The Virgin Mary

[jmcrae]

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.

Every time the Fathers refer to Mary as the Second Eve, they are alluding to the fact that, just like Eve, she was immaculately conceived.

These references begin as early as the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the first decade of the second century, just a few years after the death of the Apostle John.

 

[Ginger2]

Ah, Eve was not conceived. She was formed from Adam’s rib.

jm, can you please provide the exact quote and reference. Not that I doubt your word - I would just like to see exactly what he said.

 

[Ginger2]

Look how Irenaeus parallels Mary to Jesus

Mary, …being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hbr 5:8-9 the HOLY BIBLE)

This I find troubling. Jesus made himself “equal to God” because he is God. But drawing these parallels between Mary and Jesus is, to put it mildly, over-reaching.

The same goes for stating the Mary is the “New Eve” because Scripture tells us Jesus is the New Adam.

 

[Ginger2]

Manny: “I read another poll about Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. They say that Catholics 34% believe in Real Presence.”

That is sad. So many people don’t believe in much of what cripture teaches. Then they wonder why God is not active in their lives the way He was in Biblical times.

If they would just make a decision to believe, even tho they don’t understand everything, boy would they begin tp see just how busy God is in today’s world.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny: “I read another poll about Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. They say that Catholics 34% believe in Real Presence.”

That is sad. So many people don’t believe in much of what cripture teaches. Then they wonder why God is not active in their lives the way He was in Biblical times.

If they would just make a decision to believe, even tho they don’t understand everything, boy would they begin tp see just how busy God is in today’s world.

I talk to a Non-Denomination Minister that I visited before I left for Iraq. He told me that there a growing number of Protestants who don’t read the Bible as often as they should.

 

[Ginger2]

They don’t realize it’s importance.

I took a “non-denominational” Bible study several years ago. We read Scripture every day six days a week - praying before and after. Then we met once a week watched a short video of Biblical Scholars who explained different aspect of the culture, etc. And we had discussion.

On Sunday we rested. I found opportunities all the time to share Christ with people. It was like God put people in front of me according to what I had just read.

Are you still in Iraq?

 

[jmcrae]

There is one God, not three.

Jesus is fully God and fully man.

Absolutely. Jesus is God the Son. Where He is, so also is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. They are inseperable.

God is not a man. God is not lower than the angels. God cannot die.

When you say “God,” do you mean God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, or God the Trinity?

(God the Son is certainly a man, and the other two Persons of the Trinity experienced the same things that He experienced, because of the fact that they share a single mind.)

 

[jmcrae]

Manny: “I read another poll about Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. They say that Catholics 34% believe in Real Presence.”

As opposed to 0% of Protestants, I think. (The term “Real Presence” refers to the miracle of Transubstatiation in the Mass.)

That is sad. So many people don’t believe in much of what cripture teaches. Then they wonder why God is not active in their lives the way He was in Biblical times.

If they would just make a decision to believe, even tho they don’t understand everything, boy would they begin tp see just how busy God is in today’s world.

Very true.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella said:
"God is divine
JESUS IS GOD
Therefore, Jesus is divine.

Jesus is divine
GOD IS NOT JESUS
Therefore, God is not divine."

You keep drawing false conclusions. The example you state is like those who say: “God is love, therefore love is god.” (I know… not the best example, but it should make the point)

Jesus is God. Scriptures attest to this fact. “Before Abraham, I am.”

God is not Jesus. Scriptures attest to this fact. God cannot die.

I realize this is a difficult concept to understand, but it is even more difficult to explain.

Jesus testified Jhn 14:28 “… for my Father is greater than I.”

Psa 8:5 “For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.” Is God the Father “lower than the angels”

Why is this any harder to understand then when Jesus says "no one comes to the Father except thru me and no one comes to me except the Father send him?

There is one God who can do all things - things beyond human understanding.

You were the one who drew the conclusion. You said "Jesus is God and “God is not Jesus”. The above syllogisms show the faulty conclusion you reach: Jesus is not both God and man.

You draw a faulty analogy: God is a person, not an emotion or a virtue. Both the Father and the Son are distinct persons in one God. I suggest you enrol in Logic 101. :newidea:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Ginger2]

Good Fella, if that is what you got out of what I said then you have misinterpreted my words. Most likely, my fault as I don’t express myself well.

