Split: Another Marian Debate

[LilyM]

So true. That’s what’s so miraculous and wonderful about the incarnation…that God himself would step so low as to be man.

But he didn’t stoop so low as to become a SINFUL man himself, rather he became a perfected, sinless man. He couldn’t be other and still be true God and our Redeemer.

Likewise he wouldn’t stoop to be BORN of a sinful woman. How could he? He took from Mary all of his physical being and any sinful tendencies she had too. This is part and parcel of being your average mother and son. Rather he had to be born of purity and holiness and perfection (though not divinity - that’s from Dad’s side ) to BE pure, holy and perfect in his humanity as well as his divinity.

As previous posters have said - why is it that so much care was taken even in the planning and building of the Ark, and the Temple, as holy and glorious places for the dwelling of God.

And then also to keep them pure of anything unholy or defiling, to the point of killing those who profaned them. And yet the greatest of all God’s dwelling places, the womb of Mary, should be corrupt and defiled? Hardly.

 

[Damascus]

Ireneaus is older I win
Merry Christmas

Not so fast, and you will not win.

Non Catholic argument:

Can you support you contention about the word “till” from the Bible?

Catholic response:
Yes. Genesis 8:6-7 states that the raven which Noah sent from the ark “went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.” This does not mean the raven stopped flying around or returned to the ark after the waters dried up.

Psalm 110:1 says “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Does this mean that Jesus will no longer reign at God’s right hand after He vanquishes all His foes? Similarly, I Corinthians 15:25 states that “(Jesus) must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” Yet the Book of Revelation indicates that the Lamb will reign forever (22:1,3). Thus “till” cannot mean He will cease to be the King of kings after the Last Judgment.

Non Catholic argument:
Can’t we assume that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus’ birth, like any other couple?

Catholic:
They were not like any other couple; the were the earthly parents of God Incarnate! The wife in this couple was a living, sacred Tabernacle of the Lord, the Ark of the New Covenant, chosen and sanctified to bear the God man. How could St. Joseph even think of having sex with the sacred Ark of the New Covenant? He would have to have been a rash and sacrilegious man to presume to penetrate and impregnate with his own seed the sacred womb which had borne God! And considering Uzzah’s terrible fate when he touched the original Ark (II Samuel 6:6-7), Joseph would not have gotten very far had he tried. Yet Scripture portrays him as a reverent man; hardly the type to try something like that.

Next.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

But he didn’t stoop so low as to become a SINFUL man himself, rather he became a perfected, sinless man. He couldn’t be other and still be true God and our Redeemer.

Likewise he wouldn’t stoop to be BORN of a sinful woman. How could he? He took from Mary all of his physical being and any sinful tendencies she had too. This is part and parcel of being your average mother and son. Rather he had to be born of purity and holiness and perfection (though not divinity - that’s from Dad’s side ) to BE pure, holy and perfect in his humanity as well as his divinity.

As previous posters have said - why is it that so much care was taken even in the planning and building of the Ark, and the Temple, as holy and glorious places for the dwelling of God.

And then also to keep them pure of anything unholy or defiling, to the point of killing those who profaned them. And yet the greatest of all God’s dwelling places, the womb of Mary, should be corrupt and defiled? Hardly.

You guys bring up the temple, attach the scriptural address so all can read for themselves, in context.

 

[Damascus]

You guys bring up the temple, attach the scriptural address so all can read for themselves, in context.

Check out my posts and Allegra Fe’s in the Arc of the Covenant thread.

I am getting tired of typing bible verses for bible only people.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Am I sinnless for I am the temple of God too. HARDLY!
1 cor 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Check out my posts and Allegra Fe’s in the Arc of the Covenant thread.

I am getting tired of typing bible verses for bible only people.

I wasn’t asking for my purpose, I know where it is, but for people to just assume you’ve analyzed the verse properly is wrong.

 

[AlegreFe]

George the Mary of catholocism, and of protestants are clearly 2 different beings.
You can not say we disrespect her, as much as I can say you disrespect our Lord. I almost scream at the lack of respect because of her.

We love Jesus Christ.
This is just your opinion and is not the Truth.

We have the utmost Respect, Love and Adoration for Jesus. I don’t know of any other religion that puts Jesus in such high regards as the Catholic Faith does. You just don’t understand the Catholic Faith and that is why you are saying these things.

