What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

[WarriorAngel]

"Blantantly clear?"


All we need is a single Holy Scripture that says Mary vowed to remain a virgin all her life.

Friend, it's not "blantantly clear" it's completely missing. Entirely. Totally.






Mary and Joseph were engaged and had not yet had sex. She might have been young and innocent, but she knew enough reproductive biology to be surprised at a sexless pregnancy. I suspect we all would be.


Why this makes it "blantantly clear" that Mary and Joseph were deprived of a normal, healthy, natural, God-pleasing, blessed sharing of their sexuality in MARRIAGE after Jesus was born is completely beyond me. There is simply NOTHING in God's Holy Word that REMOTELY confirms that they were so deprived. Nothing.



And why is it anyone's business? As I posted before, we might have a different ethic here, but while I'm NO prude, I just think that PRIVATE marital sex lives are private and none of our business. If they aren't "doing it" I guess I'm sad about that, but it's none of my business and I hardly think we should make DOGMA out of that. Among the Jews, their sexuality was THE most private, most intimate part of their lives. I wonder (that's all!!!!!) how the Holy Mother feels about her PRIVATE sexuality in MARRIAGE being discussed all over the place among 5th grade boys and girls in Catholic schools. I don't know. My parents don't exactly teach about their private marital sharing among the world's children. Just seems amazingly odd to me and I wonder (because of my PROFOUND respect for the Holy Mother) how much pain and hurt this might cause her. BUT, all that is irrelevant to this DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It's DOGMA - the highest level of teaching - and such requires the highest level of substantiation. So far, NONE has been offered. Nothing at all.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

The Angel did not say a date or time, he said 'she 'would' conceive a child. Would is future tense.

He did not say she had conceived.

So since she was rto be married 'future tense' then why would it shock her?

Because she intended to remain vowed to God, and remain a virgin.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Angel did not say a date or time, he said 'she 'would' conceive a child. Would is future tense.

He did not say she had conceived.

So since she was rto be married 'future tense' then why would it shock her?

Because she intended to remain vowed to God, and remain a virgin.

Quite a leap there, IMHO...

"Since I AM a virgin." Present tense.
While I see your point that the angel is speaking future tense and she present tense, it seem likely she understood his miracle to be immediate - not 30 years in the future, and she was correct. "At that time" she travels to see Elizabeth and she knows she is with child. Whether the angel told her that or she just correctly understood that - we aren't told. But, in any case, she is speaking of her virginity AT THAT TIME, it's present tense, not future tense.

Where is the Scriptures that make it "blantantly clear" that Mary and Joseph were deprived of the private marital sharing of their sexuality after Jesus was born? It's DOGMA in the RCC - the highest level of certainty and truth - requiring the highest level of substantiation.



Thank you for the discusssion.
(Even though it makes me very uncomfortable, I wish we could get back to the topic of the thread)


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Quite a leap there, IMHO...

"Since I AM a virgin." Present tense.
While I see your point that the angel is speaking future tense and she present tense, it seem likely she understood his miracle to be immediate - not 30 years in the future, and she was correct. "At that time" she travels to see Elizabeth and she knows she is with child. Whether the angel told her that or she just correctly understood that - we aren't told. But, in any case, she is speaking of her virginity AT THAT TIME, it's present tense, not future tense.

Where is the Scriptures that make it "blantantly clear" that Mary and Joseph were deprived of the private marital sharing of their sexuality after Jesus was born? It's DOGMA in the RCC - the highest level of certainty and truth - requiring the highest level of substantiation.



Thank you for the discusssion.
(Even though it makes me very uncomfortable, I wish we could get back to the topic of the thread)


Pax!


- Josiah



.

Since I am, with the intent of NOT changing.

I am...without change means no conceiving.

So she ASKED how can that be, since she is a virgin...future and present.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Since I am, with the intent of NOT changing.

I am...without change means no conceiving.

So she ASKED how can that be, since she is a virgin...future and present.

