M
mcq72
Guest
Indeed it is beyond us, outside of us , yet as you say, “studyable”/ theology.
Any correct science of God is a gift.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”
- Status
Any correct science of God is a gift.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”
A
Agathon77
Guest
@mcq72,
Reason and faith go together as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches.
Reason can explicate the evidence of faith and helps one have greater faith.
God gave us reason and reason can often infer truths of God.
Divine Revelation is required so a lifetime of philosophical reflection and study for only a few able to undertake such studies is condensed into a Revelation that everyone can receive and believe in an easier form.
Theology should be, as I believe Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches; faith seeking understanding.
With all of the available techniques to better understand what we believe in a manner that’s reasonable, elegantly simple and consistent with Revelation.
Reason and faith go together as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches.
Reason can explicate the evidence of faith and helps one have greater faith.
God gave us reason and reason can often infer truths of God.
Divine Revelation is required so a lifetime of philosophical reflection and study for only a few able to undertake such studies is condensed into a Revelation that everyone can receive and believe in an easier form.
Theology should be, as I believe Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches; faith seeking understanding.
With all of the available techniques to better understand what we believe in a manner that’s reasonable, elegantly simple and consistent with Revelation.
Last edited:
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
I’m not claiming that huge portions of pertinent information was not recorded. But keep in mind that Jesus ’ ministry was 3 years long and what we do have recorded about that, is relatively small in comparison to the whole body of work.
The point I’m making is the Gospel message is more than words in a book - -it’s about actual events. If those events don’t take place, we have no salvation in which to hang our hopes. Also, the Church has rightly dealt with properly defining things over the centuries on a as needed basis.
The point I’m making is the Gospel message is more than words in a book - -it’s about actual events. If those events don’t take place, we have no salvation in which to hang our hopes. Also, the Church has rightly dealt with properly defining things over the centuries on a as needed basis.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Milk is someone elses gestated food. What does Paul say about milk?
A
Agathon77
Guest
@mcq72, Saint Paul says that milk is for babes but in time stronger food is available.
So, I don’t see your point.
So, I don’t see your point.
S
steve-b
Guest
The point issteve-b:
What do we call it when someone calls literal flesh, apart from soul, spirit, evil ?
Sin = evil
Mary never sinned. She was pure, body and soul…from conception
Mary’s flesh is who Jesus took His flesh from.
Obviously you Have not read the links I have given on the subject.
For example from:Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin | Catholic Answers
“In the New Testament, the new Ark is not an inanimate object, but a person: the Blessed Mother. How much more pure would the new Ark be when we consider the old ark was a mere “shadow” in relation to it (see Heb. 10:1)? This image of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant is an indicator that Mary would fittingly be free from all contagion of sin to be a worthy vessel to bear God in her womb. And most importantly, just as the Old Covenant Ark was pristine from the moment it was constructed with explicit divine instructions in Exodus 25, so would Mary be pure from the moment of her conception. God, in a sense, prepared his own dwelling place in both the Old and New Testaments.”
Did Jesus ever sin? NO
To take on, the sin of the world, does NOT mean He sinned.
He instituted the sacrament showing what would be done for us, in the future, for receiving that sacrament, we would die and rise with Him from the waters of baptism,.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
I’m back for a little while today. Here is what I’ve discovered
The translation “full of grace” is an inaccurate rendering based on the ancient Vulgate. It is much more accurately translated from the Greek as, “favored one,” as in the New American Standard Bible: “Hail, favored one!”
Howard Marshall, an expert on Luke’s Gospel, writes that the participle translated “favored one” “indicates that Mary has been especially favored by God in that He has already chosen her to be the mother of the Messiah (1:30). There is no suggestion of any particular worthiness on the part of Mary herself.” Howard Marshall: The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Page 65
That thought is consistent with the reading of the text. Mary was already given “favor/grace” as she had already been chosen by God and it is consistent with verse 30 where Mary had “Found favor” with God. Compare verse 30 with Genesis 6:8 “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD”. Noah had been chosen by God to carry on the human race in the Ark. Mary had been chosen by God to carry the Messiah. Both were “favored” for their task and both were faithful to God’s plan.