I have already stated that I believe Jesus was fully God and fully human. You must have missed that or you would not, (I assume) have stated that I said “Jesus is not both God and man.” (see post # 661) So, you are mistaken about what I am saying.

I believe Jesus is everything he claimed to be. I believe the testimony of the Apostles. Obviously I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man.
It’s in the Bible! .

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella, if that is what you got out of what I said then you have misinterpreted my words. Most likely, my fault as I don’t express myself well.

I have already stated that I believe Jesus was fully God and fully human. You must have missed that or you would not, (I assume) have stated that I said “Jesus is not both God and man.” (see post # 661) So, you are mistaken about what I am saying.

I believe Jesus is everything he claimed to be. I believe the testimony of the Apostles. Obviously I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man.
It’s in the Bible! .

Ginger, when you said “God is not Jesus” you may have meant that the Person of God the Father is not the Person of God the Son. But, as you know, Mary did not give birth to God the Father. She gave birth to God the Son - a divine Person nonetheless. The Word did not discard his divinity when He became flesh. So Mary became the Mother of God the Son. This is what Catholics and many Protestants believe in accord. Mary’s maternal relation with God helped the Church to define the hypostatic union of natures in Christ. So Mary does indeed lead us closer to her divine Son.

Let us begin look at this relationship from our own experience:

Major Premise: All philosophers are human.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a philopsopher.
Conclusion: Socrates is human.

The mother of Socrates naturally isn’t the mother of his father. But she is the mother of a human Socrates because his father is human. Both the father and the mother are human, and so the mother of Socrates is the mother of a human being. With Mary, the Son is both divine and human, for the Father eternally begot the Son who was born of the Virgin Mary. He is a divine Person with two natures. Mary is the Mother of God because both the Father and the Son are divine. Mary is no more the mother of the Father than the mother of Socrates is the mother of his father. If this is what you meant, then we are both in agreement. But we cannot deny that Mary is the mother of her divine Son.

Major Premise: God is divine. (All philosophers are human)
Minor Premise: Jesus is God. (Socrates is a philosopher.)
Conclusion: Jesus is divine. (Socrates is human.)

From this conclusion we can arrive at an ‘a priori’ truth concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus:

Major Premise: Jesus is divine.
Minor Premise: Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Conclusion: Mary is the mother of the divine Jesus.

Fundamentalists claim that Mary is the mother of only the human Jesus. Logic dictates that these Christians are denying the divinity of Jesus. They can quote the scriptures as much as they please to support their erroneous belief about Mary’s maternity, but not even the scriptures can reject an ‘a priori’ truth. God created the world so that 2+2=4 without exception to this law. To presume that the scriptures can refute a law created by God is to place the scriptures above God, to pit the Word against Himself: this is “bibliolatry”, a bastard child of the doctrine ‘sola scriptura’.

Finally, we cannot say “God is Love” and then say “Love is God.” The expression “God is Love” is idiomatic, a function of human speech, not ontological. The relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity is ontological.

“I and the Father are one.”
{John 10:30}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

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?

Second, you claim that the Marian doctrines and dogmas are false teachings because they have no explicit biblical support. And you deny the validity of Sacred Tradition, for you espouse the erroneous belief in ‘sola scriptura’ as the single deposit of faith. In order for Catholics to provide you with proof for the validity of the Church’s teachings, they must show you that Sacred Tradition is also a part of the deposit of Faith and that the Church hierarchy is infallible in its sacred teachings.