I am a virgin.

That's a factual and complete statement.

By your understanding of that statement, I MUST remain a virgin for the rest of my life because I now am one. Actually, that statement says no such thing, and frankly, I have NO such intent, LOL. So how your changing the verb tense proves that Mary and Joseph were deprived of a blessed, intimate, private sharing of their sexuality in marriage after Jesus was born remains quite beyond my understanding - and why it matters is an even bigger puzzle. And since it's DOGMA - it suggests the highest level of substantiation instead of none at all, IMHO.


Can we cease discussing the PRIVATE and most INTIMATE aspect of these people's lives? Can we respect them enough to do that? I'd sure like to get back to the subject of this thread and get off how often they "did it" ... How wierd. And I suspect how offensive to the Holy Mother.



Pax!


- Josiah

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Can we cease discussing the PRIVATE and most INTIMATE aspect of these people's lives? Can we respect them enough to do that?

Your the one who insists on discussing what you think are their sexual activities, I personally don't believe they had any.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Can we cease discussing the PRIVATE and most INTIMATE aspect of these people's lives? Can we respect them enough to do that?

Your the one who insists on discussing what you think are their sexual activities, I personally don't believe they had any.

Catholics have made DOGMA out of the subject of their private, intimate, marital sexual relationship - in spite of the COMPLETE and TOTAL (and I'd add respectful) silence of God's Holy Scripture on this topic. 5th grade boys disscuss it in Catholic schools. Amazing. And why? What is the purpose of this obsession - to the point of making it DOGMA? And since nothing was more private among the ancient Jews than their marital intimacies, nothing LESS anyone else's business, I wonder how the Holy Mother must feel about this public obsession Catholics have with the sexual aspect of her marriage? I wonder (that's all) if she is very hurt and offended by this, the most extreme aspect of her privacy soooooooooooooo publicly obsessed over, even dogma made of it. And it has no point whatsoever and Scripture never says a thing about it.

:o



.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Catholics have made DOGMA out of the subject of their private, intimate, marital sexual relationship -

That is incorrect, they didn't have any intimate sexual relationship. And, as a matter of fact 3/4 of all Christians know that they didn't have any intimate sexual relationships. It is you who keep insisting that they did, it is your obsession that they had sex, Which is not even the topic of this thread. So please, drop it and address the topic of the thread.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Catholics have made DOGMA out of the subject of their private, intimate, marital sexual relationship

That is incorrect. The Catholics, and as a matter of fact 3/4 of all Christians, know that they didn't have any intimate sexual relationships. It is you who insist that they did.

You clearly misunderstood what I wrote.
I invite you to read posts 200, 202, 204, 206.
Thank you.



Catholics HAVE made DOGMA out of the issue of the private, intimate, marital sexual relationship of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born (it's called the Perpetual Virginity of Mary). It's DOGMA - the highest level of certainty and importance. And it's all about their private, intimate, sexual relationship.


I (like most Protestants) do NOT have any dogma at all about their private marital sexual relationship - I do NOT have dogma about how often they did or didn't "do it" (one way or the other or anything in between). I don't even have a pious opinion about this - frankly, it's none of my business and doesn't matter to anyone other than Mary and Joseph. It's just not anything I conjecture and talk about - one way or the other. The Bible is absolutely, totally, completely, altogether (and respectfully) silent about this matter of supreme marital privacy, and it seems entirely moot to anything anyway (except their privacy).


The RC denomination, on the other hand, has made DOMGA out of this. Little Catholic boys and girls talk about the sexual component of the private lives of Mary and Joseph at school. Sermons are preached on it. But I've never, remotely, understood the point or why it's our business or where Scripture teaches this. And....


I hope we can return to the topic of this thread. I strongly suspect (that's all) that all this obsession about thier most private, intimate relationship is something that may profoundly hurt and offend the Holy Mother.







