Why is it wrong to love Mary, the Mother of God?

[E.E.N.S]

There is nothing wrong with loving Mary, in fact most Christians greatly respect Mary as one of the most influencial women in the Bible. But what to discuss here is what type of love, how to love? If love conveys praying to and talking and kissing and burning candles and worship her as a deity, then that is heretic, not love. The Bible indeed does talk about honoring your mother and father but I think the Catholic Church had twisted it in a great degree. If we talk base on the Bible, then the meaning of honoring thy mother and father literally means honoring thy mother and father, that means that I have to do good, and respect, and obey my parents. Since I don’t even know Mary, since she didn’t give birth to me, nor adopted me, nor takes care of me like a mother, how can I honor her? How can I actually praise her as my mother? According to the Bible there are only 2 people that do that: Jesus and later on, St.John. So why should I honor her as my mother? An unanswered question.

Secondly, you guys have to change your arguments for Immaculate Conception. Just because Jesus was born sinless doesn’t mean Mary have to be sinless, or full of Grace. The definition of the word Grace is giving someone something he or she does not deserve. God performing a miracle in preserving Jesus from sin is not “grace.". Jesus Himself is God and divine, so if He is God, He is sinless and pure and perfect even before Mary conceived Him. Then the question being asked for Catholics is that if Jesus is already perfect and sinless, why couldn’t He come to earth with his already sinless and pure form? Why did He even need the grace inside Mary to preserve His sinlessness? Even you know it’s unreasonable.

I believe that if you take the time to read the posts in this thread you will see that each one of your concerns has already been addressed.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I haven’t read all the posts in this thread yet, got to this one and just had to reply, not sure if this has been covered yet and my apologies if it has.

There is something to back up the ‘assumption’ of Mary being born without sin. It is foretold in Genesis.

In Genesis 3 you will see God saying to the serpent:
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

What does the word ‘enmity’ mean? Opposition.
We know that Jesus is the seed of the woman so the woman is Mary.
How could Mary be opposite of the Devil when the Devil is full of sin? The only way is if she ISN’T full of sin but FULL of grace - there is no room for sin in her.
The enmity between the woman (Mary) and the serpent (Satan) is the same emnity between her seed (Christ) and the serpent’s seed (Sin).
If Mary were to sin, that would be COOPERATING with the Devil to some degree and there wouldn’t be any enmity.

She refers to Christ as her saviour, and indeed He is as He is ours. We have been ‘saved’ from sin by Christ, Mary was ‘preserved’ from Sin by Christ.

According to Genesis, then the woman is an enmity with the snake is because the woman has the seed of the offspring, not because she’s the woman. The seed, or Jesus, is the reason that cause her and the snake becomes opposite. It’s time that you people have to realize that the Mary is not the center of the picture, but it’s Jesus.

 

[E.E.N.S]

It’s time that you people have to realize that the Mary is not the center of the picture, but it’s Jesus.

Rest assured, the Catholic Church does just this, Christ is without a doubt the center of the Catholic Faith. Perhaps it’s time you better educated yourself before making false claims?

 

[sixofseven]

Rev Kevin,

Furthermore, as to the perpetual virginity of Mary, once something is blessed and consecrated for God’s purpose, never again can it be used for normal purpose.

As the Ark of the Covenant, Mary carried the Word made flesh in her holy womb, after giving birth she remained the Ark of Covenant and so had to remain holy, pure, untouched, undefiled. For the same reasons, Mary was Assumed into Heaven because being the consecrated Ark of the New Covenant, her body could not be allowed to decay.

Catholics believe this as God’s will, so we should not question it.

 

[sixofseven]

According to Genesis, then the woman is an enmity with the snake is because the woman has the seed of the offspring, not because she’s the woman. The seed, or Jesus, is the reason that cause her and the snake becomes opposite. It’s time that you people have to realize that the Mary is not the center of the picture, but it’s Jesus.

It is exactly BECAUSE Jesus is the center of the picture, that Mary is so honoured.

 

[rev_kevin]

I haven’t read all the posts in this thread yet, got to this one and just had to reply, not sure if this has been covered yet and my apologies if it has.

There is something to back up the ‘assumption’ of Mary being born without sin. It is foretold in Genesis.