If you could scream at what you think is our disrespect for Jesus then I could do the same at how you disrespect Jesus by dissing His mother and not giving her the Honor that God Himself gives her.

myfavoritmartin:

Ours a humble obedient of our Lord and Saviour.

So is ours. And so is Mary’s. If Mary wasn’t so humble and obedient then there would’ve been no Jesus. So we follow her lead, learn from her humility and obedience so that we can be servants to our Lord in the way that she was and still is.

No Mary, No Jesus
Know Mary, Know Jesus
No God, No Peace
Know God, Know Peace

myfavoritmartin:

Yours the mother of God, sinless, omnipotent, mediatrix, queen of heaven, and in my opinion a work of satan in that she draws attention away from Christ.

-----

This is sad that you think this way.

Mary does not want to take away from Jesus. She wants to lead us to Jesus.

Jesus came to us through Mary, so there is nothing wrong with going to Jesus through Mary. You could do the same thing and Jesus will not condemn you. As a matter of fact, He’ll really love you honoring His mother, calling her Blessed and asking her to pray for you to the Lord our God.

Mary does not want to be a stumbling block for anyone. Her soul magnifies the Lord to us so that we can see Him and know Him better. The more we know Mary, the more we know God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and therefore of God (the Son).
Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
Mary is the Favorite Daughter of the Father.

Wherever Mary is there is the Holy Spirit.
Wherever Mary is there is her Son Jesus.
Wherever Mary is there is God!

Since we cannot separate the Holy Trinity then Mary is right along with them and she in no way will ever lead us away from Jesus Christ. She knows very well that Jesus is the only way to God. We can have mediators though. And who more righteous than Mary can mediate for us and lead us to Jesus? No one.

Here are some links you can check out.
The Blessed Virgin Mary
Blessed Virgin Mary

Here is Mary’s Magnificat or Canticle in the Gospel of Luke starting with verse 46 to 55.

My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in
God my Saviour. Because he hath
regarded the humility of his handmaid;
for behold from henceforth all
generations shall call me blessed.
Because he that is mighty, hath done
great things to me; and holy is his name.
And his mercy is from generation unto
generations, to them that fear him.
He hath shewed might in his arm:
he hath scattered the proud in the
conceit of their heart. He hath put down
the mighty from their seat, and hath
exalted the humble. He hath filled the
hungry with good things; and the rich he
hath sent empty away. He hath received
Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy:
As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham
and to his seed for ever.

“Shall call me blessed”… These words are a
prediction of that honour which the church in
all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin.
Let Protestants examine whether they are
any way concerned in this prophecy.

God is her Saviour because He prevented her from falling in the first place. So she was conceived without sin. God did this for her because it was fitting.

You are in my prayers.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Spirit of God may dwell in us, but the INCARNATE God dwelt in Mary. Does the “incarnate God” dwell in you, to be born bone of your bone, flesh of your flesh, into the world as man?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Am I sinnless for I am the temple of God too. HARDLY!
1 cor 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Would God put his spirit in me? I sin!!!
Thankfully yes.
The temple argument is nonsense.

 

[Damascus]

I wasn’t asking for my purpose, I know where it is, but for people to just assume you’ve analyzed the verse properly is wrong.

OHHH -

I anyalzed that verse now. Um, nope. Many Scholars have done it for me.

LOL! I am a Catholic remember? I dont try to presume that I have it all figured out., I am not that arrogant. I am humble.

 

[Damascus]

Would God put his spirit in me? I sin!!!
Thankfully yes.
The temple argument is nonsense.

You are intitled to hold that position. The New Ark of the Covenant is Mary.

The burden you have is to prove she is not. And lets not go on your opinion or your Church that came along when?

 

[estesbob]

I was giving a rebuttal to mousey saying this…

mousey said “IMHO the Assumption occurred long after the writings of the Bible so why would it mention it?”

I was correcting her… unless she meant the 1950’s by long after, but I don’t think she did.

What ever gave you the idea the doctrine of the assumption dndit exist before the 1950s???

 

[Damascus]

all the early Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli believed that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus:

Martin Luther:

“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510.)
"Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…“brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

“He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” (Ibid.)

John Calvin:
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)
Ulrich Zwingli:
“I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary…Christ…was born of a most undefiled Virgin.” (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

So even the Reformers knew and acknowledged that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a truth rooted in both Scripture and Church history.

