding your listing of popes, you have published a list put out by New Advent, a known RCC site. Why not go back far enough to see what the early church had to say about it.

Here is the list of the apostles themselves, listed in the Constitution of the Apostles:

At the Church of Jerusalem, James, the brother of our Lord was the first bishop, followed by Simeon, the son of Cleopas and then the third bishop was Judas, the son of James.

The Church of Caesarea of Palestine, it was Zacchaeus who was the first bishop after whom Cornelius and then the third one was Theophilus.

At the church at Antioch, Peter ordained Euodius and the next bishop was Ignatius, ordained by Paul.

At Alexandria, Mark ordained the first bishop who was Annianus. Then Luke ordained Avilius.

At the church of Rome, Paul ordained Linus, the son of Claudia as the first bishop and upon his death, Peter ordained Clemens.

The church at Ephesus, it was Timotheus, ordained by Paul and after him, John ordained by John.

At the church at Smyrna, Aristo was the first, then Stratæas, the son of Lois and the third was Aristo.

At the Church at Pergamus, it was Gaius.

The church at Philadelphia had Demetrius ordained by Peter.

The church of Cenchrea, it was Lucius, ordained by Paul.

The church at Crete had Titus as the first bishop.

The church at Athens, it was Dionysius.

At the church of Tripoli in Phoenicia, it was Marathones.

The church at Laodicea in Phrygia, it was Archippus.

The church of Collossae, it was Philemon.

The church of Borea in Macedonia, it was Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon.

Of the churches of Galatia, it was Crescens.

Of the parished of Asia, it was Aquila and Nicetas.

Of the church of Aeginae, it was Cripsus.

Those were the bishops ordained and entrusted by the apostles according to the writing of Peter in the Constitution of the Apostles.

You can research it or not. It is book VII, Section IV.
Click to expand...
And you know the Antiochean Churches who are in full communion with Rome still exist today in the Maronite Eastern Catholic Tradition.

The fact is that there was a Pope at the time of Emperor Constantine and I just show up which Pope it was.

But this topic is getting off the topic, we need to go back to Scripture and Mary.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
And you know the Antiochean Churches who are in full communion with Rome still exist today in the Maronite Eastern Catholic Tradition.

The fact is that there was a Pope at the time of Emperor Constantine and I just show up which Pope it was.

But this topic is getting off the topic, we need to go back to Scripture and Mary.
Click to expand...
I just thought you may want to know the truth. But I see you don’t want to try and disprove my post as there is no defense.

'But yes, let’s get back to Scripture and Mary. Please show us the Scriptures that mention the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity as well as the assumption.

I’ll wait!
 
Old_Scholar said:
I just thought you may want to know the truth. But I see you don’t want to try and disprove my post as there is no defense.

You want to discuss this further make a new thread. Your statement is a self-refuting statement and are lies. But since this thread isn’t about that. We should return to the original topic.
'But yes, let’s get back to Scripture and Mary. Please show us the Scriptures that mention the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity as well as the assumption.
Click to expand...
II. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.
Click to expand...
 
IV. 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.

**
V. 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).
 
Old_Scholar said:
I just thought you may want to know the truth. But I see you don’t want to try and disprove my post as there is no defense.

'But yes, let’s get back to Scripture and Mary. Please show us the Scriptures that mention the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity as well as the assumption.

I’ll wait!
Click to expand...
THERE IS NOTHING TO DISPROVE. YOUR FACTS ARE IN ERROR. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. OR ARE YOU SMARTER THAN AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA. I THINK NOT.🤷
 
This thread is off-topic and has grown uncharitable. Thanks to all who participated – this thread is now closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top