A prophecy of Isaiah alludes to the Church as the holy way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err.Yet the Church leaders are not impeccable ( Isa 35:8; 54:13-17); the early Church is identified as the “way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein (Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22); Jesus tells his apostles it is not they who speak but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one who is leading the Church, she cannot err in faith and morals (Mt 10:20; Lk 12:12); Jesus promises that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly (Lies come from Satan.) Without the charism of infallibilty, error prevails. Since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, the Protestant reformers and their followers call Christ a liar by saying that hell did prevail, for there are now many churches of different denominations which have taken their places (Mt 16:18); the gift of infallibilty is required for Jesus to give his apostles, mere creatures, the power to “bind and loose”. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit (Mt 16:19); the Church -not Scripture- is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibilty when teaching the faith. The Church must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation (Mt 18:17-18); Jesus promises that he will be with his Church always, not abandon her 1600 years later because she erred in spite of his promise to lead her in all truth. His perpetual presence assures the Church that she will never stray in faith and morals by self-deception (Mt 28:20); Jesus prays for Peter (our first Pope), that his faith might not fail. Jesus’ prayer for his faith allows him to teach the faith without error, infallibly (Lk 22:32); Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever, preventing the teaching of error (Jn 14:16) Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and their successors) “all” things regarding the faith (Jn 14:26); Jesus had many things to say, but the apostles were not ready to receive these revelations. Infallible Church doctrines develop over time. All public revelation ended with the original apostles, but the Church’s doctrines continue to develop as our hearts and minds are able to grasp and welcome them (Jn 16:12); Jesus promises that the Spirit will guide the Church into all truth. Our understanding of the whole truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church in her teachings over time (Jn 16:13).

Paul explains that what the ministers teach is taught, not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit. The ministers are led to interpret and understand the spiritual truths that are revealed and developed over time (1Cor 2:13); the apostles know that the Church is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception (Acts 15:27-28); the wisdom of God is known, even to the superior angels, through the Church (not scripture). This means God’s infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen she must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals - or she wouldn’t be endowed with the wisdom of God (Eph 3:10); this is a mystery hidden for all ages: that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people (Eph 3:9); Christ is the Head of the Church, His Bride, for which he died to make it “Holy” and without blemish. There is only “One” Church, just as Christ only has one Bride (Eph 5:23-27; Col 1:18); Paul calls the Church a “mystery”: the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst (Mary can hear our prayers.) cannot be understood by reasoning alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith (Eph 5:32); Paul commands us to test everything, but we must have something against which to test: one infallible guide that is available to us. And this guide is the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have never changed (1 Thess 5:21); Paul says the “Apostolic” Church (not scripture) is the pillar and foundation of all truth. And so she must be protected by the Holy Spirit and infallible (1 Tim 3:15).

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

Good Fella,

I believe I have answered your questions -thoroughly.

God would have accomplished His task regardless of what Mary said. Scriptures proves that.

Jonah said “no”, yet God accomplished His mission to the Ninevites.

You are missing the point, Ginger2. HOW did God accomplish His will? He pursuaded Jonah to say yes! Just like He pursuaded Joseph to go ahead and take Mary. This is cooperation and participation. God has ordained that humans should participate with His divine plan.

I don’t know how I can be more clear.

It is clear that your conclusions are outside those handed down by the Apostolic Succession, the Teaching Authority appointed by Jesus.

Why should I rely on your “apostolic traditions”? The Holy Bible has NEVER failed me.

Because they are appointed by Jesus, and because they produced that Bible that does not fail you.

“We know that Mary was sinless …” I know no such thing. The Bible doesn’t say it.

You don’t see it there because you have rejected the Apostolic Authority.

" It’s blaspheme to say “God could not”. With God ALL things are possible.

No one is saying it is not possible. What we are saying is that God chooses to use the free will of persons to accomplish His Divine plan. He chooses to depend upon us.

Why didn’t God ask someone other than Jonah? Why did Jonah warn the Ninevites after he said he wouldn’t? Because God does what He wants regardless of the human beings He CHOSES to work with.

Ok, now you are getting the point!

 

[guanophore]

“Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy about the Redeemer and His mother”

Than you reject the authority of the Church.

Please explain to us how the protoevangelium is not a prophesy about the Redeemer and his mother.

 

[guanophore]

Jaypeeto4, said “Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy about the Redeemer and His mother, and as far as enmity toward the devil goes, it puts them on the same level.”

You base your understanding about Genesis 3:15 on a faulty translation. Mary is not on the same level as Jesus. That why I object to the Catholic teaching on Mary

Jesus has raised Mary to His level by grace, through her faith, just as He intends to raise all of us who persevere unto the end. When you deny this, you deny the very purpose of God for us.