- Josiah

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Little Catholic boys and girls talk about the sexual component of the private lives of Mary and Joseph at school. Sermons are preached on it. But I've never, remotely, understood the point or why it's our business or where Scripture teaches this.

Wrong once again my friend. Only Protestants can discuss the sexual component of their lives because only the Protestants believe that they had any sexual component. All the other 3/4 of Christianity know that their was no sexual component of the relationship of Mary and Joseph.

Now, since you are obviously determined to have the last word, please, be my guest. And then please get back on topic.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Wrong once again my friend. Only Protestants can discuss the sexual component of their lives because only the Protestants believe that they had any sexual component. All the other 3/4 of Christianity know that their was no sexual component of the relationship of Mary and Joseph.

Now, since you are obviously determined to have the last word, please, be my guest. And then please get back on topic.

Thank you, I'll take it


To teach that Mary and Joseph were deprived of a normal, healthy, God-pleasing, blessed sharing of their sexuality in MARRIAGE is to address the sharing of their sexuality. It IS to teach how often they did - or did not - "do it." It IS to teach about the most intimate, private aspect of their relationship. It is incredible to ME that your arguement - a DOMGA about their sex lives - is being silent about their sex lives.




And DOGMA??? The highest and most important statement of truth and doctrine??!!??!! The most focus possible being placed on how often they did or did not "do it."


Not only it is true that this is absolutely none of our business (the obsession Catholics have with their private, intimate, marital relationships is quite a puzzel for me) and the greatest possible violation of privacy possible to an ancient Jew, but it also makes ZERO difference. There's no point to it at all. The only thing this DOGMA serves is to allow discussions, sermons, school lessons, etc. about the private, imimate marital relationship of Mary and Joseph and I fear cause the hurt, pain and embarrousment of the Holy Mother (though such surely is not the intent). Does it serve any other purpose?


I didn't raise the topic in this thread. A Catholic did. As support for the RC denomination being the "pillar" of truth.


And again, we find that there is zero biblical support for this DOGMA (as such, it requires the highest level of substantiation rather than none at all). Zero. None whatsoever. Nothing at all.


How this DOGMA supplies support for the insistence that the RC denomination is the pillar and foundation for truth is a point that no Catholic seems to have made (frankly, I can't think of a worse example).


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[PaulAckermann]

Thank you, I'll take it


To teach that Mary and Joseph were deprived of a normal, healthy, God-pleasing, blessed sharing of their sexuality in MARRIAGE is to address the sharing of their sexuality. It IS to teach how often they did - or did not - "do it." It IS to teach about the most intimate, private aspect of their relationship. It is incredible to ME that your arguement - a DOMGA about their sex lives - is being silent about their sex lives.




And DOGMA??? The highest and most important statement of truth and doctrine??!!??!! The most focus possible being placed on how often they did or did not "do it."


Not only it is true that this is absolutely none of our business (the obsession Catholics have with their private, intimate, marital relationships is quite a puzzel for me) and the greatest possible violation of privacy possible to an ancient Jew, but it also makes ZERO difference. There's no point to it at all. The only thing this DOGMA serves is to allow discussions, sermons, school lessons, etc. about the private, imimate marital relationship of Mary and Joseph and I fear cause the hurt, pain and embarrousment of the Holy Mother (though such surely is not the intent). Does it serve any other purpose?


I didn't raise the topic in this thread. A Catholic did. As support for the RC denomination being the "pillar" of truth.


And again, we find that there is zero biblical support for this DOGMA (as such, it requires the highest level of substantiation rather than none at all). Zero. None whatsoever. Nothing at all.


How this DOGMA supplies support for the insistence that the RC denomination is the pillar and foundation for truth is a point that no Catholic seems to have made (frankly, I can't think of a worse example).


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

Just when you thought you would get the last word.

The reason that most Christians believe that Joseph and Mary never had sex is not because sex is inherently evil but because of holiness of God.