There is no sense that “highly favored” means “Without sin”. And certainly no sense of being “without sin from conception”. Although, I supposed you could say she had been “Highly favored” since creation as God is omniscient and chose Mary, just as He chose us, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. (Eph 1:4).
The Catholic apologist have changed the definition kecharitomene to something it is not. Even if it is being used as a name “Hail, favored one” it is means of addressing Mary as the one chosen by God to bear the Messiah. Mary was perplexed at why an angel would greet her in such a way (v29) which certainly suggest that, up until that point, she was not aware of having been favored by God (or being sinless from birth). So then Gabriel explained to her what would happen (30-37) and in verse 38 she replied in a beautiful expression of faith . Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.*
M
mcq72
Guest
Again, i think it is wrong to beyond what was written in regards to presumption of filling in the blanks so to speak. That is, if a forefather/tradition mentions something, and it is not explicit in writing, we might be tempted to presume it just wasn’t written down. We have enough challenges in applying scripture to new scenarios. not covered specifically by scripture, instead of adding new scenarios to old apostolic times.
No one denies oral gospel. We mostly firmly know of it and its events from apostolic writings.
That can be discussed from thing to thing. Obviously some things are disputed.
As you know, don’t hold to ORAR, once right always right.
M
mcq72
Guest
again, how is literal flesh “evil” ?
I know all creation travails, awaits full restoration.
Jesus is clear that what is in the inside (heart, mind ,soul) corrupts.
Precisely. Her grace and sanctification for her mission was not done in a vacuum. I would not sell short God’s covenants, and dispensations in restoration of man back to God. Mary was not pagan. God justified and sanctified holy Jews, including mary.
As to the Ark, it also were sanctified for their mission. Does that mean that the materials used for ark were just like wood and metal out of the garden before the fall ? Were they immaculitized ? I mean this is what you are saying happened to Mary. Being a devout and obedient Jew was not enough apparently to be “pristine”. Perhaps Job being perfect and upright is just hollow verbiage also.
So , I agree in sanctification , of the ark and of Mary. Just disagree to the extent you seem to say is fitting.
Furthermore Jesus is also the Ark . He was fully man which was the Ark of the divine.
You still have not answered the age old question of just when was she sanctified. Where does “full of grace” suggest at conception ?
You have also misunderstood Jesus mission and his baptism of suffering, of dying , taking on our sin , becoming sin (that is not sinning, but certainly taking on the consequence). He is not belittled by becoming flesh and touching fallen flesh, much less birthed by it.
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
On the contrary, the Vulgate was translated from Greek and Hebrew originals by St. Jerome. He translated kecharitomene to gratia plena. I’ll take him over this modern expert.
She was not “perplexed”, nor (as many modernists claim) did She doubt that God could do it. She only wanted to know how God would do it since She had taken a vow of virginity. Now if the messenger had said something to the effect that She could break Her vow, She would know that the messenger was NOT the Archangel Gabriel but the Enemy who disguises himself as an angel of light (that’s in St. Paul, btw). She asked the question in order to discern whether or not this was a temptation of the Enemy or the Will of God. When the Archangel Gabriel told Her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. [36] And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: [37] Because no word shall be impossible with God. [38] And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:35-38)
The Most Holy Virgin ONLY gave Her consent to the Incarnation when She knew that Her Virginity would be preserved.
L
lanman87
Guest
There has never been a vow of virginity in Judaism. This is an example of how Tradition can be in error.
Even Catholic sources admit that being a virgin without children was considered a bad thing in Judaism.
