What Can We Say About The Virgin?

[Observing4Grace]

I doubt you would listen to the proof,

-I’m looking for scriptural proof and historical if it can be found within the Anti-Nicean fathers.

“God has established only one enmity-but it is an irreconcilable one-which will last and even go on increasing to the end of time… Thus the most fearful enemy that God has set up against the devil is Mary, his holy Mother…”

-This is the most profound interpretation I ever found from Genesis 3:15. Additionally, if you look at what Louis de Montfort said, that’s heretical. Mary is not powerful against Satan but Jesus is and since Jesus, not Mary has defeated her at the cross, I don’t think you can say I’m wrong.

That would negate free will. God does not possess and force people to do anything – not like demons who possess their victims. Mary had to freely choose to obey God.

-I never got that out of Luke. The angel never said that she had a choice nor does the language suggest she ever did. What you’re arguing is coming from a philosophical rather than a biblical one.

Mary acknowledges that she is a servant of God. This was not forced, coerced, blackmailed, etc. Mary out of obedience choose to say yes to God. It was the second great fiat, complete free and self giving.

-Again, you’ve missed my question. How does the language in the first chapter of Luke imply that she had a choice. What words does she use to suggest that she used her free will?

The point is if there was a burial site, or relics then Churches would be dedicated to them, there would be pilgrim roads, etc. There are none of these things because Mary didn’t leave a tomb or relics behind – this means she was assumed into Heaven.

Just because no one found the tomb of Mary doesn’t mean she was bodily assumed. I can say the same thing for St. Stephen. (From Acts) No one found his tomb but do you find a group that said he was bodily assumed? What about St. Matthew, they didn’t mention his death or St. John?

 

[Observing4Grace]

continued…

Exactly! The expectation would have been that she would have relations and then bear children. There would not have been the wonder of how can this be since she would have naturally expected to bear children – Mary knew that children were a product of marriage and she was married when the Angel came to her.

-That text doesn’t say she made a vow of chasity to remain a perpetual virgin.

Mary did stay a virgin throughout her entire life.

-Again, the text doesn’t say that.

I issue nothing. I proclaim what the Church proclaims as Truth!

**Since you’re part of that church, then I can assure you that you, along with the rest of the members of the church is full of themselves!:extrahappy: **

O.K. Where does the Bible say ‘Trinity’? Where does it say that we are justified by faith ‘alone’? Where does it say what books are to be included in the Bible (why not the other letters of Paul, or some of the other Gospels, or the letters of Clement in the New Testament)? Where does it say that the Bible is to be your sole authority of faith?

-Do you think you can ask a different question? I should put these on a FAQ board sometime. Here’s my answer for the 50th time: The Bible doesn’t use those words at all within the context but it stresses on certain concepts to give the reader the notion of these doctrines.

 

[Observing4Grace]

:coffeeread:

Why?

Why not? We’re not looking for an ongoing revelation here. What’s left to say?

Do you believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle?

Do you believe unwritten public revelations ended with Moses or Malachi? I don’t think either one of them wouldn’t put it down if it wasn’t neccessary?

Does the Bible say anything at all about this?

There isn’t any needs to go onward with a public revelation, is there?

If it doesn’t, then must we conclude that public revelation has not ended and that the canon is not closed? (Watch for the Mormon stampede…)

I’m not a Mormon. Additionally, there isn’t anything that suggests there is new revelations to be written, is there? If that were the case, then we should be on the lookout for Mormon stampedes.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

**Heh,heh, heh, very funny. :coffeeread:

Parker**

 

[Randy_Carson]

:coffeeread:

Someone must have given you decaf instead of ‘high-test’, because you slept right through my last post.

There are obviously some doctrines which you hold to be essential (public revelation has ended, the canon has been closed, the canon of the NT itself) which are not found within the pages of scripture.

These doctrines are established NOT on the authority of the Bible Alone but upon the testimony of Tradition by the authority of the Church - authority which Scripture attests to as coming from Jesus Himself.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

I doubt you would listen to the proof,

-I’m looking for scriptural proof and historical if it can be found within the Anti-Nicean fathers.

Aren’t those heretics? I thought the Nicean council was held to refute the heretics? Why would you be looking for proof from heretics?