In the OT, no one was allowed to touch the Ark of Covenant. In fact, once a man did touch it, and he immediately died. The Ark was holy. It contained the Ten Commandments. Sinful man was not allowed to touch it.

If the Ark was holy for merely containing the Ten Commandments, how much more would Mary be holy for containing the very Word of God, Jesus. Just as no sinful man could touch the Ark, non sinful man could touch Mary. It is not because what she is in herself, it is because of Whom she bore. Moses's face glowed after seeing God. It glowed so much that he had to wear a veil on his face afterward. If experiencing the vision of God can be so awesome that your face would glow afterward so much that no one could bear to look at you, imagine the experience of a woman bearing God! If no one could look at Moses after he saw God, how much more could no one ever touch Mary after she gave birth to God!

In the OT, when an object is once holy for God's use, it forvever remains holy. I believe this is why no one know where the Ark of Covenant is now, so it cannot be descrated by man. Even though Ark of Covenant is no longer used, it should still be considered holy. In the same way, the awesome bearing of the Holy One in her womb made Mary forever holy even after she gave birth.


I have been a Protestant and a Catholic. As a Catholic I have a greater vision of the holiness of God, especially in meditating on the Marian doctrine. As a Catholic, we believe that God is so holy that He could not bear to be in the presence of sin, which is why He could not bear to be in the womb of a sinful woman for nine months, thus the need for Mary to be be sinless. We also believe that bearing the Holy God is such an awesome experience for Mary that this forever made her to be holy herself, and so no mere sinful man would be able to touch her.


So it come down to this. How holy do you see God? If you have a high view of the holiness of God, you would not have a problem with the woman God chose to give birth to Him. If you have a low view of God, you will have a low view of His mother.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The reason that most Christians believe that Joseph and Mary never had sex

I'm glad we FINALLY agree that the RC denomination has, in fact, created DOGMA about the private, intimate, marital sexual relationship between Mary and Joseph. That this supremely private aspect of their marriage is somehow critical and of the highest importance to them. That they are SOOOOOOO focused on this aspect of their marital privacy as to make DOGMA out of it. It's not Protestants obsessing over their sexual relations, it's Catholics.

In the OT, no one was allowed to touch the Ark of Covenant. In fact, once a man did touch it, and he immediately died. The Ark was holy. It contained the Ten Commandments. Sinful man was not allowed to touch it.

If the Ark was holy for merely containing the Ten Commandments, how much more would Mary be holy for containing the very Word of God, Jesus. Just as no sinful man could touch the Ark, non sinful man could touch Mary. It is not because what she is in herself, it is because of Whom she bore.

In the OT, when an object is once holy for God's use, it forvever remains holy. I believe this is why no one know where the Ark of Covenant is now, so it cannot be descrated by man. Even though Ark of Covenant is no longer used, it should still be considered holy. In the same way, the awesome bearing of the Holy One in her womb made Mary forever holy even after she gave birth.

Neither I (nor Scripture) shares that "dirty" view of the intimate, private, sharing of sexuality in marriage. Marital sharing of our sexuality "defiles" neither husband or wife.



And I'm still waiting for the biblical confirmation of this DOGMA. It's DOGMA. The highest, most certain, most important level of teaching there is. It is essential to believe. As the highest level of certainty and importance, it requires the highest level of confirmation and substantiation.


And why this is any of the business of 4th grade boys and girls in Catholic schools is a puzzel to me. Why does their supremely PRIVATE intimate sexual relationship SOOOOOOOOOOOOO important (Dogma!!) for them to learn and talk about?


As I understand it, nothing in Hebrew society was more private than one's sexuality and the expressions (or lack of) thereof. They were a very modest people. I have a PROFOUND respect for the Holy Mother and Holy Family. This DOMGA has no biblical basis whatsoever - none, and it violates the most supreme privacy of the Holy Family. I wonder (that's all) how this might highly offend and hurt and embarrous the Holy Mother, I can't think of anything LESS appropriate for those Catholic school kids to talk about. LESS appropriate for a dogma.

ome down to this. How holy do you see God? If you have a high view of the holiness of God, you would not have a problem with the woman God chose to give birth to Him. If you have a low view of God, you will have a low view of His mother.

