The Virgin Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jaypeeto4,

Bare with me it’s been a long time since I studied this and I can’t find my notes.
Gen 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers” The offspring here is plural, meaning all mankind, the human race. The term used for “offspring” is zera or zerah (or something close to that) it it is plural except when the specific child is named - then and only then is it singular.

But the focus shifts in the second line to singular 3rd person masculine: hu - he (3rd person) and.atah - you (2nd person)
“He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” This is a prophesy of the Messiah.

I welcome someone who actually understands masonic Hebrew to help out, but I would hope that those who only have 3rd party opinions to share, would refrain from cluttering up our discussion.
 
I fully agree. The universal church is neither “Protestantism” or “Catholicism.” It’s the body/bride of Christ, made up of all true believers called out from each successive generation since Pentecost to this present day.What’s the “faulty criteria?” If it’s true it should be quite simple for you to prove. But you seem to be having a terrible time of it. What does that say?
If I may continue with the topic of Apostolic Succession, we must keep in mind that the scriptures tell us that our Lord wants us to give our sacred assent in faith to the teachings of the Apostolic authority of the Church: the faithful acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves to question the teachings of the apostles ( Acts 5:13); the teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ ( Acts 15:6,24; 16:4); Paul says that he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the Gospel of our Lord, so that the offerings of the Gentiles may be acceptable. He is referring to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity. Notice the Gentiles are the “sacrifice” and Paul does the “offering” (Rom 15:16); these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate or anathemize heretics ( 1Cor 5:3-5; 16:22; 1Tim 1:20; Gal 1:8; Mt 18:17); Paul acknowledges his authority over God’s people which the Lord gave to build up the Church ( 2 Cor 10:8); Peter warns the faithful about despising authority. He is referring to the apostolic authority granted to them by Christ ( 2 Pet 2:10);

According to Sacred Tradition and the Church Fathers who succeeded the apostles, the Catholic Church has Apostolic Succession: “And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits of their labours, having first proved them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterward believe…Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, there would be strife on account of the episcopate. For this reason…they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them” {Pope Clement, A.D. 98); “For what is the bishop but one who is beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability, has been made an imitator of Christ” {Ignatius,A.D. 110}; “And when I had come to Rome, I remained there Anicetus…Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets of the Lord”, A.D. 180}; “But if there be any heresies which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down from the apostles…we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the rolls of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that their bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or apostolic men, a man moreover who continued steadfast with the apostles…”{ Tertullian, A.D. 200}; “We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us”
{Origen, A.D. 244}; “It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own…” {Eusebius, A.D. 325}; “Believe as we believe, we, who are by succession of the blessed apostles, bishops: confess as we and they have confessed, the only Son of God (re: Arianism), and thus shalt thou obtain forgiveness…” {Lucifer of Calaris ‘On Athanasius’, A.D. 361}; “If the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself…”
{Augustine, A.D. 400}; “We must strive in common to keep the faith which has come down to us today through the Apostolic Succession” {Pope Celestine, the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431}.
There are many more such documents and fragments dating up to the seventh century. The Church speaks for Christ and his apostles in the promulgation of all her Marian dogmas. I’ll continue by presenting scripture which supports the charism of infallibilty of the Pope and Sacred Magisterium.

“To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.”
Cardinal John H. Newman

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Jaypeeto4,

Bare with me it’s been a long time since I studied this and I can’t find my notes.
Gen 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers” The offspring here is plural, meaning all mankind, the human race. The term used for “offspring” is zera or zerah (or something close to that) it it is plural except when the specific child is named - then and only then is it singular.

But the focus shifts in the second line to singular 3rd person masculine: hu - he (3rd person) and.atah - you (2nd person)
“He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” This is a prophesy of the Messiah.