-This is the most profound interpretation I ever found from Genesis 3:15. Additionally, if you look at what Louis de Montfort said, that’s heretical. Mary is not powerful against Satan but Jesus is and since Jesus, not Mary has defeated her at the cross, I don’t think you can say I’m wrong.

Mary was the very first Christian. She believed in Him since before He was conceived. She is most certainly 'in Christ" and nothing that she has ever done, or will do, is apart from his grace and saving work on the cross, which she witnessed through great heartbreak. Mary is the woman who crushes the serpant, made so by God. Her seed destroys satan.

-I never got that out of Luke. The angel never said that she had a choice nor does the language suggest she ever did. What you’re arguing is coming from a philosophical rather than a biblical one.

What are you saying?! The Holy Spirit raped Mary?

-Again, you’ve missed my question. How does the language in the first chapter of Luke imply that she had a choice. What words does she use to suggest that she used her free will?

You don’t think “let it be done to me” relates to choosing?

I can say the same thing for St. Stephen. (From Acts) No one found his tomb but do you find a group that said he was bodily assumed? What about St. Matthew, they didn’t mention his death or St. John?

I guess God can assume whomever he wants! Now, or later! Don’t you ever wonder what happened to the other people who were raised from their tombs when Jesus was?

Matt 27:51-54

51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; 52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe, and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

Do you think He just left them wandering about?

 

[NotWorthy]

Aren’t those heretics? I thought the Nicean council was held to refute the heretics? Why would you be looking for proof from heretics?

The Ante-nicene Fathers is what I think he’s talking about, as opposed to the “Anti-Nicene” Fathers. The Ante-nicene Fathers were those from the beginning of the Church til 325.

You know, that wouldn’t have been a real subtle pun you used there, would it?

 

[Balance]

Hi,

continued…

O.K. Where does the Bible say ‘Trinity’? Where does it say that we are justified by faith ‘alone’? Where does it say what books are to be included in the Bible (why not the other letters of Paul, or some of the other Gospels, or the letters of Clement in the New Testament)? Where does it say that the Bible is to be your sole authority of faith?

-Do you think you can ask a different question? I should put these on a FAQ board sometime. Here’s my answer for the 50th time: The Bible doesn’t use those words at all within the context but it stresses on certain concepts to give the reader the notion of these doctrines.

Where does the Bible “stress on certain concepts to give the reader the notion of” what books are to be included in the Bible? As above: other letters of Paul, other Gospels, other letter-writers?
Can you give us some references?

 

[Balance]

**Since you’re part of that church, then I can assure you that you, along with the rest of the members of the church is full of themselves!:extrahappy: **

People here are being very patient with you, brother. Please don’t insult them like this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

** Here’s my answer for the 50th time: The Bible doesn’t use those words at all within the context but it stresses on certain concepts to give the reader the notion of these doctrines.**

Obviously, Catholics disagree on that particular doctrine. It’s simply not there.

However, using your approach, you don’t mind if we find references to:

The Real Presence
Purgatory
The New Testament Priesthood
Apostolic Succession
Papal Infallibility
The Immaculate Conception
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption
Mary, Queen of Heaven

Well, you get the idea…and using your approach to the interpretation of scripture, we are just as free to establish the meaning of God’s Word as you are, aren’t we?

So, you won’t find fault with our exegesis, I hope.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Observing4Grace]

The Ante-nicene Fathers is what I think he’s talking about, as opposed to the “Anti-Nicene” Fathers. The Ante-nicene Fathers were those from the beginning of the Church til 325.

You know, that wouldn’t have been a real subtle pun you used there, would it?

What you said. But no, I wasn’t trying to pun anything.

 

[Observing4Grace]

For All Responses From This Thread, it will be continued here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2131671#post2131671

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

-I’m looking for scriptural proof and historical if it can be found within the Anti-Nicean fathers.

I assume you mean Ante-Nicean Fathers. And why only them (though I’m thrilled that you would listen to any Church Fathers). Do you think that the Church went into heresy at Nicea?