1. OBVIOUSLY we have completely different views of the intimate marital sharing of sexuality. 180 degrees different. That does seem to be the issue here.


2. How holy I see God has nothing to do with the Immaculate Conception of MARY or the Perpetual Virginity of MARY since no Christian believes that MARY is God. It has nothing to do with it.


3. I have a PROFOUND respect for the Holy Mother. This, however, does not give me the authority to invade her privacy or to create dogmas completely unsupported by Scripture. I will profess her "blessed" and hold her up as perhaps the greatest of saints. She is not God, and to call her such not only is unscriptural but must hurt her very much. And I have no right to hurt or embarrous her or to obsess about her sexual relationship with her husband (even to the point of making all this dogma!). And this DOGMA does not prove that the RC denomination is the "pillar and foundation" of truth.


Thank you for permitting me to express my view. I realize this is dogma and as a Catholic, you are not permitted to question it and may only support it. And I realize that Protestants doing so can be very offensive - and I AM sad about that, it's NEVER my intent to offend. I do not believe - for a second - that any malintent exists in the heart of ANY Catholic about this (nothing could be further from the truth) but if we are to advance mutual understanding, unity and consensus - we do need to talk and listen.



Thanks again.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Montanaman]

Just when you thought you would get the last word.

The reason that most Christians believe that Joseph and Mary never had sex is not because sex is inherently evil but because of holiness of God.

In the OT, no one was allowed to touch the Ark of Covenant. In fact, once a man did touch it, and he immediately died. The Ark was holy. It contained the Ten Commandments. Sinful man was not allowed to touch it.

If the Ark was holy for merely containing the Ten Commandments, how much more would Mary be holy for containing the very Word of God, Jesus. Just as no sinful man could touch the Ark, non sinful man could touch Mary. It is not because what she is in herself, it is because of Whom she bore. Moses's face glowed after seeing God. It glowed so much that he had to wear a veil on his face afterward. If experiencing the vision of God can be so awesome that your face would glow afterward so much that no one could bear to look at you, imagine the experience of a woman bearing God! If no one could look at Moses after he saw God, how much more could no one ever touch Mary after she gave birth to God!

In the OT, when an object is once holy for God's use, it forvever remains holy. I believe this is why no one know where the Ark of Covenant is now, so it cannot be descrated by man. Even though Ark of Covenant is no longer used, it should still be considered holy. In the same way, the awesome bearing of the Holy One in her womb made Mary forever holy even after she gave birth.


I have been a Protestant and a Catholic. As a Catholic I have a greater vision of the holiness of God, especially in meditating on the Marian doctrine. As a Catholic, we believe that God is so holy that He could not bear to be in the presence of sin, which is why He could not bear to be in the womb of a sinful woman for nine months, thus the need for Mary to be be sinless. We also believe that bearing the Holy God is such an awesome experience for Mary that this forever made her to be holy herself, and so no mere sinful man would be able to touch her.


So it come down to this. How holy do you see God? If you have a high view of the holiness of God, you would not have a problem with the woman God chose to give birth to Him. If you have a low view of God, you will have a low view of His mother.

Great Odin's raven! That caused me to mist up a little bit. At work, no less!

Thank you. Well said.

 

[Trento]

I'm glad we FINALLY agree that the RC denomination has, in fact, created DOGMA about the private, intimate, marital sexual relationship between Mary and Joseph. That this supremely private aspect of their marriage is somehow critical and of the highest importance to them. That they are SOOOOOOO focused on this aspect of their marital privacy as to make DOGMA out of it. It's not Protestants obsessing over their sexual relations, it's Catholics.







Neither I (nor Scripture) shares that "dirty" view of the intimate, private, sharing of sexuality in marriage. Marital sharing of our sexuality "defiles" neither husband or wife.