In Genesis 3 you will see God saying to the serpent:
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

What does the word ‘enmity’ mean? Opposition.
We know that Jesus is the seed of the woman so the woman is Mary.
How could Mary be opposite of the Devil when the Devil is full of sin? The only way is if she ISN’T full of sin but FULL of grace - there is no room for sin in her.
The enmity between the woman (Mary) and the serpent (Satan) is the same emnity between her seed (Christ) and the serpent’s seed (Sin).
If Mary were to sin, that would be COOPERATING with the Devil to some degree and there wouldn’t be any enmity.

She refers to Christ as her saviour, and indeed He is as He is ours. We have been ‘saved’ from sin by Christ, Mary was ‘preserved’ from Sin by Christ.

I see what you are trying to say but I seen no connection the Genesis 3:15 to Mary being born without sin.

St Justin Martyr ( 120-165 AD) was the first Church Father to draw an explicit comparison between Eve and Mary: "For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should…overshadow her, and therfore the Holy One that was born of her was Son of God, and answered, “Be it done to me according to Thy word.” "

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (135-202) from his work ‘Against Heresies’: "for this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy’s head; but the other biting, killing, and impending the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head, which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: "Thou shalt tread upon th easp and the basilisk; thou shalt trample down the lion and the dragon.(Psalm 91:13) Irenaeus Against Heresies, chapter 23 # 7.

The catechism of the Catholic Church instructs that “Genesis 3:15 is called the Protoevangelium, first gospel, the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final vistory of a sescendant of hers.”

I don’t see the connection that you say there is, The early Church Fathers say nothing about the assumption of Mary. The Early Church Fathers are talking about the comming of Jesus, its about the Messiah.

 

[sixofseven]

I see what you are trying to say but I seen no connection the Genesis 3:15 to Mary being born without sin.

St Justin Martyr ( 120-165 AD) was the first Church Father to draw an explicit comparison between Eve and Mary: "For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should…overshadow her, and therfore the Holy One that was born of her was Son of God, and answered, “Be it done to me according to Thy word.” "

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (135-202) from his work ‘Against Heresies’: "for this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy’s head; but the other biting, killing, and impending the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head, which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: "Thou shalt tread upon th easp and the basilisk; thou shalt trample down the lion and the dragon.(Psalm 91:13) Irenaeus Against Heresies, chapter 23 # 7.

The catechism of the Catholic Church instructs that “Genesis 3:15 is called the Protoevangelium, first gospel, the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final vistory of a sescendant of hers.”

I don’t see the connection that you say there is, The early Church Fathers say nothing about the assumption of Mary. The Early Church Fathers are talking about the comming of Jesus, its about the Messiah.

Well I"m simply trying to show you from the BIBLE, try focussing just on this part of my post:

The enmity between the woman (Mary) and the serpent (Satan) is **the same **emnity between her seed (Christ) and the serpent’s seed (Sin).

So if we look at the emnity between Christ and sin we know they are COMPLETE opposites, Christ is the light, sin is the darkness, yes?

If the emnity between Mary and Satan is THE SAME as the emnity between Christ and Sin then there’s simply cannot be any sin in Mary - she is at complete opposite to Satan.

The Church Fathers do, however, talk about her pepetual virginity which you have also denied:

Epiphanius of Salamis

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

 

[sixofseven]

Futhermore:

Even before the terms “original sin” and “immaculate conception” had been defined, early passages imply the doctrines. Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. But pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus, Mary could not have been under that penalty. By God’s grace, she was immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive death on the cross. The Church therefore describes Mary as “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (CCC 508).

The Ascension of Isaiah

“[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’” (Ascension of Isaiah 11 A.D. 70]).

The Odes of Solomon

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 A.D. 80]).

From catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

 

[rev_kevin]

Futhermore:

Even before the terms “original sin” and “immaculate conception” had been defined, early passages imply the doctrines. Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. But pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus, Mary could not have been under that penalty. By God’s grace, she was immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive death on the cross. The Church therefore describes Mary as “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (CCC 508).

The Ascension of Isaiah

“[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’” (Ascension of Isaiah 11 A.D. 70]).

The Odes of Solomon

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 A.D. 80]).

From catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

Romans 3:23, “For ALL have sinned and fall short of God’s glorious standard.” The word ALL means Total extent or total entity, being a whole number, amount, or quantity, every. Every member or individual. Why use the word ALL if there was 1 exception. This would include Mary, if it don’t include Mary then that’s saying scripture is wrong.

