Is Mary a source of Holiness?

[PassthePeace1]

Palor games do not have the promise of protection from error, by the power of the Holy Spirit....where as Apostolic Tradition does.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

no, no double standard.

beside not addressing the real issue, the trinity is seen in the bible.

In every work quoted, Mary is shown as a virgin. Not EVER virgin.

With the exception of the "James" text, which is almost assuredly pseudopigraphical, none of these ECF's refer to Mary as PV.

Hi. Did you see this interesting dialogue over on this site. I just now found it so I haven't read through it all yet. Pretty interesting.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/dialogue-on-supposed-biblical_27.html
Dialogue on Supposed Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Round Two, Part I (vs. Ken Temple)

.............................Since John is the one who is quoting and alluding to Psalm 69 so much: ( John 2:17, John 15:25, John 19:28-29), and the context of John 7:3-5 is about his brothers not believing in Him, and then in verses 6-8, it becomes even more clear that John is saying that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary’s others sons. John 7:6, "Jesus therefore said to them, "My time is not yet at hand, but your time is always opportune." John 7:7, "The world cannot hate you; but it hates me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil." Because verse 3 in the same context says, "His brothers therefore said to Him, "Depart from here and go into Judea, that your disciples also may behold Your works which You are doing." – here is a clear distinction between Jesus’ brothers and Jesus’ disciples. He contrasts between the faith and love of the disciples and the hatred and unbelief of the world. He does the same thing in John 15:25, another quote from Psalm 69. "They hated Me without a cause". Now the context of the cross and the giving of Mary to John to care of her becomes even more important and more clear that Mary had other children. And then in John 19:27-28, where Jesus says, "Behold, your mother!", Jesus is clearly connected her with Psalm 69, because his real brothers have disowned Him and been estranged from Him and rejected Him, and hated Him, so therefore, He commits His mother to John. In verse 28 of John 19, the Scripture says, ". . . in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I am thirsty". Psalm 69:21 – with Matthew 27:34, 48, Mark 15:23, 36, and Luke 23:36.
=========================================================================
Ah, now here is a decent exegetical counter-argument; something with substance and meat, that I can sink my teeth into. Thank you. One thing occurs to me, however. Now you are making an argument from inference and deduction: an indirect and implicit proof rather than a direct one - the very thing that you chide us for doing. Why is that okay for you but not for us? John doesn't cite entire Psalms, but rather, portions of them. So he cites bits and pieces of Psalm 69 here and there, as it was rather well-known, I think, as a messianic prophecy. As you note, at least three times he cites this Psalm as related to events which are the fulfillment of something written there, by King David. So we know that John does this. It is indisputable.

Why, then, doesn't he go ahead and cite Ps 69:8 right in the immediate context of John 7:5, where he mentions Jesus' brothers, and be done with it? If he had done that, and had made this disbelief by Jesus' relatives a fulfillment of the "mother's sons" of the Psalm, then we wouldn't be having this argument at all. That would be clear-cut, undeniable, unarguable, and compelling. But he doesn't do that; there is no such "slam-dunk" passage in the NT, and you are forced to argue from speculation, just as I am doing. Yet when you do it, you see this as "clear" proof. When I do it, I am being your usual "unbiblical" Catholic who supposedly can't give biblical proofs for distinctive doctrines. Very interesting. On the same basis upon which you reject my indirect proofs, I can reject yours and regard them as every bit as non-proof, non-compelling as you regard my deductive exegetical arguments.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I know that you are only looking at writtings but from a Catholic point of View. There is Apostolic Tradition. I think that is worded as the Tradition of the Apostles by the EFC's( well at least their translations.)

Oral Tradition isn't a game of telephone it is actually very accuarate. Where as in the game of telephons one is actively trying to distort and add to the messege.

Oral Tradition is the preservation of the Christian faith.

Before Christians could be bapstised they were taught the chrisitan faith and certain prayers. Before they could be baptisee as christians they had to show a working knowledge of Christianity. All of this was done orally.

Peace

umm.. the purpose of telephone was to get the MOST accurate message through, if possible.
but it shows that it gets distorted, even in a short time.

We go from this:
He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin


to this.

Athanasius​

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).​

to this:

Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196.
... it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us--for 'grace and truth came through Jesus Christ' [Jn 1.17]--nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother.

see the game doing it's work?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Palor games do not have the promise of protection from error, by the power of the Holy Spirit....where as Apostolic Tradition does.

no evidence to suggest this is remotely true. In fact, if you read the bible, you see error springing up in the first century. Which Paul wrote MANY letters to correct.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

no evidence to suggest this is remotely true. In fact, if you read the bible, you see error springing up in the first century. Which Paul wrote MANY letters to correct.

Did he ever correct them about the perpetual virginity of Mary?
Oh wait, Paul never mentioned the virgin birth.

 

[lionroar0]

no, no double standard.

beside not addressing the real issue, the trinity is seen in the bible.