And I'm still waiting for the biblical confirmation of this DOGMA. It's DOGMA. The highest, most certain, most important level of teaching there is. It is essential to believe. As the highest level of certainty and importance, it requires the highest level of confirmation and substantiation.


And why this is any of the business of 4th grade boys and girls in Catholic schools is a puzzel to me. Why does their supremely PRIVATE intimate sexual relationship SOOOOOOOOOOOOO important (Dogma!!) for them to learn and talk about?


As I understand it, nothing in Hebrew society was more private than one's sexuality and the expressions (or lack of) thereof. They were a very modest people. I have a PROFOUND respect for the Holy Mother and Holy Family. This DOMGA has no biblical basis whatsoever - none, and it violates the most supreme privacy of the Holy Family. I wonder (that's all) how this might highly offend and hurt and embarrous the Holy Mother, I can't think of anything LESS appropriate for those Catholic school kids to talk about. LESS appropriate for a dogma.








1. OBVIOUSLY we have completely different views of the intimate marital sharing of sexuality. 180 degrees different. That does seem to be the issue here.


2. How holy I see God has nothing to do with the Immaculate Conception of MARY or the Perpetual Virginity of MARY since no Christian believes that MARY is God. It has nothing to do with it.


3. I have a PROFOUND respect for the Holy Mother. This, however, does not give me the authority to invade her privacy or to create dogmas completely unsupported by Scripture. I will profess her "blessed" and hold her up as perhaps the greatest of saints. She is not God, and to call her such not only is unscriptural but must hurt her very much. And I have no right to hurt or embarrous her or to obsess about her sexual relationship with her husband (even to the point of making all this dogma!). And this DOGMA does not prove that the RC denomination is the "pillar and foundation" of truth.


Thank you for permitting me to express my view. I realize this is dogma and as a Catholic, you are not permitted to question it and may only support it. And I realize that Protestants doing so can be very offensive - and I AM sad about that, it's NEVER my intent to offend. I do not believe - for a second - that any malintent exists in the heart of ANY Catholic about this (nothing could be further from the truth) but if we are to advance mutual understanding, unity and consensus - we do need to talk and listen.



Thanks again.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

I wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs particularly the Fundamentalists. This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation. The Reformers themselves took a benign even positive view of Marian doctrine although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation.
Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preaching's of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers. I believe the real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.
The almost universal acceptance of Mary's continuing virginity, and the widespread reluctance to declare Mary a sinner by the Reformers which is now completely disregarded by modern Protestants is just one proof of how relying on the scriptures alone has negative theological and practical consequences.

Martin Luther throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers .
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.


Ulrich Zwingli "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary.
Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424 Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
What is interpreted as "Providence" by a Marian critic may legitimately be interpreted as a force of a very different kind by a Christian who has recognized the role of Mary in God’s plan.

This never ceases to amaze me. There are over a dozen Protestant web sites of all denominations and individuals here that show and brag that Athanasius was the one who first listed their canon of Scripture yet these same people will never admit that at the same time this Bishop believed that Mary was ever Virgin. Both came out of Tradition and all the Reformers believed it.

If its ok for Catholic bishop Athanasius, 4 centuries later, to retro-acknowledge an apostle-held binding belief of canon, then it is also acceptable for the same bishop, to retro-acknowledge an apostle-held binding belief about Mary's ever Virginity.

 

[BrightCandle]

Just when you thought you would get the last word.

The reason that most Christians believe that Joseph and Mary never had sex is not because sex is inherently evil but because of holiness of God.

In the OT, no one was allowed to touch the Ark of Covenant. In fact, once a man did touch it, and he immediately died. The Ark was holy. It contained the Ten Commandments. Sinful man was not allowed to touch it.

