Answer to Gabriel

[Servus]

It never seemed reasonable to argue that something doesn't exist because it isn't in a specific book. There's plenty in the writings of the Early Church about Blessed Mary and more than sufficient in the new testament too.

When does the earliest writing date back to?

 

[Servus]

It applies to Blessed Mary and a whole host of saints; taste and see if they are good. Test the claims.

That's adding to scripture.

 

[Fireinfolding]

It never seemed reasonable to argue that something doesn't exist because it isn't in a specific book. There's plenty in the writings of the Early Church about Blessed Mary and more than sufficient in the new testament too.

There's really not too much at all.
After being named as present with the rest of them in the upper room after resurrection (but before pentacost) she is not named again.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There's nothing in the writings of the apostolic fathers either. The easiest writing I know of traces back to St. Jerome (c. 342–420).

The official acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 refer to Mary as aeiparthenos (i.e. ever-virgin).

Clement of Alexandria (150–215 AD) wrote about Blessed Mary's perpetual virginity. Origin wrote of Mary's perpetual virginity, that would be in the 200s AD.

[Wikipedia]
Virginitas in partu: 1st century

The Odes of Solomon have been interpreted as implying that Mary was a virgin even during childbirth as well as stating that Mary did not have pain during childbirth.[21] However some have theorized that the Odist was referring to the story of the Exodus, where Jewish women had very quick childbirth, having been said to even have happened almost instantly, which is why the Egyptian midwives could not come fast enough. Similar statements exist in the Ascension of Isaiah.[22][23]

Clement of Alexandria (150–215 AD) was an early proponent of the perpetual virginity of Mary.[25]

The virgin birth of Jesus is found in the Gospel of Matthew and possibly in Luke, but it seems to have little theological importance before the middle of the 2nd century.[26] The 2nd century Church fathers Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, though mentioning the virgin birth, nowhere affirmed the view that Mary was a perpetual virgin.[27] The idea is first raised in an apocryphal text called the Protoevangelium of James, composed in the second half of the 2nd century:[12] here Mary remains a life-long virgin, Joseph is an old man who marries her without physical desire, and the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the canonical gospels are explained as Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage.[28] The Protoevangelium seems to have been used to create the stories of Mary which are found in the Quran,[29] but while Muslims agree with Christians that Mary was a virgin at the moment of the conception of Jesus, the idea of her perpetual virginity thereafter is contrary to the Islamic ideal of women as wives and mothers.[30]

The Ebionites denied Mary's perpetual virginity[31][32] and Hegesippus possibly disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary.[33]

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's adding to scripture.

My bible has no additions, all of it is canonical. No one added to it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

When does the earliest writing date back to?

[Wikipedia]
Virginitas in partu: 1st century

The Odes of Solomon have been interpreted as implying that Mary was a virgin even during childbirth as well as stating that Mary did not have pain during childbirth.[21] However some have theorized that the Odist was referring to the story of the Exodus, where Jewish women had very quick childbirth, having been said to even have happened almost instantly, which is why the Egyptian midwives could not come fast enough. Similar statements exist in the Ascension of Isaiah.[22][23]

Clement of Alexandria (150–215 AD) was an early proponent of the perpetual virginity of Mary.[25]

The virgin birth of Jesus is found in the Gospel of Matthew and possibly in Luke, but it seems to have little theological importance before the middle of the 2nd century.[26] The 2nd century Church fathers Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, though mentioning the virgin birth, nowhere affirmed the view that Mary was a perpetual virgin.[27] The idea is first raised in an apocryphal text called the Protoevangelium of James, composed in the second half of the 2nd century:[12] here Mary remains a life-long virgin, Joseph is an old man who marries her without physical desire, and the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the canonical gospels are explained as Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage.[28] The Protoevangelium seems to have been used to create the stories of Mary which are found in the Quran,[29] but while Muslims agree with Christians that Mary was a virgin at the moment of the conception of Jesus, the idea of her perpetual virginity thereafter is contrary to the Islamic ideal of women as wives and mothers.[30]

The Ebionites denied Mary's perpetual virginity[31][32] and Hegesippus possibly disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary.[33]

 

[Fireinfolding]

The Odes of Solomon have been interpreted as implying that Mary was a virgin even during childbirth as well as stating that Mary did not have pain during childbirth.[21] However some have theorized that the Odist was referring to the story of the Exodus, where Jewish women had very quick childbirth, having been said to even have happened almost instantly, which is why the Egyptian midwives could not come fast enough. Similar statements exist in the Ascension of Isaiah.[22][23]

And this is supposed to be Mary according to the catholic church too?

Rev 12:2-3 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

 

[Servus]

My bible has no additions, all of it is canonical. No one added to it.

You did.

 

[Servus]

And this is supposed to be Mary according to the catholic church too?

Rev 12:2-3 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Yes.

I would prefer it if proponents of Mariology would just admit that it's non-scriptural tradition. Rather than appeal to bits of scripture that don't actually support it.

 

[Lost4words]

We Catholics believe in Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. And Apostolic succession....

Truths handed down via the Apostles, via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

We are not 'Bible alone'.