Now the child birth without pain. Genesis3:16 says, “You {Eve} will bear children with intense pain and suffering…” This don’t say you and your offsprings so it would stand that Mary had Jesus without pain, but then why do other women had children in pain if it says you, meaning Eve. Wouldn’t all women have children without pain?

 

[sixofseven]

Romans 3:23, “For ALL have sinned and fall short of God’s glorious standard.” The word ALL means Total extent or total entity, being a whole number, amount, or quantity, every. Every member or individual. Why use the word ALL if there was 1 exception. This would include Mary, if it don’t include Mary then that’s saying scripture is wrong.

Scripture is never wrong!

from Defending the Bride dot com:

“… the whole world has gone after him” [John 12:19 ] Did all the world go after Christ?

“then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” [Matt. 3: 5-6] Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?

“Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. [1 John 5:19] Does the whole world there mean everybody?

The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts – some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile …

Since Jesus is fully human it would have to mean that He also sinned, but this is obviously false.

“… there was a priest named Zechariah … his wife … Elizabeth. Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.” NAB

However, if one assumes that the word “all” does not allow for exceptions then, Zechariah and Elizabeth, who observed “all” the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly, are exceptions to “all have sinned” in Romans 3:23.

1 John 3:8
“Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil.” NAB
Mary is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15 and thus she was at enmity with Satan, so she cannot belong to the devil.

Romans 15:14
“I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with **all **knowledge, and able to instruct one another.” RSV

Only God has infinite “all” knowledge.

1 Corinthians 15:22
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” RSV

And the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah did not die, Genesis 5:24 and 2 Kings 2:11. Also see Hebrews 11:5 “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him.” RSV

And not “all” choose to follow God. Some chose death and eternal damnation.

Luke 2:1
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the **world **should be taxed.”

Did Caesar tax the people from South Africa, India, China, and South America ?

Matthew 26:56
“ … Then all the disciples left him [Jesus] and fled.”

But we read in just two verses later that Peter did follow Christ in Matthew 26:58. Cf. Luke 22:54 . And in John 18:15-16 We read that another disciple followed Christ along with Simon Peter. And this other disciple knew the high priest and was therefore able to get Peter into the gate.

This “other disciple,” is John. He even follows Christ all the way to the cross where he is identified as the “beloved disciple.” See John 19:26. The passage in John 21: 20-24 clarifies that he is none other than John, the author of the fourth Gospel.

Therefore, the word “all” in Mat. 26:56 as well as these other examples allows for exceptions. And so therefore, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 also can allow for exceptions.

 

[sixofseven]

Now the child birth without pain. Genesis3:16 says, “You {Eve} will bear children with intense pain and suffering…” This don’t say you and your offsprings so it would stand that Mary had Jesus without pain, but then why do other women had children in pain if it says you, meaning Eve. Wouldn’t all women have children without pain?

Did we not inherit the sin of Adam the consequences this had?

God was speaking to Eve as the female representative of humankind!

Women DID inherit the pains of childbirth from Eve - guess what else we iniherited from Adam and Eve - death, sickness, manual labour, banishment…the list goes on!

 

[benidict]

sixofseven. you are wonderful. and put forth a wonderful defence of the Blessed Mother from the bible. i agree with you on just about all you have said. but i firmly believe, it is a Revelation of the Holy Spirit, who helps people realize the truth, about Mary, and see her in the o.t. as we do. from the ark of the covenant. to bathsheeba the queen mother, to the high places that were dedicated to a Virgin, and reigning queen, that were not torn down by the righteous kings, when all the other high places of idolotry were. no matter how much you can prove from the bible, only the Holy Spirit, can enlighten peoples minds to who Mary really is. Peace to you my friend. and continue your good work, you have my prayers.

 

[sixofseven]

sixofseven. you are wonderful. and put forth a wonderful defence of the Blessed Mother from the bible. i agree with you on just about all you have said. but i firmly believe, it is a Revelation of the Holy Spirit, who helps people realize the truth, about Mary, and see her in the o.t. as we do. from the ark of the covenant. to bathsheeba the queen mother, to the high places that were dedicated to a Virgin, and reigning queen, that were not torn down by the righteous kings, when all the other high places of idolotry were. no matter how much you can prove from the bible, only the Holy Spirit, can enlighten peoples minds to who Mary really is. Peace to you my friend. and continue your good work, you have my prayers.

