The Virgin Mary

[apophasis]

The Apostolic proof concerning Church teaching authority is in the scriptures. There is also scriptural proof in both the OT and NT concerning the Church’s Marian doctrines. Quit regurgitating your false criterion of sola scriptura and taking the Bible literally and explicitly. You Fundies (bastard children of the Enlightenment) are so naive. Are you sure Christ rejoices in you?

Does God the Father rejoice in His Son? - I am in the Son. No longer in Adam, but born again, now in Christ Jesus, the “Last Adam.” Yeah, I’m very sure - it’s documented.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I never have understood why anyone can logically believe that Jesus who is God could unite His humanity with the humanity of a sin infested depraved Mary?

How does Perfect God unite with sin?

Most christians would say that Jesus is Divine God.

Most christians would say that Jesus was also Fully human.

And most would agree that Mary was fully human.

If Mary was truely Jesus’ mother and not just a surrogate womb bearer then Jesus’ humanity was connected and fused with the humanity of Mary.

Original sin did not only effect people’s souls–ask any fundamentalist non Catholic and they will tell you that it effected All creation–death and disease came into the world because of sin–in other words sin Infected not only men’s souls but had physical effects in their physical bodies such as disease and death.

If Mary had original sin it would effect her humanity which consists of not only her soul but her body and blood.

For all you Mary non believers and haters out there try your best to comprehend this: Jesus Perfect God could not unite with a Fallen depraved sin infested Mary because it would negatively effect His humanity.

Jesus who is God Could Unite with the Perfect humanity of a Mary untainted by original sin!

In other words Jesus could have had Eve as His mother hypothetically before she sinned because her humanity was perfect!

There was no sin–there was no disease–there was no concupiscence or inclination towards sin in Eve before she fell to sin.

Perfect Jesus could not unite with a sin infested depraved original sin Mary because if He did–in His humanity–He would have been Inclined To Sin!

Perfect Jesus who is God could never be Inclined Towards Sin!

Remember how Adam and Eve were before the fall–they were naked and were not ashamed?!

After the fall they made themselves clothes and knew that they were naked! They were at least Inclined towards lust–which is a manifestation of concupiscence–whether they would committ it or not.

The same would be true of Our Lord Jesus if He had united with the humanity of an Original Sin infested depraved Mary!

In other words to say that Mary sinned would be to say that God united with sin!

That is a Satanic Lie and that is the very thing that Satan wants Protestants to believe!

Everyone who says that Mary sinned is Blaspheming God for by doing so they Necessarily and Positively are saying that Jesus who is God united with sin which is untrue!

And everyone who says that Mary would sin later in life is saying that if Mary who is Full of Grace–so full that even God Himself can’t give her anymore grace–that that much grace is not enough to keep Mary from sin after she was conceived without sin is saying that God is not powerful enough to defeat Satan–in other words God’s grace isn’t enough to keep someone from sinning!

That is what Satan wants people to believe and that is a lie!

And lastly those who say that either Mary was conceived in sin or later sinned are saying that Christ’s Catholic Church does not speak the truth and that Jesus didn’t speak the truth when He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it!

There is no middle ground!

Choose against the Catholic Church regarding Mary when you know their teachings about Mary and you choose against Jesus!

Die that way unrepentedly in a state of Mortal sin and you will go to Hell!

There is no middle way!

And Catholics who will speak the truth and tell you that there is no middle way love you and are doing a great act of charity for your soul when they tell you that truth!

 

[guanophore]

I’ve been following these Marian threads over the last couple days. I’ve watched the sola scriptura circular reasoning go round and round and round.
Nothing will satisfy Justasking short of the bible explicitly stating in large bold readers digest style print that…
Mary is the Queen of Heaven
Mary was Immaculately conceived
Mary was Assumed into Heaven
etc… etc… It never will explicitly but it always has implicitly. Trust me it’s been shown over and over.
And since CNN didn’t have a Jerusalem Bureau in 0-100 A.D. and was’nt able to record these verbal traditions they couldn’t have possibly been said or believed. The only thing that’s changed over countless posts is it’s a new group of people making the same arguments as the last group. Justasking my friend you are definitely going on my Rosary list because I think at this point it’s time for prayer. Do you have a first name so I know who I’m praying for?