Anyway, from Scriptures we have Genesis 3:15 were the serpent is put at enmity with the woman. This means that Satan and the woman are not pals, i.e. the serpent doesn’t want to be in the presence of the woman. Saint Irenaenus (and other Ante-Nicean Fathers) made the connection between Eve and Mary (the New-Eve). From Adversus Haereses:

1. That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,—was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.

1. The heretics being all unlearned and ignorant of God’s arrangements, and not acquainted with that dispensation by which He took upon Him human nature (inscii ejus quæ est secundum hominem dispensationis), inasmuch as they blind themselves with regard to the truth, do in fact speak against their own salvation. Some of them introduce another Father besides the Creator; some, again, say that the world and its substance was made by certain angels; certain others [maintain] that it was widely separated by Horos from him whom they represent as being the Father—that it sprang forth (floruisse) of itself, and from itself was born. Then, again, others [of them assert] that it obtained substance in those things which are contained by the Father, from defect and ignorance; others still, despise the advent of the Lord manifest [to the senses], for they do not admit His incarnation; while others, ignoring the arrangement [that He should be born] of a virgin, maintain that He was begotten by Joseph. And still further, some affirm that neither their soul nor their body can receive eternal life, but merely the inner man. Moreover, they will have it that this [inner man] is that which is the understanding (sensum) in them, and which they decree as being the only thing to ascend to “the perfect.” Others [maintain], as I have said in the first book, that while the soul is saved, their body does not participate in the salvation which comes from God; in which [book] I have also set forward the hypotheses of all these men, and in the second have pointed out their weakness and inconsistency.

There are other other Scriptural and Church Fathers references if you want them.

A little more modern, this is what Pope Pius XII wrote:

“Mary is beautiful in herself as the moon, radiates her brilliance as the sun; but against ‘the enemy’ she is formidable; terrible as an army arrayed for war. As we rejoice and exalt her today, God knows how we would like to forget the difficulties of the times in which we live…There is the ‘enemy’ even at the very doors of the Church, threatening souls. And behold, another aspect of Mary: her power in combat…Mary, sinless, has crushed the head of the corrupting serpent. When Mary approaches, the demon flees - just as darkness dissipates when the sun rises. Where Mary is present, Satan is absent; where the sun shines, there is no darkness” (Pope Pius XII, Address, Dec. 8, 1953).

 

[JMJ_coder]

continued…

-This is the most profound interpretation I ever found from Genesis 3:15. Additionally, if you look at what Louis de Montfort said, that’s heretical. Mary is not powerful against Satan but Jesus is and since Jesus, not Mary has defeated her at the cross, I don’t think you can say I’m wrong.

What about the works of Saint Louis de Montfort do you find heretical?

-I never got that out of Luke. The angel never said that she had a choice nor does the language suggest she ever did. What you’re arguing is coming from a philosophical rather than a biblical one.

Give one example from the Scriptures were it explicitly said God told someone to do something, and then that person says no, and then God says “tough, I am going to force you to do it anyway”. Free will is a basic component of our human nature, that is never taken away by God.

-Again, you’ve missed my question. How does the language in the first chapter of Luke imply that she had a choice. What words does she use to suggest that she used her free will?

She says “Let it be done unto me according to your word”.

Just because no one found the tomb of Mary doesn’t mean she was bodily assumed. I can say the same thing for St. Stephen. (From Acts) No one found his tomb but do you find a group that said he was bodily assumed? What about St. Matthew, they didn’t mention his death or St. John?

Saint Stephen’s relics are in the Church of Saint John Cantius. The relics of Saint Matthew, who died in Naddaver, Ethiopia, were held in that city for centuries. They were then transferred to Salerno in the tenth century. Saint John died in Ephesus, and his relics were housed in Saint John’s Cathedral in that city for centuries. But, thanks to Arab and Mongolian invasions the church was ruined and the body disappeared. There are relics of all twelve apostles in the All Souls Chapel at the back of Saint John Cantius Church.

-That text doesn’t say she made a vow of chasity to remain a perpetual virgin.

The actual text that supports this is found in non-canonical works, such as the Protoevangelium of James. But it is pretty obvious, given the context of her conversation with the Angel that she intended to remain a virgin. She was already legally married, waiting to be taken into her husband’s house. Now, for a modern viewpoint, imagine a bride at her wedding reception and someone comes up to her and says – ‘you are going to conceive a child’. I don’t see the bride replying – ‘how can this be, since I haven’t had relations with a man yet’. The bride knows how babies are made, and she knows what to expect on her wedding night. The conversation makes no sense unless there is an intention to refrain from marital relations.