If the Ark was holy for merely containing the Ten Commandments, how much more would Mary be holy for containing the very Word of God, Jesus. Just as no sinful man could touch the Ark, non sinful man could touch Mary. It is not because what she is in herself, it is because of Whom she bore. Moses's face glowed after seeing God. It glowed so much that he had to wear a veil on his face afterward. If experiencing the vision of God can be so awesome that your face would glow afterward so much that no one could bear to look at you, imagine the experience of a woman bearing God! If no one could look at Moses after he saw God, how much more could no one ever touch Mary after she gave birth to God!

In the OT, when an object is once holy for God's use, it forvever remains holy. I believe this is why no one know where the Ark of Covenant is now, so it cannot be descrated by man. Even though Ark of Covenant is no longer used, it should still be considered holy. In the same way, the awesome bearing of the Holy One in her womb made Mary forever holy even after she gave birth.

You have pointed out that once something is made holy, it forever remains holy. The Sabbath commandment was written by the finger of God, and yet the RCC doesn't recognize it as holy anymore, and have substituted a day (Sunday) that was never made holy by God! That would be like substituting a harlot in place of Mary. And regarding Mary, she was never made holy by God. Yes, Jesus was holy, but Mary was a fallen human being just like us. She was saved by faith, just like us. And when it comes to Moses, yes he spoke to God face to face, and yet he had a normal relationship with his wife. Mary being endowed with some type of supernatural trumped up holiness has no basis in God's word. And if it doesn't have any basis in God's where do you think it came from?

 

[Trento]

You have pointed out that once something is made holy, it forever remains holy. The Sabbath commandment was written by the finger of God, and yet the RCC doesn't recognize it as holy anymore, and have substituted a day (Sunday) that was never made holy by God! That would be like substituting a harlot in place of Mary. And regarding Mary, she was never made holy by God. Yes, Jesus was holy, but Mary was a fallen human being just like us. She was saved by faith, just like us. And when it comes to Moses, yes he spoke to God face to face, and yet he had a normal relationship with his wife. Mary being endowed with some type of supernatural trumped up holiness has not basis in God's word. And if it doesn't have any basis in God's where do you think it came from?

Is it possible to believe that Jesus founded a Church to mislead the world, on the Lords day and then after 1500 years approved of over 500 contradictory churches including the one founded by Ellen White.


2 Corinthians 3:7-11, 14,"If the ministration of death, written and ENGRAVEN IN STONES, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which IS DONE AWAY was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious . . . Their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in reading of the Old Testament; which vail IS DONE AWAY IN CHRIST."

When any law is done away, all of its parts vanish with it of necessity. For any part of the previous law to be of power it must be re-enacted into the new law. It cannot remain by reason of the old! The sabbath was "done away" in the law that MADE IT KNOWN.
The text uses the expressions "done away" speaking of the whole law of which the sabbath is a part. So if "done away" in whole, "done away" in part -- out goes the sabbath! The expression "IN CHRIST" begs the time. Paul shows this to be his death in Hebrews 8:7; 9:16-17. Thus he speaks in Colossians 2:14-16, "nailed to the cross." That is when! Corinthians 3:7-14 "states" WHEN, WHERE, and BY WHOM the sabbath was ABOLISHED!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs particularly the Fundamentalists. This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation. The Reformers themselves took a benign even positive view of Marian doctrine although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation.

Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preaching's of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers. I believe the real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.
The almost universal acceptance of Mary's continuing virginity, and the widespread reluctance to declare Mary a sinner by the Reformers which is now completely disregarded by modern Protestants is just one proof of how relying on the scriptures alone has negative theological and practical consequences.

Martin Luther throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers .
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.


Ulrich Zwingli "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary.
Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424 Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
What is interpreted as "Providence" by a Marian critic may legitimately be interpreted as a force of a very different kind by a Christian who has recognized the role of Mary in God’s plan.

This never ceases to amaze me. There are over a dozen Protestant web sites of all denominations and individuals here that show and brag that Athanasius was the one who first listed their canon of Scripture yet these same people will never admit that at the same time this Bishop believed that Mary was ever Virgin. Both came out of Tradition and all the Reformers believed it.