I agree. Mary will have to manifest herself to him. That is the only thing that will melt the hardness of heart.

 

[guanophore]

The woman meantioned in the passage could not have been Israel, as an entire nation of Isreal did not “flee in the desert” aftet “giving birth to a son.” It was the Virgin Mary that fled into the desert with Joesph and baby Jesus because Isreal was trying to kill Jesus.

There is a sense in which this image can be seen as Israel. The 12 stars and the sun and moon hearken back to the dreams of Joseph.

Jesus Himself teaches us…

John 4:22
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. Jesus was born to and for the nation of Israel. After His death the temple was destroyed, and the Jews were scattered all over the desert and around the world.

So you are saying Rev. 12 is not in chronological order. Then I can’t dispute - if the order of events can be rearranged, it can take on many different meanings depending on each new arrangement.

Apocalyptic literature, by it’s nature, is not chronological.

 

[guanophore]

Why would you think that these writings on the walls “REFLECT the Christian doctrines”? I can understand someone who is a bishop making some statement that has some authority behind it because he is a bishop but to think that what is written on a wall by someone unkown as a reflection of what the entire church believed goes far beyond the breaking point in believabilty.

Why is that? did you not know that people have been putting grafiti on the walls of things they believe since before recorded history?

(1) Are each of the writings on the walls dated? (2) How do you know that they’re Apostolic in origin? (3) Do they actually quote the Apostles?So you’re suggesting that those “doctrinal preservation policemen” would have inspected the walls periodically and erased anything there that was not in conformity to Apostolic tradition? Were these inspectors hand picked by the Apostles themselves? Did they too have “successors?”

Interesting theory, G. Kinda “off the wall” I’d say, but interesting nonetheless.

.

LOL. Given the rabid nature of the refutation that occurred with heresies in the early centuries, I wouldn’t put it past them! Since they met to worship in the catecombs, I don’t think they would have a Mass with heresies scrawled on the wall next to them. But, no, I was saying that the bishops, who were ordained by the apostles to preserve the doctrine, would not have allowed such heresies to continue. The fact that they did tells us that they were not contrary to any of the teachings that were handed down fom the apostles.

 

[rlg94086]

Quote rig: “That’s an interesting comment. So, nothing in Revelations is valid unless it is also mentioned in the gospels? Is that some sort of unwritten Protestant interpretation rule?”

The Bible provides evidence from one book to another in support of each book.

I don’t know if that is what justasking meant, but it is a valid question.

Which makes me wonder…is Luke’s “Full of Grace” (v. 1:28) in any of the other Gospels? Cross referencing can be very effected in supporting your claims. The word “full” does not appear in verse 28. But each writer tells the story in his own words. Does anyone else seem to imply “full of grace” using slightly different words?

Cross referencing is a good practice, but I don’t think the inspired word of God requires cross referencing in order to be valid. You seem to think that “full of grace” may not be inspired. That seems to be rather heretical to me.

 

[guanophore]

Is there ANYONE who didn’t end up in Inida and buried in Pakistan?

Nobody in paarsurrey’s magical world!

 

[guanophore]

Really? Where is her body, if not in heaven?