Benidict, thank you. I’m truly humbled but can only credit the far more smarter people who have done all the work in bringing this to light. If me passing on what others have discovered can bring but one soul back to Christ’s Church I am happy. I also agree you 100% that it is the work of the Holy Spirit that reveals the truth and opens our eyes, hearts, minds and souls to receive it.

I love learning about my faith, my church, my history and have been moved even more to do so since marrying my non-catholic husband. I have to admit I tend to use the forums as ‘practice’ apologetics that I can use with him…

As a sum-up of what I think about Mary is that even though she had this special relationship with God and was hand-picked by him, thus singling her out from the rest of humanity - she is still the most perfect creature and inspiration for humility, charity, purity, obedience, femininity, and coping with loss and suffering (of COURSE Christ is all of these things too, but He is also God!). I thank God to have her as my spiritual mother. She ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS will lead us to her Son and I pray that she will lead others here on the forum.

Thank you for your prayers and know that you are in mine.

 

[sixofseven]

Now the child birth without pain. Genesis3:16 says, “You {Eve} will bear children with intense pain and suffering…” This don’t say you and your offsprings so it would stand that Mary had Jesus without pain, but then why do other women had children in pain if it says you, meaning Eve. Wouldn’t all women have children without pain?

I also came across this on The Sacred Page dot com:

it is worth noting that the notion of giving birth to children without the pains of birth is not an idea that is foreign to Scripture. In fact, it is part of the eschatological vision of the prophet Isaiah, in at least two places. In his prophecy of the new Creation–the “new heavens and the new earth”–Isaiah envisages a future times when the results of the Fall will be undone:

“They shall not labor in vain,
or bear children for calamity…
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
the lion shall eat straw like the ox…” (Isaiah 65:23-25)

Here we see the curse of Adam (fruitless toil) and Eve (pain in childbirth) being undone in the eschatological age.

Even more striking is Isaiah’s vision of the new Jerusalem:

“Before she was in labor, she gave bith;
before her pain came upon her
she was delivered of a son.
Who has heard such a thing?
Who has seen such things?” (Isa 66:7-8)

Now, it is quite clear in the context that Isaiah is speaking of the city of Zion, of the new Jerusalem, and not directly of Mary. However, the allegorical application of the image of a holy city to an individual woman in salvation history is not unbiblical–think for example of Paul’s identification of Hagar with the earthly Jerusalem and Sarah with “the Jerusalem above, who is our mother” (Galatians 4). This is perhaps why the early Church Fathers did not hesitate to see the Old Testament prophecies of the new Jerusalem as being fulfilled in Mary, the “daughter of Zion” (see Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church [Ignatius Press, 1999]), and John Damascus could say of Jesus’ birth:

“It was a birth that surpassed the established order of birthgiving, as it was without pain; for, where pleasure had not preceded, pain did not follow” (De Fid. 4:14; cited in Dale Allison, The New Moses, p. 62).

Rev Kevin I have enjoyed conversing with you and pray that some of these words will strike a chord with you. Please think about it, and pray about it.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

And that is completely understandable! Myself as a convert had some of the same reservations, but once I actually read the writings of the people who wrote these prayers, I began to have a better understand for both the writing style, as well as the deeper meaning to what was meant by those words. St. Louis de Montfort, for example, could be viewed as one of the more “extreme” in his language regarding Mary, however, one has but to read his writings honestly to understand that everything is for the glory of Our Lord. (In fact, de Montfort’s “motto” is “God Alone”, so a reader would indeed need to read his writings to see exactly how this gels with his seemingly over emphasis on Mary.)

Funny how God works. Myself as a convert was drawn to swim the Tiber because of Mary, and the Rosary.

And Scripture is never wrong, but someone’s individual interpretation of it often is.

 

[rev_kevin]

I also came across this on The Sacred Page dot com:

it is worth noting that the notion of giving birth to children without the pains of birth is not an idea that is foreign to Scripture. In fact, it is part of the eschatological vision of the prophet Isaiah, in at least two places. In his prophecy of the new Creation–the “new heavens and the new earth”–Isaiah envisages a future times when the results of the Fall will be undone:

“They shall not labor in vain,
or bear children for calamity…
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
the lion shall eat straw like the ox…” (Isaiah 65:23-25)

Here we see the curse of Adam (fruitless toil) and Eve (pain in childbirth) being undone in the eschatological age.