If its ok for Catholic bishop Athanasius, 4 centuries later, to retro-acknowledge an apostle-held binding belief of canon, then it is also acceptable for the same bishop, to retro-acknowledge an apostle-held binding belief about Mary's ever Virginity.

This point has been raised a few times and I confess it still confuses me. It seem to ME Catholics want it both ways: Luther and Calvin (and anyone else) are GREAT AUTHORITIES when they happen to agree with the RC denomination, and they are terrible, heretical rebels when they say something that doesn't agree with the RC denomination. Okay, it's just classic cherry picking quotes that affirm us. But then it all changes gears: If we agree with a writer whom the Catholics regard as an ECF on one point, we MUST logically agree with them on every point - it's all or nothing. I think Catholics want it both ways. Frankly, I don't consider Luther or Athanasius to be writing authoritative, apostolic, infallible, DIVINELY-inspired, written Word of God. I consider all of them - Luther included - under and subject to God's Holy Scriptures, not above or equal to it. As I was taught in my Catholic class, "The Bible is the Word of God and NO GREATER ASSURANCE OF CREDIBILITY CAN BE GIVEN." Yup. Not even Augustine or St. Francis or Martin Luther or even me (well...)


Thank you for the discussion and for reading my thoughts.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[TheGloryisHere]

It says in the verse "the church". It didn't say a particular church. The church means the Body of Christ. The body of Christ are all born again Christians combined, no matter which church they go to.

 

[Trento]

[/font]


. Frankly, I don't consider Luther or Athanasius to be writing authoritative, apostolic, infallible, DIVINELY-inspired, written Word of God. I consider all of them - Luther included - under and subject to God's Holy Scriptures, not above or equal to it. As I was taught in my Catholic class, "The Bible is the Word of God and NO GREATER ASSURANCE OF CREDIBILITY CAN BE GIVEN." Yup. Not even Augustine or St. Francis or Martin Luther or even me (well...)


Thank you for the discussion and for reading my thoughts.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

Credibility is one thing but who will defend Scripture when the Church is confronted by two or more contradictory interpretations of Scripture?You can only ask “What did the author mean, even if unintentionally, when he wrote this?” A text cannot defend itself. It is merely a bunch of signs, now detached from the speaker. In one sense, the reader ultimately agrees or disagrees with the text, not with its author.
This then raises the question, How does St Paul defend himself over against my misinterpretations of his letter to the Romans? How does any biblical writer defend himself against the misinterpretations of any Christian believer? Even if we believe, as I do, that St Paul is alive with Christ and that we enjoy communion with him and all the saints, he is still not present to field my questions and correct my interpretations of his writings.


Who defends the text of Scripture? You might say: The Spirit must do so. But how does the Spirit exercise this work of defense? : The Church as Church defends the text. It is the Church that must stand over against the believing interpreter and state authoritatively what Scripture means. The irony is that it is the churches of the sola scriptura that are finding it almost impossible today to effectively defend Scripture against the onslaught of modernity, while the two churches that are clearly founded on the Apostles themselves, are both standing firm in the ecumenical dogmas.

 

[QuantaCura]

It says in the verse "the church". It didn't say a particular church. The church means the Body of Christ. The body of Christ are all born again Christians combined, no matter which church they go to.

You are right that there is only one Church. But where in Scripture does it say that various sects professing different beliefs make up one Church or that you can profess any number of sets of conflicting doctrine and remain in the one Church? It doesn't, in fact it says quite the opposite. How can the pillar foundation of Truth profess conflicting and contradictory ideas about the most basic dogmas of the faith? Sounds like a foundation of sand, rather than a rock to me.

All these sects didn't exist in the beginning, but their founders, as St. John says, went out from us because they were not of us. Are those folks who "went out" still members of the Body, who are to be one as the Father and the Son are one?