-Again, the text doesn’t say that.

This requires a long discussion, which is already on these forums. I suggest you do a search for them. Here are two sites you can look at also for some insight:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-III

Since you’re part of that church, then I can assure you that you, along with the rest of the members of the church is full of themselves!

No comment for such rude and arrogant replies.

-Do you think you can ask a different question? I should put these on a FAQ board sometime. Here’s my answer for the 50th time: The Bible doesn’t use those words at all within the context but it stresses on certain concepts to give the reader the notion of these doctrines.

Oh, so you don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura?

 

[Observing4Grace]

Someone must have given you decaf instead of ‘high-test’, because you slept right through my last post.

**-I’m a busy fellow. It’s nearing towards the end of the first semester and I’ve been involved with many other things since then. I do apologize for the late responses but I will try to make at least one post. **

There are obviously some doctrines which you hold to be essential (public revelation has ended, the canon has been closed, the canon of the NT itself) which are not found within the pages of scripture.

**-Like what? Has SS not been defined or are you trying to make an exaggerated account of what your notion of Sola Scriptura means?
**

These doctrines are established NOT on the authority of the Bible Alone but upon the testimony of Tradition by the authority of the Church - authority which Scripture attests to as coming from Jesus Himself.
**
-Well if you can prove your case, I’d gladly accept it.

Parker **

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Observing4Grace]

Aren’t those heretics? I thought the Nicean council was held to refute the heretics? Why would you be looking for proof from heretics?

**-Uhhmmm…no. The Nicean Council were to refute the works of the Arius and his anti-trinitarian dogmas. If you consider Justin Martyr or St. Clement heretics, I think you should restudy your history. **

Mary was the very first Christian. She believed in Him since before He was conceived.

**That’s not true, there are times where it points out that she had a hard time believing him. **

Mary is the woman who crushes the serpant, made so by God. Her seed destroys satan.

**Key word, “her seed”. It’s not referring to Mary, rather the text refers to an heir of Eve’s seed who’d crush the serpent. I doubt Mary could do that because she’s not God and more importantly the role of Christ as the messiah does that. **

What are you saying?! The Holy Spirit raped Mary?

No Comment.

You don’t think “let it be done to me” relates to choosing?

**Nope, not for a second. **

I guess God can assume whomever he wants! Now, or later! Don’t you ever wonder what happened to the other people who were raised from their tombs when Jesus was?

I do but they don’t surround an essential dogma by either the Catholic or Protestant.

Parker

 

[Observing4Grace]

Obviously, Catholics disagree on that particular doctrine. It’s simply not there.

However, using your approach, you don’t mind if we find references to:

The Real Presence
Purgatory
The New Testament Priesthood
Apostolic Succession
Papal Infallibility
The Immaculate Conception
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption
Mary, Queen of Heaven

Well, you get the idea…and using your approach to the interpretation of scripture, we are just as free to establish the meaning of God’s Word as you are, aren’t we?

So, you won’t find fault with our exegesis, I hope.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

**
I have no issue with that at all. But as I said earlier, the person or “group” who has the best evidence wins. So far, the evidences you list for the dogmas above hold less than an ounce of water because the verses, (if put into context) do not hint to the notion of those beliefs.

Parker **

 

[METROLINK13]

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as “the Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation of the Bible, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares, “Is He not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?” Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms from “brothers” and “sisters” in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph’s son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret brothers and sisters as “cousins” or “relatives” with the mentioning of Jesus’ mother and father.

Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, “While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him.” See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus’ mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.

 

[FCEGM]

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? . . .[etc.].

All posted verbatim and unattributed from Got Questions.org.

And all answered very well in various threads on the subject if the OP will do a bit of searching.

 

[NotWorthy]

So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation of the Bible, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares,

Metro,

Did Michal have a baby the day she died. I ask this because, according to this logic (which by the way is trying to apply modern grammatical rules to ancient Israel - a specious arguement at best) Michal had a baby the day she died or afterward.

2nd Samuel 6 - And so Saul’s daughter Michal was childless to the day of her death.

 

[NotWorthy]

However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph’s son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters.

So, in your well-done research, you are claiming, with full confidence, that James, and Joseph, Simon, and Judas are Jesus’ brothers?

Is this your claim?