That is nothing but your unauthoritative and ignorant opinion. Not only that, but you don’t even belong to the Church that was founded by Christ. The Protestant Reformation is unscriptural and a contradiction. And history proves that too. So save your breath.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

I am offended by your hostile and uncharitable words toward my esteemed brother, Apophasis. He has just as much a right to his opinion as everyone else here. The fact that it is differently informed does not make it "ignorant’. On the contrary, his scholarship of scripture according the the reformed tradition is excellent. Furthermore, the insinuation that he does not belong to the Church Christ founded is contrary to the teaching of that church. Since Apophasis is a Christian, we know that he is a member of the Body of Christ. This sort of attitude does nothing to foster unity and is hurtful to Christ, of whose Body we are all members one of another.

Quit regurgitating your false criterion of sola scriptura and taking the Bible literally and explicitly. You Fundies (bastard children of the Enlightenment) are so naive. Are you sure Christ rejoices in you?

It is not your place to say, Good Fella. Whatsoever you do the the least of the brethren, that you do unto Christ. Will you call another child of God a “bastard”? Will you say to one who embraces Jesus as Lord that Christ does not rejoice? Sounds like you need a time out, or something.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I didn’t say it began in the fifth century. There’s nothing in that prayer about her being “Mother of the Church.” But AGAIN, true Christian doctrine is not based on time plus popular belief. You must prove their Apostolic roots. Quoting me something from the 3rd century means nothing.He’s talking about His virgin birth. That’s Apostolic, that’s documented.The Son incarnated. You’re stating nothing new. We’re all in agreement. Stick to the real issues.

Here’s the substantial difference, GF:

Jesus: Virgin born (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Immaculately conceived (imposed on 2 unrelated verses)

Jesus: Lived a sinsless life (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Lived a sinless life (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Redeemer (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Co-Redemtrix (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Rose from the dead bodily (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Rose from the dead (no eyewitness; not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Bodily ascended into heaven: (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Bodily Assumed into heaven: (no eyewitness; not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Sits on His Father’s throne in heaven: (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Queen of heaven: (no eyewitness; imposed on one Scriptural passage)

Jesus: Advocate and Intercessor for the saints (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Advocate and intercessor for the saints (not Scripturally documented)

ALL the Christological doctrines are Scripturally documented and some eye witnessed by the Apostles themselves. Not true of ANY of the Catholic, Marian dogmas. They’re accepted based on popular belief alone. That’s not true Christianity. True Christianity has divine and Apostolic origin.

"The faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) did not begin as a Mother/Child religion as Catholicism now is. This was not based on the will of God, but men.

Given that the earliest Christians were largely concerned with sorting out the details about an incarnate GOD, it is understandable in my view if they failed to concentrate on Mary in the pages of scripture.

Too much concentration on Mary early on could have led to all sorts of misunderstandings in a culture which had Artemis as a prominent Goddess, don’t you think?

This may very well be the reason why God revealed Himself as “one” instead of as a “trinity” to the ancient Israelites who were surrounded by polytheistic cultures.

It takes time for truths to become firmly established.

 

[guanophore]

Can you briefly in a couple of sentences define what the gospel is?

Here is an eternal gospel:

Rev 14:7
“Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come; and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the fountains of water.”

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Apophasis,

I have no argument with your claims that some of these beliefs are not clearly evident in Scripture, but I will make a few comments on this post.

I didn’t say it began in the fifth century. There’s nothing in that prayer about her being “Mother of the Church.” But AGAIN, true Christian doctrine is not based on time plus popular belief. You must prove their Apostolic roots.

It is true that doctrine is not based on time plus popular belief, but it is not true that you must “prove their Apostolic roots.” That may be true for it to proven for you, but not for it to be “true Christian doctrine.” Oral Tradition is oral…if it was Written Tradition, it would be written. I know that may be difficult to understand.

apophasis:

Quoting me something from the 3rd century means nothing.He’s talking about His virgin birth. That’s Apostolic, that’s documented.The Son incarnated. You’re stating nothing new. We’re all in agreement. Stick to the real issues.

