The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall say for His name, “God with us.”’ (…) This, then, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive,’ signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive” I Apol. ch 33

Again, that is in line with the Biblical text and I don’t have a problem with it. It is however, not the Mariology that developed in later centuries.

You’re not reading close enough. You’re too busy trying to disprove. She remained ever virgin. No intercourse yet with child

 

[lanman87]

You’re not reading close enough.

Your reading later Catholic teaching into the text. All he is saying is that she conceived while she was a virgin. Which is not disputed.

For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; is a factual statement, not a teaching of she was always a virgin from that point forward for the rest of her life.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You didn’t ask for all that.

Actually I did
From my post:
The Bible never calls (and I don’t believe the apostle ever taught) that Mary sinless, that she was immaculately conceived, or that she was an every virgin. I believe those things to be innovations and non-apostolic teaching and are the traditions of men.

EVERY possible dogma doesn’t have to be literally defined in the beginning. That’s NOT the way it works. What usually happens, a belief has to be challenged THEN an answer comes forth.

AND

There is NO passage in scripture that restricts everything has to come from scripture alone.

 

[lanman87]

There is NO passage in scripture that restricts everything has to come from scripture alone.

Then how do you show it isn’t man made theology instead of part of the deposit of faith? Anybody can claim anything, even early church fathers, and if enough people believe them it can become part of Tradition.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You’re not reading close enough.

Your reading later Catholic teaching into the text. All he is saying is that she conceived while she was a virgin. Which is not disputed.

For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; is a factual statement, not a teaching of she was always a virgin from that point forward for the rest of her life.

I quoted Justin. He died a martyr ~160 a.d.

 

[mcq72]

Using today’s terms, Taking a literal DNA sample of Jesus THEN, it will show He is 100% Human. Correct? Would it show He is God? Or is that something one has to interpret ?

Take my dna and would it show my spirit? Humans by design have spirit.

 

[lanman87]

I quoted Justin. He died a martyr ~160 a.d.

Yes, I’ve read his work and he doesn’t call her an ever virgin and the allusion you are referring to is something you have read into the text from later teaching.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

There is NO passage in scripture that restricts everything has to come from scripture alone.

Then how do you show it isn’t man made theology instead of part of the deposit of faith? Anybody can claim anything, even early church fathers, and if enough people believe them it can become part of Tradition.

You lecturing me on what is man made?

As a Protestant, You’re skating on thin ice my friend.

 

[lanman87]

As a Protestant, You’re skating on thin ice my friend.

I think it is a valid question.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As a Protestant, You’re skating on thin ice my friend.

I think it is a valid question.

I didn’t finish quoting from the ECF’s

 

[lanman87]

I didn’t finish quoting from the ECF’s

I was referring to my question about how do you know if something isn’t a man made belief/Tradition if it isn’t in the Scriptures?

 

[Michael16]

@lanman87,

. . . . All Catholic Mariology begins with Genesis 3:15.

In it, there’s enmity between the woman and her seed and the serpent and his seed.

You see the root of EVERY Marian teaching in the Holy Mother Church.

As there’s enmity between the woman and her seed and he serpent and her seed; you see the roots of the Immaculate Conception.

If Our Lady wasn’t Immaculately Conceived; she’d be under the power of the devil. Thus, it’s QUITE MEET for Our Lady to be born WITHOUT Original Sin and remain sinless; as Scripture CLEARLY NEVER MENTIONS Our Lady EVER sinning.

As for Ever Virgin:

Saint Matthew clearly states in 27:56 and 28:1 that at least two sons were mentioned as sons of ANOTHER MARY and that in the Hebrew language; there’s no word for cousins. So: Brethren was often used to denote cousins.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I quoted Justin. He died a martyr ~160 a.d.

Yes, I’ve read his work and he doesn’t call her an ever virgin and the allusion you are referring to is something you have read into the text from later teaching.

I quoted Justin. He died in ~160 a.d… How is that later teaching?

AND

He’s NOT passing on new information. Obviously somebody, probably a gnostic heretic, is challenging the teaching.

So, I’ll ask

What part of no intercourse, yet conception happens, isn’t getting through ? HERE go to #33

Mary IOW, remained ever virgin.

 

[lanman87]

What part of no intercourse, yet conception happens, isn’t getting through ?

I agree that she didn’t have intercourse and yet conceived. I’m not challenging the virgin birth of Christ.

 

[Michael16]

As for the Mariology of the early Church, @lanman87:

Dr Mark Miravalle, a prominent Mariologist in the Church and Doctor of Sacred Theology; mentions that the basis of Marian devotion in the early centuries was that of the New Eve from Genesis 3:15.

There’s plenty of frescoes in Roman catacombs depicting Our Lady, with and without Jesus; as Mother and Intercessor.

The earliest recorded Marian Prayer is he Sun Tuum Praesidium of 250 AD.

“ We fly to your patronage,
O holy Mother of God,
Despise not our petitions,
In our necessities,
But deliver us from all dangers,
O ever glorious and blessed Virgin. “

 

[lanman87]

The earliest recorded Marian Prayer is he Sun Tuum Praesidium of 250 AD.

As I said, it developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I didn’t finish quoting from the ECF’s

I was referring to my question about how do you know if something isn’t a man made belief/Tradition if it isn’t in the Scriptures?

I’ll say it again,

you as a Protestant are skating on thin ice with that question.

The scripture you accept, came from the Catholic Church. If you now aren’t accepting the Authority of the Catholic Church, you then as a Protestant have nothing to point to for anything you base your belief system on.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What part of no intercourse, yet conception happens, isn’t getting through ?

I agree that she didn’t have intercourse and yet conceived. I’m not challenging the virgin birth of Christ.

You’re challenging Mary being ever virgin. HERE So I gave you what Justin Martyr wrote about Mary remaining a virgin no intercourse, yet was pregnant with Jesus. While Joseph agreed to take Mary as his wife, Mary was literally the spouse of the HS. She isn’t going to violate that nor would Joseph

 

[Michael16]

I’m sorry for the Sit down and be quiet thing, @lanman87.

I got really mad and again, I’m sorry.

You went after my Mom and I take that HARD.

 

[lanman87]

Now: Does Scripture EVER explicitly DENY Immaculate Conception, Ever Virgin, or Assumption?

If it doesn’t: You’ve got NO reason to argue against it.

Why would it deny something that didn’t exist?

I simply asked you to show me where those things were taught before the 3rd Century. Steve has a couple of quotes of 2nd Century that attest to the virginity of Mary when she conceived and delivered Christ, which nobody disputes and are taught plainly in scripture.

I’m sorry if I’m offending you. But you asked me to give you something that I believe to be a man made doctrine in the Catholic church and I did.