I welcome someone who actually understands masonic Hebrew to help out, but I would hope that those who only have 3rd party opinions to share, would refrain from cluttering up our discussion.
Why not get your notes in order first before you claim the Catholic Church has based her Marian dogmas on faulty translations? 😉 I e-mailed a Catholic theologian I know for information concerning this textual matter. His expertise lies in this area as well as in others. If he replies, I’ll relay the information.

The scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their own destruction. God did not guarantee that the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the scriptures (Cf. 2 Pet 3:16). Our Lord instructs us to test all things and spirits.God’s Word is not always obvious (Cf.1 Jn 4:1). For instance, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn’t recognize it is God (Cf. 1Sam 3:1-9). The Word of God is not self-attesting, as Protestants erroneously believe.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Good Fella,

I’ll wait.

Please ask your friend also if the word “full” was written in the original Greek text of Luke 1:28.
 
I welcome someone who actually understands masonic Hebrew to help out

Ginger, hi,
er, I think you meant MASORETIC Hebrew,
not masonic Hebrew !! That was cute. 😛

As for the totality of Genesis 3:15 being a prophesy of the
Virgin Birth of the Messiah,
I have never met one protestant theologian who denies it.
Even some of the most hardline Calvinists,
like the late Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (a man I greatly admired) called the entire prophecy of Genesis 3:15 the “protoevangelium” and a prophecy of the Virgin Birth, which would make the Woman be Mary.
Dr. Kennedy was a brilliant, thoroughly learned Calvinist
minister and top-notch protestant theologian and the founder of the now well-known and respected Knox Theological Seminary.
There are limited fulfillments to nearly every prophecy.
For example, Jesus’s warning of a Great Tribulation applied first to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but the Catholic Catechism acknowledges that prior to the 2nd Coming of Christ, the Church must endure a final period of great trial (tribulation). (( I happen to believe that final trial is beginning, but I am not prophesying, just expressing a private opinion, based on
the general apostasy of most of the Western World
from Christ )).

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
If you base your beliefs on what the writers of Scripture really wrote, you would not think Mary has any part in destroying satan. Nor would you think of her as "co-redeemer, mediatrix. sinless.

What arrogant nonsense.
As if only YOU and the fundies correctly understand the scriptures!!
ALL early Christians believed that Mary was immaculate, East and West. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, she is called the All-Holy, and always has been called that. The pope didn’t foist that upon them.
Now, having said that, many early and later Christians did believe that the all-holy Mary contracted “original sin” at conception but was totally cleansed from ALL sin and concupiscence at some point after her conception. The Orthodox writers I have read believe that Mary was totally cleansed of ALL original sin AT THE TIME OF THE ANNUNICIATION, when she was between twelve and fifteen years old. From that point on, they acknowledge her as the all-holy. In the Catholic church, we too believe that she is ALL-HOLY, but by the grace of God, from the moment of her conception in her mother’s womb by an act God Himself imparting Sanctifying Grace to her soul from the first instance of it’s existence. Luther and Calvin continued to believe in and defend the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, from the Scriptures, long after they broke away from the Catholic Church, until the day they DIED. So did Zwingli.
Were your great Reformers idiots who didn’t understand the Scriptures?!

There is NO error whatsoever in translating KECHARITOMENE as “Full of Grace,” or “filled with Grace” as you keep saying.
Protestant scholars know that, and many protestant commentators acknowledge in their writings that Kecharitomene, often translated as “highly favored” is equally accurately translated as “full of grace.” My copy of the Revised Standard Version (non-catholic version) has “or, full of grace” as the marginal reading for that verse in Luke.

I do most of my Bible STUDY from the New King James Version (protestant), the New Revised Standard Version (protestant), and the New American Bible (Catholic), and NONE of these versions renders kecharitomene as “full of grace,” yet I concluded that the Immaculate Conception was reasonable and accurate understanding of the scriptures LONG BEFORE I converted to Catholicism and submitted to the final authority of the Church, the Bishops, and the pope.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
:o Wasn’t Adam a mason" 😊

It was very early here when I wrote that. I hope everyone gets as big a laugh out of it as I just did.
 