 

[Damascus]

all the early Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli believed that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus:

Martin Luther:

“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510.)
"Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…“brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

“He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” (Ibid.)

John Calvin:
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)
Ulrich Zwingli:
“I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary…Christ…was born of a most undefiled Virgin.” (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

So even the Reformers knew and acknowledged that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a truth rooted in both Scripture and Church history.

 

[LSK]

WOW! Last I checked th Bible was about the Lord Jesus Christ and we should be wholeheartedly devoted to Him.

perpetual virginity Immaculate Conception, the Assumption to heaven, and the titles Queen of Heaven, mediatrix, our mother, our life, our hope and others are conspicuously absent from the Bible.

“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39).

Mary will always be blessed by every generation. However, we must not assign to her a role that God did not give her.

MANY things are absence from the Bible…this is why Catholics are Children of the Word Incarnate and not children of the Book.

For example - the word Trinity is not in the New Testament…but if you are a Christan then you believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - three persons in One God, the Holy Trinity.

The Bible is not ‘all about Jesus’ - it is about Jesus, His Sacrifice, Salvation History, the birth of the Church JESUS founded AND it is full of instructions as to how we, as members of the Body of Christ, are to behave. We are to be wholeheartedly devoted to Him…and He gave us very clear instructions as to how to do that…the foundation of this Truth? The Bible says it is The Church.

 

[AlegreFe]

Check out my posts and Allegra Fe’s in the Arc of the Covenant thread.

I am getting tired of typing bible verses for bible only people.

Hi Damascus.

Since when am I an allergy medicine? http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Laughing.gif It’s AlegreFe. Only one “L” and an “e” instead of that “a.” But that’s okay, this isn’t the first time someone called me by that name. http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Grin.gif

 

[Damascus]

Hi Damascus.

Since when am I an allergy medicine? http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Laughing.gif It’s AlegreFe. Only one “L” and an “e” instead of that “a.” But that’s okay, this isn’t the first time someone called me by that name. http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Grin.gif

Funny thing is, someone did on that very thread!

I am sorry, I am typing fast and want to put this one to rest finally.

 

[Damascus]

After Uzzah was struck down by God for touching the ark, David placed it in the care of Obed-Edom. It stayed there for three months during which time Obed-Edom’s whole family was blessed (2 Sam. 6:10,11). Likewise, after Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, she went to visit Elizabeth for the same amount of time, and “the Lord…lavished on [Elizabeth] his faithful love” (Lk. 1:56-58). When the ark first came into David’s possession, he asked “How can the ark of Yahweh come to be with me?” (2 Sam. 6:9). Elizabeth asks much the same question, “Why should I be honoured with a visit from the mother of my Lord?” (Lk. 1:43). Then, “David danced…before Yahweh with all his might” (2 Sam.6:14). So too, “as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Lk 1:41). If Mary is indeed the ark of the living God, should she not be given even more honour and veneration than an ark constructed by human hands out of acacia wood? After all, Mary was fashioned by the hand of God himself. When Elizabeth realized this, she paid honour and respect to Mary, even though Mary had probably visited Elizabeth regularly prior to her pregnancy. All of a sudden she is “honoured” by her visit and proclaims her “blessed.” Elizabeth makes clear that she is referring to Mary, not the fruit of her womb, Jesus who of course is blessed above all (Lk 1:45).

(one of my posts from the AOC thread)

 

[estesbob]

Would God put his spirit in me? I sin!!!
Thankfully yes.
The temple argument is nonsense.

You are not God.

I take it by nonsnese you means you cant refute it. We have throuhout the Old Testament explict instuctions from God on how the altar and sanctuary dedicated to him MUST be enclosed in a perfect tabernacle. Now you exect us to beleive he would not demand the same for his Son.? Why would he expect more reverence for the Ark of the Covenant than he would of his only begotten Son? And since man built perfect tabernacles for the Lord why would he create anything less for himself???

 

[LSK]

Would God put his spirit in me? I sin!!!
Thankfully yes.
The temple argument is nonsense.

you are equating the temple with the Ark of the Covenant. You would need to understand the difference between the two, and why St. Paul makes a point of telling us we are TEMPLES rather than Holy of Holies.
The reality is no righteous Jewish man, awaiting the birth of the Messiah would have then treated the New Ark of the Covenant with anything but the utmost respect. Not only are you ignoring that, you are defining St. Joseph by his sexual appetite and that is very sad.