Here’s the substantial difference, GF:

Jesus: Virgin born (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Immaculately conceived (imposed on 2 unrelated verses)

Jesus: Lived a sinsless life (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Lived a sinless life (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Redeemer (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Co-Redemtrix (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Rose from the dead bodily (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Rose from the dead (no eyewitness; not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Bodily ascended into heaven: (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Bodily Assumed into heaven: (no eyewitness; not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Sits on His Father’s throne in heaven: (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Queen of heaven: (no eyewitness; imposed on one Scriptural passage)

Jesus: Advocate and Intercessor for the saints (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Advocate and intercessor for the saints (not Scripturally documented)

ALL the Christological doctrines are Scripturally documented and some eye witnessed by the Apostles themselves. Not true of ANY of the Catholic, Marian dogmas. They’re accepted based on popular belief alone. That’s not true Christianity. True Christianity has divine and Apostolic origin.

"The faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) did not begin as a Mother/Child religion as Catholicism now is. This was not based on the will of God, but men.

Marian dogmas are not “accepted based on popular belief alone,” so the rest of your argument collapses. Dogma is defined by the Magisterium of the Church and it is based on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. You are insulting our faith and saying we are not true Christians. I realize I can’t convince you of the error of your beliefs, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from denying our Christianity.

Pax,
Robert

 

[guanophore]

The Son took on humanity through the virgin birth. Mary is biologically connected to His humanity only, not His divinity.

I agree with your point that Mary did not began God the Son, but I don’t think there is a human alive that is more connected to Hid divinity.

The 5th century term “theotokos” is a VERY unfortunate and is the reason for many false assertions and assumptions (by men) regarding Mary.

Who are you to say that the words of the infallible council are “unfortunate”?

For instance, bodily He can be in only ONE place at one time.  Humanly He cannot be in heaven and on earth at the same time (a "*transubstantiation*" challenge).  When He took on humanity He subjected Himself to human limitations.

Since He did not institute the Eucharist until he was about to get in his resurrected body, then clearly He knew He would be able to be fully present.

Actually, “Theotokos” states that the Son Mary bore took on divinity. Not true. But God, the eternal Son, took on humanity - with all its limitations, yet did not surrender His divinity. He is both “fully” man and “fully” God. Not a blend of the two, but in Him they are in union. A mystery.

Maybe you are criticizing the word because you are simply misunderstanding it. It does not mean that Mary’s Son “took on” divinity.

Mary is biologically connected to His humanity, not His divinity. Certainly she was given special “grace” by God to perform a service to Him that was unique. And in this regard she stands alone amongst human kind. But Scripture is deafening silent when it comes to any special standing of Mary herself.

I don’t see how you can say this after her exchange with Elizabeth, and the prophesies in the temple. All generations don’t call other women Blessed!

Historically, it is men (not God) who have attributed to her the extraordinary, consequently robbing from the Incarnation itself its extraordinariness.

The fact that Jesus has shared His Divine ministry and privilege with humanity in no way subtracts from the extraordianriness of the Incarnation.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Quote Mannyfit: “But did Israel give birth to Jesus Literally speaking? Let us for once interpret the passage in Revelation 12:1 as individuals.”

The book of Revelation was revealed through visions, like Joseph’s dream where 7 fat cows get eaten by 7 thin cows.

“The Dragon is Satan. No doubt.” Quote
Agreed.
"
“The male child is no doubt Jesus.” Quote
Agreed.

"The woman is Mary because of her giving birth to Jesus. Israel would be correct if it is interpreted symbolically. When you interpret this literally, Israel doesn’t fit the woman in Revelation 12:1

."

If you read it in Chronological order keeping in mind the author is describing a vision, it fits perfectly that the woman is Israel.

How do you know Revelation is chronological in order? The Book of Revelations is full of symbolism and literal words. I don’t believe it is written in cronological order. The two witness in the Book of Revelations is often believed by Biblical Scholars as Moses and Elijah.

“Israel by the way is male because his original name is Jacob.” Quote.
When you speak of the man who was renamed Israel, then it is male. When you speak of the nation, Israel, it is she.