Quote: “ALL early Christians believed that Mary was immaculate,”

Not one Apostle ever asserted this. The very first mention of it by a church father (that I can find) was a denial.
 
A: Can you give us one reason why any of the apostles would write about Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant?
No
This truth hadn’t been revealed to them yet. Their apostolic successors would be granted that divine privilege by the power of the Holy Spirit.
So then you agree the doctrine cannot be traced all the way back to the Apostles. It has no Apostolic origin. And you claim that the doctrine is new revelation granted by the Holy Spirit to men AFTER the Apostolic age.
The Church Fathers have taught us these truths about Mary in one apostolic accord, as their writings show
But you just admitted that the doctrine was not revealed to the Apostles. The so-called “Church Fathers” are just early church writers. But now you’re saying their writings must be considered as Scripture: theopneustos (God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired). I don’t think even Rome would agree with you on this. Although they do form dogmas based on those writings.
 
Quote: “ALL early Christians believed that Mary was immaculate,”

Not one Apostle ever asserted this. The very first mention of it by a church father (that I can find) was a denial.
An individual bishop cannot teach infallibly but merely fallibly. This alleged Church Father erred in his private theological speculation. What has become infallible doctrines are the teachings all the bishops have embraced together with the Popes in one accord and in unity of faith. Bishops can only teach infallibly as a whole College in union with the Pope: the present day Universal Magisterium. The infallible doctrine/dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, ie, falls under the UM.

I received an e-mail reply from my acquaintance, so I’ll relay his message ASAP.

Ginger, I believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary even more thanks to you by what you said:“God can do whatever he wants.”

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
NoSo then you agree the doctrine cannot be traced all the way back to the Apostles. It has no Apostolic origin. And you claim that the doctrine is new revelation granted by the Holy Spirit to men AFTER the Apostolic age.But you just admitted that the doctrine was not revealed to the Apostles.

The so-called “Church Fathers” are just early church writers. But now you’re saying their writings must be considered as Scripture: theopneustos (God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired). I don’t think even Rome would agree with you on this. Although they do form dogmas based on those writings.
Luke was an apostle. But he was not the only author of his texts. The divine Co-author inspired him to write something implicit that would become explicit in due time, fulfilled by the promulagation of an Apostolic Constitution, ‘Ineffabilis Deus’. Isaiah wrote of the suffering Servant, but he had Israel in mind. Please see what I wrote above concerning Apostolic Succession. The apostolic age did not expire with the death of the apostles, for the Church was established to continue after their deaths. Nor do the apostles themselves tell us that Church doctrines are to be formed strictly by what they wrote. We have the Old Testament, too. One of your faulty criteria in determining evidence for the validity of a Church doctrine is ‘sola scriptura’. I’ll show you where the Bible proves you wrong after I prove through the scriptures that the Pope and the College of Bishops are infallible in unison and in one accord.

The Apostolic Age visibly began on Pentecost and continues to this day through Apostolic Succession. See what I wrote above.

The writings of the Church Fathers are part of Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Deposit of Faith consists of both Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition existed for a century before the NT was finally wriiten based on that Tradition, which is still developing to complete fruition until Christ’s return. And ST existed for almost 400 years before the canon of Scripture.

“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Cardinal John H Newman

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Quote: "I believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary even more thanks to you by what you said:“God can do whatever he wants.”

Then you see, your time with me has not been wasted…you learned from our discourse that God is not limited as you had previously been stating.

Instead of saying, “The Lord could not…” He (God) is dependent on us…"

"IF MARY HAD SAID NO GOD COULD NOT HAVE “ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN” UNLESS HE FOUND ANOTHER WOMB! IF HE KNEW MARY WOULD SAY NO, THEN HE WOULD HAVE ASKED ANOTHER WOMAN INSTEAD OF to MARY. … GOD COULD NOT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN WITHOUT HAVING FIRST MADE THE MISTAKE OF ASKING THE WRONG WOMAN!