What, then, was the law’s attitude toward virginity? It is very simply stated: the Jewish female was to come to the marriage bed a virgin; thereafter it was her duty and her glory to bear children. The Old Testament is too full of examples of the consuming desire for children to need proving here, beginning with Sara’s hand-ing over of Agar to Abraham (Gn. 16:2) and continuing through Rachel’s anguished cry, “Give me children or I shall die” (Gn. 30:1), down to New Testament times (Lk. 1:25)…
Was not the will of the Lord expressed in His law? And was not one of the first and weightiest commandments of the law “Increase and multiply”? ( Gn. 1 : 2 8). 22 How then could the God-fearing Jew in good conscience eschew marriage, particularly in Judaism, where observance of the law was tlze way of manifesting dedication to God and His service? So far as the writer knows, the prophet Jeremia was the only deliberate celibate in the entire Old Testament, and that by express command of God ( J er. 16: 1-2), while the inspired author tells us that the daughter of Jephte mourned her virginity for two months before her premature death (Jgs. 11 :37-39). Marian Studies Volume 13 Article 61-9-1962 The Concept of Virginity in Judaism Joseph J. DeVaul Page 15
While this good Catholic Instructor admits that it was not common for a girl to take a vow of virginity (when it fact it is unheard of) he speculates that she got the idea from the Essenes, who very a non-mainstream Jewish cult. I find that argument as him grasping at straws as to why a young Jewish girl would take a vow of virginity.
The writer then goes on to say “Now to make the step from the possibility of Mary’s knowing of the celibate life to the assertion that she vowed virginity as a young maiden is more than biblical science can manage.” However, being a good Catholic who believes in the Mariology of the church he has to add “On the other hand, it certainly cannot deny the possibility of such a vow.”
That she took a vow of virginity is an invention, probably derived from the Protoevangelium of James which is at best, a written form of an early legend about Mary and at worst a work of fiction that was influenced by the Devil himself.
However, there were temple virgins in Roman pagan temples, in particular to the goddess vesta. Which is probably were the writer of the Protoevangelium of James got the idea that Mary was a Temple Virgin.
S
steve-b
Guest
You just answered your own question.steve-b:
again, how is literal flesh “evil” ?
I know all creation travails, awaits full restoration.
Jesus is clear that what is in the inside (heart, mind ,soul) corrupts.
Mary wasn’t corrupt in any of that
Consider the following
The Ark of the covenant, AND MARY, the ark of the New Covenant
Excerpted From : Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant | Catholic Answers
Please read the entire article
SIDEBARS
Mary, the Ark As Revealed in Mary’s Visit to Elizabeth
| Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant | Mary: Ark of the New Covenant |
|---|---|
| The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam. 6:1-11). | Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39). |
| Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark (2 Sam. 6:14). | John the Baptist – of priestly lineage – leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Luke 1:41). |
| David asks, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam. 6:9). | Elizabeth asks, “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43). |
| David shouts in the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:15). | Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary (Luke 1:42). |
| The ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam. 6:11). | Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56). |
| The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:11). | The word blessed is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Luke 1:39-45). |
| The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11). | Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22). |
Mary as the Ark Revealed by Items inside the Ark
| Inside the Ark of the Old Covenant | Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant |
|---|---|
| The stone tablets of the law – the word of God inscribed on stone | The body of Jesus Christ – the word of God in the flesh |
| The urn filled with manna from the wilderness – the miraculous bread come down from heaven | The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41) |
| The rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest | The actual and eternal High Priest |
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Mary, being 100% Jewish, is a bit different, from ALL peoples, regardless of race, on this planet, past present, and future, don’t ya think?Margaret_Ann:
There has never been a vow of virginity in Judaism.
NOW
As for Mary’s perpetual virginity
not just as a married woman, but one who also conceived the Son of God, while remaining a virgin…
is it then, such a stretch of the imagination, to then say, Mary as spouse of the HS, which is who overshadowed her, and she was then pregnant with Jesus, the Son of God, would THEN remain chaste, for her entire life?