That is correct.

Quote rig: “That’s an interesting comment. So, nothing in Revelations is valid unless it is also mentioned in the gospels? Is that some sort of unwritten Protestant interpretation rule?”

I don’t know if there is an unwritten Protestant interpretation rule. You should know. I’m Catholic, and I don’t know what their rules of interpretation is.

The Bible provides evidence from one book to another in support of each book.

That I full agree.

I don’t know if that is what justasking meant, but it is a valid question.

Why are you avoiding the logical reason that the woman isn’t Mary in Revelation 12:1?
I ask you and juskasking4, let us once interpret the Passage in Revelation 12:1-5 identifying the characters as individuals. Instead you just avoid the question. You admit that the child is Jesus yet. When I ask who is the Mother of Jesus? You just avoid the question.

Which makes me wonder…is Luke’s “Full of Grace” (v. 1:28) in any of the other Gospels? Cross referencing can be very effected in supporting your claims. The word “full” does not appear in verse 28. But each writer tells the story in his own words. Does anyone else seem to imply “full of grace” using slightly different words?

The word of pull grace is mention in the Latin Vulgate “gratia plena.” It is also in Greek kecharitoméne.

it’s root charitoo.

Charitoo: akin to charis, to endow with charis, primarily signified to make graceful or gracious, and came to denote, in Hellenistic Greek, to cause to find favour, Luke 1:28, “highly favoured” (margin, “endued with grace”) . . . Grace implies more than favour; grace is a free gift, favour may be deserved or gained"

kecharitomene can also mean highly favored as you see in most modern English translation.

Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’"

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;2760238]Really? Where is her body, if not in heaven?

Its turned to dust. That is what happens to those who die and are buried.

That is nothing but your unauthoritative and ignorant opinion. Not only that, but you don’t even belong to the Church that was founded by Christ.

If we don’t then you don’t either. The catholic church is not the samething as the NT church. It has added much that the NT never had.

The Protestant Reformation is unscriptural and a contradiction.

Do you agree then with all that the catholic church taught and practiced up to it? Do you have a problem with the way indulgences were being sold to build a church?

And history proves that too. So save your breath.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2760249]She has influence and contol to the extent that God chooses to give it to her. He humbled himself, and became a human baby, helpless, and totally under her control. We believe that she was given special graces to excel in this task. Everyone knows there is no such thing as a perfect parent, but to raise God the Son, she needed to avoid anything that would interfere with His development.

This still would not mean she needs to be sinless or not have other children of her own.

“Catholics” don’t take it to this level, God takes it there! Catholics and Orthodox recognize that God chose Mary for a very special place in salvation history.

No doubt she does but not what the catholic church has done by making her queen of heaven, prayed to etc.

Luke 2:51-3:1
51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.

It was she who changed his diapers and cleaned his cuts when he fell down. It was she who called him for dinner, and guided him through His childhood (along with Joseph). They were parents to Him, and had “control” over Him as much as He allowed them to have through the mystery of His incarnation.

At the wedding in Cana, Jesus indulged His mother by making water into wine, even though He did not think it was time for His public ministry to begin. Who knows how many other miracles He had done for her before that day? How was it she was so confident He would do something? Experience?

It still does not follow from this you get all these marian doctrines.

 

[jmcrae]

Its turned to dust. That is what happens to those who die and are buried.

No, you don’t understand. There is not even any dust in her grave. There have never been any bones in there. It was empty the day after she was buried in it. She did not turn to dust - she vanished. In very much the same way that Jesus did - although of course she had Divine assistance - Jesus rose from the dead all by Himself, but Mary did it with His help.

Do you agree then with all that the catholic church taught and practiced up to it? Do you have a problem with the way indulgences were being sold to build a church?

I have a problem with the priests who were keeping the money for themselves, and who were misinforming people about what an Indulgence is, but I happen to collect Indulgences myself, and I certainly don’t have any problem with the concept itself.