You will now say, “God can!”

BTW, if you think it would indicate a making a mistake for God to ask a human who would say “no”, then you must think God made a mistake when he asked Jonah to go to Ninevah. Then, according to your logic, you must think God took away Jonah’s free will and forced him to go anyway.
 
BTW, if you think it would indicate a making a mistake for God to ask a human who would say “no”, then you must think God made a mistake when he asked Jonah to go to Ninevah. Then, according to your logic, you must think God took away Jonah’s free will and forced him to go anyway.
Of course not Ginger2. God knew exactly what Johah would choose to do and what would happen to him. By definition, it would have been impossible for God to pick the wrong person for any task. It’s that whole omniscient, omnipotent thing. 🙂
 
rig, I am always amazed at how God works in our lives. So often it looks to us like things are going wrong, but in the end we find that God’s way of doing things is so much better.

I just keep praying “let Your will be done” and it’s always so much better than what I’d hoped for.

Maybe we should start a thread for people to log in and tell what God has done for them. Just dedicate it to praising God. No debating back and forth, just testimony to His love and mercy.
 
Quote: "I believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary even more thanks to you by what you said:“God can do whatever he wants.”

Then you see, your time with me has not been wasted…you learned from our discourse that God is not limited as you had previously been stating.

Instead of saying, “The Lord could not…” He (God) is dependent on us…"

"IF MARY HAD SAID NO GOD COULD NOT HAVE “ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN” UNLESS HE FOUND ANOTHER WOMB! IF HE KNEW MARY WOULD SAY NO, THEN HE WOULD HAVE ASKED ANOTHER WOMAN INSTEAD OF to MARY. … GOD COULD NOT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN WITHOUT HAVING FIRST MADE THE MISTAKE OF ASKING THE WRONG WOMAN!

You will now say, “God can!”

BTW, if you think it would indicate a making a mistake for God to ask a human who would say “no”, then you must think God made a mistake when he asked Jonah to go to Ninevah. Then, according to your logic, you must think God took away Jonah’s free will and forced him to go anyway.
God is not limited by us, but he is counting on us and will not force himself upon us. Nobody gets to heaven unless he wants to go there. We have freedom of choice ( no pun intended) when it comes to loving God. Mary acted out of perfect love of God.

Not at all. God already knew that Jonah would ‘change his mind’, just as He knew Mary would say yes without procrastinating. Both Jonah and Mary said yes, only that Mary responded to God perfectly, without having to change her mind. God already knew that both of them would accept His will. But his foreknowledge did not predetermine their responses. They both acted by their free will. Because Mary was created sinless, her response wasn’t imperfect as Jonah’s was. And she did acknowledge God’s greatness in her life by proclaiming: “The Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name!” [Luke 1:49]

According to Catholic theology, when God bestowed the Immaculate Conception on Mary, this gift included the grace of a free will which is in total harmony with God’s grace. God created Mary with the gift to say “yes” always. I believe the rest of us have been graced to the extent of saying “yes” sometimes as Jonah. Whether we say “yes” or “no” to God, we have a free will. Even though Mary was created to say “yes” always, her perpetual state of obedience did not necessarily preclude her free will, for just like us, saying “yes” is an expression of free will. She could have said “no” like Jonah, but she never did, because she didn’t want to say “no”. Her proximity with God was too overwhelming . She was created so that she would never want to say “No”. There are moments in our lives when we feel very close to God internally, especially during deep prayer or meditation, especially after we Catholics have received Holy Eucharist. At that precise moment it’s virtually impossible to direct our will in a negative direction by succumbing to the devil’s temptations: away from God, who is really present in us.

God did not merely know that Mary would say “Yes”. He created that “yes”, that ‘Fiat’ within her soul at the precise moment of her conception, when God breathed life into her. He created her in such a way that she would certainly say “yes”, because her whole created being was formed as a “Yes” to God. She could not say “No” to God, because Yes-to-God was who she was created to be. And so the angel Gabriel greeted her not by her name but with the expression ‘kecharitomene’. She was created this way because she was divinely appointed to bear God’s Son. Christ was appointed by the Father to redeem mankind, but the Son of God ‘chose’ to come into the world.