2 Peter 1:4
4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

Jesus wants us all to be partakers of his divine nature. He became man so that we can become “god” (partakers of the divine nature).

The Marian doctrines are not based on a translation of the scripture, but on the revelation of God.

I guess that means your basis for not accepting them is null and void?

Of course the Douay-Rheims translation is translated the same as the Latin Vulgate. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

She/He it does make a difference. And that is why the Pope felt so strongly about writing a revision to correct the errors.

Unfortunately, it will have to be revised again as the error in Luke remains.

And why does all this matter? It matters because people draw false conclusions from the errors. 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.

No false conclusions have been drawn, Ginger2. Mary is the prototype of Jesus’ plan for all His believers. He said she is even more blessed because she hears the word of God, and obeys it. It is through our obedience to Christ that we become wise to good and evil, and God is able, through us and our choices, to crush Satan under our feet.

Rom 16:18-20
19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

 

[guanophore]

Of course the Douay-Rheims translation is translated the same as the Latin Vulgate. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

She/He it does make a difference. And that is why the Pope felt so strongly about writing a revision to correct the errors.

Unfortunately, it will have to be revised again as the error in Luke remains.

And why does all this matter? It matters because people draw false conclusions from the errors. 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.

No false conclusions have been drawn, Ginger2. Mary is the prototype of Jesus’ plan for all His believers. He said she is even more blessed because she hears the word of God, and obeys it. It is through our obedience to Christ that we become wise to good and evil, and God is able, through us and our choices, to crush Satan under our feet.

Rom 16:18-20
19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

 

[guanophore]

So then you agree the doctrine cannot be traced all the way back to the Apostles.

No

It has no Apostolic origin.

The lack of mention of this in the NT does not mean the doctrine 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.

I think this is an error. No new public revelation occurred after the death of the last Apostle. However, there are things that were revealed that were understood more gradually over time, like the two natures of Christ, the nature of the Trinity, the need to define the canon, and the doctrines of Mary. The Apostles did not write a table of contents for the NT either, but that does not mean it does not exist.

The truth is that there were many things revealed to the Apostles that did not get written down.

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.

No, he is saying that there are doctrines written about within them that are holy Spirit inspired, such as the Marian Doctrines.

 

[guanophore]

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.

These quotes of Good Fella are his attempts to characterize his understanding of YOUR position. He is playing out his understanding of your reasoning here. These are not his own beliefs.

 

[guanophore]

For those Catholics who like surveys on Protestant beliefs, I found one that includes Catholics and Jews & Protestants:

Ten percent of Protestants, 21 percent of Roman Catholics, and 52 percent of Jews do NOT believe in God. simpletoremember.com/vitals/JewsDontBelieve.htm

But don’t feel bad, instead be thankful you don’t live in France. I heard 51% of Catholics there don’t believe in God

re post 658 by Good Fella “43% of evangelicals don’t believe that Jesus was both God and man in one divine person.”.

We are getting WAY off topic. However, I would like to note that a person who does not believe in God is not Catholic. To be Catholic, by definition, one must hold the teachings of the Catholic faith, which is based on belief in God. Calling oneself “Catholic”, being born into a Catholic family, or thinking one is Catholic does not make one Catholic. Those unbelievers are not Catholic. They are unbelievers!
Mary, on the other hand, was a Convert to Catholicism, having been born and lived as a faithful Jewess according to the revelation through Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, she became Catholic when the Church was born on Pentecost.

 

[guanophore]

Look how Irenaeus parallels Mary to Jesus

Mary, …being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hbr 5:8-9 the HOLY BIBLE)

This I find troubling. Jesus made himself “equal to God” because he is God. But drawing these parallels between Mary and Jesus is, to put it mildly, over-reaching.

The same goes for stating the Mary is the “New Eve” because Scripture tells us Jesus is the New Adam.

I think you find the Apostolic Teachings troubling because you have rejected the Teaching Authority that Jesus appointed for His Church. If you accepted what Jesus gave, you would find these passages, which attest to those Teachings, a delight instead of a consternation.

Mary is not called the New Eve just because Jesus is the New Adam.