Even more striking is Isaiah’s vision of the new Jerusalem:

“Before she was in labor, she gave bith;
before her pain came upon her
she was delivered of a son.
Who has heard such a thing?
Who has seen such things?” (Isa 66:7-8)

Now, it is quite clear in the context that Isaiah is speaking of the city of Zion, of the new Jerusalem, and not directly of Mary. However, the allegorical application of the image of a holy city to an individual woman in salvation history is not unbiblical–think for example of Paul’s identification of Hagar with the earthly Jerusalem and Sarah with “the Jerusalem above, who is our mother” (Galatians 4). This is perhaps why the early Church Fathers did not hesitate to see the Old Testament prophecies of the new Jerusalem as being fulfilled in Mary, the “daughter of Zion” (see Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church [Ignatius Press, 1999]), and John Damascus could say of Jesus’ birth:

“It was a birth that surpassed the established order of birthgiving, as it was without pain; for, where pleasure had not preceded, pain did not follow” (De Fid. 4:14; cited in Dale Allison, The New Moses, p. 62).

Rev Kevin I have enjoyed conversing with you and pray that some of these words will strike a chord with you. Please think about it, and pray about it.

My point to this Eve thing is we can’t take everything literal in the Bible. If we do then that is what one would say about that verse. Mary being born without sin using the word “Kecharitomene” not only means “having been graced” or “full of grace.” It also means “favor” or “kindness.” So one could translate that verse as not being without sin, depending what meaning you want to use.
Now something that should be take literally is the verse that says “she remained a virgin “until” her son was born,” how else but literally can you take this verse. In Greek the words for until is “heos” or “mechris” and the Hebrew word “'ad” which means that same then as it does today. Until-Up to the time of. To the time when, to the degree or place.The footnote on St. Matthew 1,25 from the Douai-Rheims here St. Jerome uses the word “till” to say Mary remained a virgin all her life. Now the word “till” means the same as until in both Greek, Hebrew and today. Now there are some Catholic commentators like St. Thomas Aquinas that actually hold that the Virgin Mary had made a formal vow of perpetual virginity together with St. Joseph. This vow that they held would help explain why the virgin Mary stayed a virgin all her life, but there is no evidence that this vow took place.

 

[sixofseven]

My point to this Eve thing is we can’t take everything literal in the Bible. If we do then that is what one would say about that verse. Mary being born without sin using the word “Kecharitomene” not only means “having been graced” or “full of grace.” It also means “favor” or “kindness.” So one could translate that verse as not being without sin, depending what meaning you want to use.
Now something that should be take literally is the verse that says “she remained a virgin “until” her son was born,” how else but literally can you take this verse. In Greek the words for until is “heos” or “mechris” and the Hebrew word “'ad” which means that same then as it does today. Until-Up to the time of. To the time when, to the degree or place.The footnote on St. Matthew 1,25 from the Douai-Rheims here St. Jerome uses the word “till” to say Mary remained a virgin all her life. Now the word “till” means the same as until in both Greek, Hebrew and today. Now there are some Catholic commentators like St. Thomas Aquinas that actually hold that the Virgin Mary had made a formal vow of perpetual virginity together with St. Joseph. This vow that they held would help explain why the virgin Mary stayed a virgin all her life, but there is no evidence that this vow took place.

You are right, but we must take the WHOLE of scripture in context.
Take a look at catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0907btb.asp an excerpt below:

*Until Then

Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou. *

Read on including The Affirmative Argument which addresses the understanding of Mary having taken a vow of virginity.

My question now Rev Kevin is - by what or whose authority are to determine what is and isn’t to be taken literally??

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by rev kevin

Romans 3:23, “For ALL have sinned and fall short of God’s glorious standard.” The word ALL means Total extent or total entity, being a whole number, amount, or quantity, every. Every member or individual. Why use the word ALL if there was 1 exception. This would include Mary, if it don’t include Mary then that’s saying scripture is wrong.

Scripture is not wrong,but your interpretation is in error.

Oh indeed,the favorite verse by Protestants to debunk Mary’s Immaculate Conception. .For the sake of the argument, I’ll apply your argument to another individual.