[T]radition teaches, she is ever virgin.
As for “Jewish” tradition,
Jesus was a Jew. His entire family was Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. The Catholic Church therefore in the beginning was 100% Jewish. So you need to be specific when you speak of tradition, as in Jewish tradition. There were Jews who accepted Jesus and Jews who rejected Jesus. Both are traditions.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
The Tradition that is in error is Catholic Tradition that Mary was a consecrated Temple Virgin who made a vow of Virginity. No such thing existed in the 1st Century and have never existed in the Jewish Faith.
The only source I could find of someone trying to prove that Temple Virgins existed is Taylor Marshall. I checked out his sources and they are dubious at best.
For instance, he quotes “And you virgins who weave byssus and silk, and gold from Ophir, in haste pick it all up and throw it in the fire that it will return it to its Author, and that the flame will take it back to its Creator, from fear that the enemy might seize it” (2 Baruch 10:19).
If you go and read the actual text it is not referring to the Temple at all but to Judaism in general. Apparently weaving was a common occupation of young girls in ancient Israel. Just because “young girls or virgins” were weavers and wove the Temple curtain does not mean they were concentrated virgins. It just means they were young girls who wove the curtains.
As for the Pesikta Rabbati, I downloaded the English text here and can’t find what he is saying. I did a word search on “Virgin”, “Girl” and “Temple” and could not find anything like what he is describing. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist but I certainly can’t find it.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Mary is a 1st century, NT, Jewish example of a Temple, a tabernacle, an Ark of the Covenant, etc .steve-b:
The Tradition that is in error is Catholic Tradition that Mary was a consecrated Temple Virgin who made a vow of Virginity. No such thing existed in the 1st Century and have never existed in the Jewish Faith.
She is ALSO the mother of the Catholic Church.
ianman87:
Let’s stay focused
Look at a previous post of mine HERE and in particular, this internal link where that came from, so for the full context read this Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant | Catholic Answers
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Exactlylanman87:
On the contrary, the Vulgate was translated from Greek and Hebrew originals by St. Jerome. He translated kecharitomene to gratia plena. I’ll take him over this modern expert.
Vulgate:
Lk 1:
28 et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus
L
lanman87
Guest
I’ve read that before. I find it to be speculation. The idea that Mary was the “Ark of the New Covenant” was the invention of 4th Century Theologians and not part of the Deposit of Faith.
Earlier tradition/teaching used the Ark as a Typology for various things, Including Christ Himself.
And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness. But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold. Hippolytus Commentary on The Lord is My Shepard
At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the ‘ark overlaid with pure gold,’ with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the ‘ark’ made manifest.” (Hippolytus, Fragments, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, 6 Here Hippolytus was referring to Christ, who was born of the Virgin, who was the Ark.
For as the ark was gilded within and without with pure gold, so was also the body of Christ pure and resplendent… Irenæus, Fragments, Fragment 8)
“The ark then, Pallas, I feel, is the image and symbol of Christ.” (Cyril of Alexandria, de Adoratione in Spiritu et Veritate, Book 9 (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 68, col. 597-598)
S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
I’ve read that before. I find it to be speculation. The idea that Mary was the “Ark of the New Covenant” was the invention of 4th Century Theologians and not part of the Deposit of Faith.
- The Catholic Church was THERE in the 1st century.
- When teachings are challenged, THEN, we see defenses for the particular teaching expanded upon. The defense of a teaching doesn’t mean the teaching has not been believed before that.
Please define the term in your protestant understanding
ianman87:
And all that was contained INSIDE MARY’S WOMB! Whom she gave birth to.
Mary gave her son the flesh He was scourged with, & went to the cross with.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
So Christ was the ark inside the ark???
S
steve-b
Guest
The analogies are types.steve-b:
So Christ was the ark inside the ark???
- Status