God works through His people and has and is working through the church given to us by Jesus Christ himself, the Catholic church.

Many things Jesus taught are not contained in the Bible, as John said:

John 21:25​

25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.​

Do you think that the Apostles dismissed everything that Jesus said because it wasn't written down?

Also, Paul wrote:

2 Thessalonians 2:15​

15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

"By word of mouth"

This is what we also have in the Catholic church. Given to us via Tradition and the Holy Spirit....

I know, non Catholics find it hard to see these things but, it is very much real and God given.

I am leaving this thread as they always turn into Catholic bashing.

God bless you all.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And this is supposed to be Mary according to the catholic church too?

Rev 12:2-3 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Yes, the latter - from the Apocalypse of saint John the theologian - is inspired scripture while the former - from the odes of Solomon - is not inspired scripture but a document a little like Flavius Josephus' books. Is there a difficulty in having sources both in the scriptures and outside of them? It is not difficulty for me.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There's really not too much at all.
After being named as present with the rest of them in the upper room after resurrection (but before pentacost) she is not named again.

Your post omits the story of Gabriel's visit to Mary, Mary's visit to Elizabeth, her presence at the wedding in Cana, her and Joseph's care for Jesus as a child, Mary's presence at the crucifixion, and numerous other places in the gospels.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You did.

As I said, my bible has no additions to it.

 

[Servus]

As I said, my bible has no additions to it.

No you yourself added onto Psalm 38 (written by David) saying, "It applies to Blessed Mary and a whole host of saints; taste and see if they are good. Test the claims". That's eisegesis at best and adding onto scripture at worst.

But to that I'll add that my Father whom I pray to is Much Much Much Much Better than Mary and the saints.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No you yourself added onto Psalm 38:4 (written by David) saying, "It applies to Blessed Mary and a whole host of saints; taste and see if they are good. Test the claims".

The psalm presents the principle, "taste and see", which is not a unique to the bible adage, and applies it to the Lord. I take the same adage and apply it to our conversation's subjects. Taste and see. It really has no implications for the bible.

 

[Servus]

The psalm presents the principle, "taste and see", which is not a unique to the bible adage, and applies it to the Lord. I take the same adage and apply it to our conversation's subjects. Taste and see. It really has no implications for the bible.

Just as long as you're not saying Psalm 38 is about anyone else other than the Lord.

As for tasting and seeing, I've had over 50 years of tasting and seeing that my Father the Lord whom I pray to, is Much Much Much Much Better than Mary and the saints. And the same is true of the Holy Spirit whom intercedes on my behalf.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Just as long as you're not saying Psalm 38 is about anyone else other than the Lord.

Your post suggested the link to the psalm, none of mine did.

As for tasting and seeing, I've had over 50 years of tasting and seeing that my Father the Lord whom I pray to, is Much Much Much Much Better than Mary and the saints.

Amen, God is great, more superlatively great than any creature. Blessed Mary is a creature. Most blessed by God, yet a creature.

Nevertheless, Mary and all the saints and the holy angels are all good to ask to intercede in prayer for us, so Catholics do so. We love our Triune God above all and we honour those whom God sanctifies and sets apart as his children in heaven, and the holy angels whom he sends to help his children on earth.

 

[Servus]

Your post suggested the link to the psalm, none of mine did.

Amen, God is great, more superlatively great than any creature. Blessed Mary is a creature. Most blessed by God, yet a creature.

Nevertheless, Mary and all the saints and the holy angels are all good to ask to intercede in prayer for us, so Catholics do so. We love our Triune God above all and we honour those whom God sanctifies and sets apart as his children in heaven, and the holy angels whom he sends to help his children on earth.

I understand that. Personally I'm going by what I know Jesus said, which was to pray to my Father, and what I know Paul said, which is that the Holy Spirit interceeds for me in my prayers to my Father. And also I know that Jesus said that I should ask of my Father in the name of Jesus. So that's how I will likely continue to pray for the rest of my life.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I understand that. Personally I'm going by what I know Jesus said, which was to pray to my Father, and what I know Paul said, which is that the Holy Spirit interceeds for me in my prayers to my Father. And also I know that Jesus said that I should ask of my Father in the name of Jesus. So that's how I will likely continue to pray for the rest of my life.

Yep, that is likely true, and it is an excellent way. Yet, I imagine when you are in need you may ask a friend for his/her prayers and that is excellent too. For me, for Catholics in general, Blessed Mary is a dear friend, as are the saints, and the Holy Angels who serve God for our benefit. This is an excellent way.

 

[Servus]

Yep, that is likely true, and it is an excellent way. Yet, I imagine when you are in need you may ask a friend for his/her prayers and that is excellent too. For me, for Catholics in general, Blessed Mary is a dear friend, as are the saints, and the Holy Angels who serve God for our benefit. This is an excellent way.

The problem I see in that analogy which I've heard often, is that we shouldn't ask others to go to our Father in prayer instead of us doing so ourselves. Also to me there's nothing more excellent than communing directly with our Father in prayer as I know David did in the Psalms. If others join me in my prayers to our Father that's wonderful.