The word ALL means Total extent or total entity, being a whole number, amount, or quantity, every. Every member or individual.

This would also be applicable to Jesus since he is all the above,since Jesus is 100% human.

**Why use the word ALL if there was 1 exception. **

Is this applicable to Jesus? Since he would be part of “all” in the verse.

This would include Mary, if it don’t include Mary then that’s saying scripture is wrong

Then it must include Jesus too,if it doesn’t include Jesus then that’s saying scripture is wrong.

Oh Rev Kevin…do you not acknowledge your error?

 

[rev_kevin]

You are right, but we must take the WHOLE of scripture in context.
Take a look at catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0907btb.asp an excerpt below:

Until Then

Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.

Read on including The Affirmative Argument which addresses the understanding of Mary having taken a vow of virginity.

My question now Rev Kevin is - by what or whose authority are to determine what is and isn’t to be taken literally??

Ok lets put the whole thing in context.

The word “until.” The Greek compound word used in Matthew 1:25 is “Heos-hou.” Heos-hou is an abbreviation of the longer Greek phrase “heos hou chronou en hoi” which means “Until the time when.” Another, shorter word for “until” in Greek is “heos.” Both “heos” and the longer “heos-hou” means the same thing “until.”

I have read the Affirmative Argument. Just because Mary said, how can this be, I have not known a man. This don’t mean she was going to stay a virgin the rest of her life. She said this because she was told she was going to have a child and she knew she had not been with a man, she knew she was still a virgin, so how could she be pregnant? Its like tell a virgin today that she is going to have a child, she would say, no I’m not, I haven’t slept with anyone, so I can’t be pregnant. It don’t mean she is going to stay a virgin all her life. It means I’m still a virgin. Nothing more and nothing less. Mary did not say, how can this be, because I’ll never know a man. Now this would indicate that Mary had intended to stay a virgin the rest of her life, but she did not say that.
Joseph did not know Mary until she gave birth to her first-born son. Once again how do you see that Joseph and Mary would not have relations later. Its like saying I’m not going to have relations with my wife until our child is born. The intent is to have relations after the child is born just like the intent of Mary and Joseph were to have relations after Jesus was born. It don’t say that Joseph would not know Mary ever even after she gave birth to her first-born son. The intent was to wait until Jesus was born, then have marital relations.

As far as your last question, your answer would not be my answer and my answer would not be your answer.

 

[rev_kevin]

Originally Posted by rev kevin

Romans 3:23, “For ALL have sinned and fall short of God’s glorious standard.” The word ALL means Total extent or total entity, being a whole number, amount, or quantity, every. Every member or individual. Why use the word ALL if there was 1 exception. This would include Mary, if it don’t include Mary then that’s saying scripture is wrong.

Scripture is not wrong,but your interpretation is in error.

Oh indeed,the favorite verse by Protestants to debunk Mary’s Immaculate Conception. .For the sake of the argument, I’ll apply your argument to another individual.

The word ALL means Total extent or total entity, being a whole number, amount, or quantity, every. Every member or individual.

This would also be applicable to Jesus since he is all the above,since Jesus is 100% human.

**Why use the word ALL if there was 1 exception. **

Is this applicable to Jesus? Since he would be part of “all” in the verse.

This would include Mary, if it don’t include Mary then that’s saying scripture is wrong

Then it must include Jesus too,if it doesn’t include Jesus then that’s saying scripture is wrong.

Oh Rev Kevin…do you not acknowledge your error?

Ok lets play!

Jesus was indeed 100% human but don’t forget he is also God who is not 100% human. Remember God and Jesus are the same. That would be saying that God is 100% human and not divine.

No it would not mean Jesus, You are trying to put Jesus as only human when he’s not. That is a insult to Jesus.

Wrong again. Don’t forget who the Father of Jesus is. God so Jesus could not be included.

Once again your wrong. This would not include Jesus because Jesus is the Son of God, the divine Son of God.

You can’t include Jesus in any of this because Jesus is God and that would be saying that God is less than divine. That God is merely a human and not the divine one. To put God or Jesus in the same catigory is insulting them and reducing them down to being only human and not divine. :tsktsk:

Oh Nicea325–How can you reduce God/Jesus to mere humans and not divine. Acknowledge your error and repent.