Although it may seem as if Almighty God can do anything that we can think of him doing, such as becoming incarnate in the womb of a sinner, He does not do things which are foolish, unwise, or unfitting, or contrary to His nature. God would never permit the Holy Messiah to be conceived in a defiled ‘ark’ and born of a sinful woman. This is not because God is constrained by some force outside of Himself, but because it would be contrary to His wisdom and contrary to the wholeness and harmony of His entire plan from the very beginning of creation.

I never said that God can’t, but that we can say yes or no. With Mary it was always yes. God is in control to the extent only He alone can give us a free will, create a stone that could be too heavy even for him to lift, because it was in accord with his perfect wisdom and holy nature. There is no love without freedom.And God respects our freedom of will because we have been created in His own image. 👍

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Good Fella,

You better go back and read your previous posts. In this excerpt alone:

IF MARY HAD SAID NO GOD COULD NOT HAVE "ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN" UNLESS HE FOUND ANOTHER WOMB! IF HE KNEW MARY WOULD SAY NO, THEN HE WOULD HAVE ASKED ANOTHER WOMAN INSTEAD OF MARY. … GOD COULD NOT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN WITHOUT HAVING FIRST MADE THE MISTAKE OF ASKING THE WRONG WOMAN!

"You make several false claims about God.

"IF MARY HAD SAID NO GOD COULD NOT HAVE “ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN” but God has always accomplished His plans even when people said “no”.

IF HE KNEW MARY WOULD SAY NO, THEN HE WOULD HAVE ASKED ANOTHER WOMAN" Name one time when God changed His plan because a human said “no”.

“GOD COULD NOT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN WITHOUT HAVING FIRST MADE THE MISTAKE OF ASKING THE WRONG” God did not ask someone else when Jonah said “no” And Jonah didn’t simply reconsider and change his mind. God threw Him inside the bowels of a fish and let Jonah think it over for awhile. Read the book of Jonah and consider how your explanations fit into his scenario.
 
Not one Apostle ever asserted this.

You don’t know that at all.
You are going only by what the apostles wrote down in the New Testament, which is NOT written in the form of a Catechism.
You are forgetting that the apostles preached hundreds and hundreds of sermons in church after church all over the world for DECADES after the Resurrection, and they also TRAINED men as preachers and bishops to take their place after they died.
It is extremely likely that the apostles taught that Mary was
Immaculate (( I did not say they explicitly taught the Immaculate CONCEPTION, please note. The Immaculate CONCEPTION of Mary is a later doctrinal development and doctrinal conclusion after much prayer and study of all the arguments pro and con)).

It is likely because all the early Church fathers regarded Mary as the New Eve and All-Holy and they didn’t pull that out of thin air AND NOBODY in the Church made a stink about it either and nearly the entire early church for hundreds of years was extremely conservative and adamantly opposed to mere novelty.
 
Well, many early church writers (if you prefer writers instead of fathers) called Mary the Ark of the Covenant, and the early church was very conservative and not prone to teaching novelty.
Sure, individual laymen wrote apocryphal works, but the bishops and priests didn’t base dogma on those things.

Scripture clearly portrays Mary as an antitype of the Ark of the Covenant.

The original A.O.C. carried a jar of manna, the bread from heaven.
Mary the new A.O.C. carried Christ, the TRUE bread of heaven.

The original A.O.C. carried the Tablets of the Law.
The new A.O.C. carried within her the true Lawgiver Himself.

The original A.O.C. carried within it the staff of the High Priest Aaron.
Mary the new A.O.C. carried within her womb the TRUE and FINAL High Priest, Jesus, the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

The power of God overshadowed the original A.O.C. (Shekinah).
The Holy Spirit of God overshadowed Mary the new A.O.C.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top