There are lots of Protestant pastors who keep the collection plate money for themselves instead of giving it to the poor, and nobody even gets a “get out of Hell free” card for it - what a rip-off!!

 

[justasking4]

[Mannyfit75;2761084]

Quote:Ginger2
I don’t know if that is what justasking meant, but it is a valid question.

[Mannyfit75;2761084]
Why are you avoiding the logical reason that the woman isn’t Mary in Revelation 12:1?
I ask you and juskasking4, let us once interpret the Passage in Revelation 12:1-5 identifying the characters as individuals. Instead you just avoid the question. You admit that the child is Jesus yet. When I ask who is the Mother of Jesus? You just avoid the question.

Here is what the New American Bible (Catholic Bible) says about this passage:

12:1-14:20] This central section of Rev portrays the power of evil, represented by a dragon, in opposition to God and his people. First, the dragon pursues the woman about to give birth, but her son is saved and “caught up to God and his throne” (Rev 12:5). Then Michael and his angels cast the dragon and his angels out of heaven (Rev 12:7-9). After this, the dragon tries to attack the boy indirectly by attacking members of his church (Rev 12:13-17). A beast, symbolizing the Roman empire, then becomes the dragon’s agent, mortally wounded but restored to life and worshiped by all the world (Rev 13:1-10). A second beast arises from the land, symbolizing the antichrist, which leads people astray by its prodigies to idolize the first beast (Rev 13:11-18). This is followed by a vision of the Lamb and his faithful ones, and the proclamation of imminent judgment upon the world in terms of the wine of God’s wrath (Rev 14:1-20).
2 [1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13-17); cf Isaiah 50:1; 66:7; Jeremiah 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

As you can see even catholic scholars believe as protestants do on this.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;2761200]No, you don’t understand. There is not even any dust in her grave. There have never been any bones in there. It was empty the day after she was buried in it. She did not turn to dust - she vanished. In very much the same way that Jesus did - although of course she had Divine assistance - Jesus rose from the dead all by Himself, but Mary did it with His help.

There is no evidence for your claim here. Just because we don’t have her bones does not mean she was assumed into heaven. We don’t have the bones for all kinds of people mentioned in the NT either. Sould we assume they were assumed also?

What the catholic church does is make it sound like its speculations are facts when there is none to be had. Better to say they don’t know and to leave it at that than to build a doctrine on specualtions.

I have a problem with the priests who were keeping the money for themselves, and who were misinforming people about what an Indulgence is, but I happen to collect Indulgences myself, and I certainly don’t have any problem with the concept itself.

What does it mean to “collect Indulgences”?

There are lots of Protestant pastors who keep the collection plate money for themselves instead of giving it to the poor, and nobody even gets a “get out of Hell free” card for it - what a rip-off!!

i don’t know if there are lots but i’m sure some are fleecing their flocks.

 

[jmcrae]

There is no evidence for your claim here. Just because we don’t have her bones does not mean she was assumed into heaven. We don’t have the bones for all kinds of people mentioned in the NT either. Sould we assume they were assumed also?

We know where they were buried, and there are human remains in their graves. Obviously we can’t prove the remains are theirs, but it seems like a logical assumption. (No pun intended. )

What the catholic church does is make it sound like its speculations are facts when there is none to be had. Better to say they don’t know and to leave it at that than to build a doctrine on specualtions.

You can go and visit her grave yourself, and come to your own conclusions. It’s in Ephesus.

What does it mean to “collect Indulgences”?

It means that whenever I do an action that can qualify for an Indulgence, I try to make sure that I say the prayers that go with it, and do the other devotional activities associated with it, so that the merit of that action (which comes from Jesus and cannot be bought with money) can be applied to the souls in Purgatory, to hasten their arrival in Heaven.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread over 1,000 posts and closed.