In every work quoted, Mary is shown as a virgin. Not EVER virgin.

With the exception of the "James" text, which is almost assuredly pseudopigraphical, none of these ECF's refer to Mary as PV.

Yes it is. When I read the word "virgin." I understand it as ever-virging. Others obviously do not.

When we read the "Word became flesh" we understand it as God becoming incarnate from the moment of HIs conception. Yet the Scriptures do not explicitly say God become Incarnate at the moment of His conception and is 100%percent human and 100% God.

When we read there are three that testify and these are the blood, spirit and water.

We understand it us , Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Trinity. Three seperate person but of the same essence.

Yet there are no verses that explicitly say that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the Trinity three seperate and distinc persons but of the same essence.

There is a dbl standard.

Peace

 

[FrauleinElsa]

I hope that you are aware that you are using the same line of reasoning that atheist use when asking for prove of God.

Yeah, I know. You don't think that wasn't on purpose C.B.?

Mary stayinga virgin has nothing to do with sex being "dirty." It has to do with Mary having carried God with in Her body and making it Holy.

Whatever. That's a bunch of bull. Though I'm not surprised. In the last days we are living in teachings such as this will become more and more common. Yeah, I did just say that. And you know something else? I'm not backing down. I'm not wrong in saying what the C.C. teaches is fallacy, because I have found no evidence/proof of what they say anywhere in the Bible. Things such as

Perptual Virginity
Purgatory
Views on Communion
Mary in general
Baptisim of infants... I could go on and on. But I have a life, so I'll stop there.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yes it is. When I read the word "virgin." I understand it as ever-virging. Others obviously do not.

When we read the "Word became flesh" we understand it as God becoming incarnate from the moment of HIs conception. Yet the Scriptures do not explicitly say God become Incarnate at the moment of His conception and is 100%percent human and 100% God.

When we read there are three that testify and these are the blood, spirit and water.

We understand it us , Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Trinity. Three seperate person but of the same essence.

Yet there are no verses that explicitly say that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the Trinity three seperate and distinc persons but of the same essence.

There is a dbl standard.

Peace

you are only attributing a double standard, as you cannot make a truly conclusive case that PV is taught anywhere in the bible, or in the first 300 odd years of ECF.

There is no one verse that states "God, Jesus, HS, are God. No, you are correct in that. the trinity is clearly demonstrated, however.

BTW, stating "Virgin" means "Ever virgin" is only seen that way because it supports your ideology. Try reading it without forcing it into your Dogma. There is no mention of ever virginity in those quotes.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Did he ever correct them about the perpetual virginity of Mary?
Oh wait, Paul never mentioned the virgin birth.

nope. not once.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Whatever. That's a bunch of bull. Though I'm not surprised. In the last days we are living in heresies such as this will become more and more common.

It was a lot different living in "heresies" back in the dark ages and the Crusades.
I can see the Light getting brighter, not dimmer.

Daniel 12:3 Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever. 4 "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

 

[icedtea]

Yeah, I know. You don't think that wasn't on purpose C.B.?





Whatever. That's a bunch of bull. Though I'm not surprised. In the last days we are living in heresies such as this will become more and more common. Yeah, I did just say that. And you know something else? I'm not backing down. I'm not wrong in saying what the C.C. teaches is fallacy, because I have found no evidence/proof of what they say anywhere in the Bible. Things such as

Perptual Virginity
Purgatory
Views on Communion
Mary in general
Baptisim of infants... I could go on and on. But I have a life, so I'll stop there.

And you are right and many agree.
Those are man made things, not God's.

 

[FrauleinElsa]

And you are right and many agree.
Those are man made things, not God's.

Thank you. Why do men feel it necessary to add to what God would tell us to leave alone? I constantly wonder.

 

[icedtea]

exclusivity?

 

[prophecy4]

I think if you focus on God and Jesus... you don't need Mary or any other saints to pray to...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I do have a question. Why did the Apostle Paul never mention the virgin birth if that was such a hugh fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible? Thoughts?

LUKE 3:23 And he was Jesus beginning as if of years 30 being son as was to Law/ enomizeto.

Galatians 4:4 and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law/nomon

 

[prophecy4]

I do have a question. Why did the Apostle Paul never mention the virgin birth if that was such a hugh fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible? Thoughts?

LUKE 3:23 And he was Jesus beginning as if of years 30 being son as was to Law/
enomizeto.

Galatians 4:4 and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law/nomon

because he didn't want people to focus on Mary... becasue the death burial and ressurection of Christ is what we need to focus on...

Jesus fulfilled over 100 + prophecies... but those aren't the focus... they were just there to verify that He was who He said He was...

 

[FrauleinElsa]

I think if you focus on God and Jesus... you don't need Mary or any other saints to pray to...

True.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

because he didn't want people to focus on Mary... becasue the death burial and ressurection of Christ is what we need to focus on...

Jesus fulfilled over 100 + prophecies... but those aren't the focus... they were just there to verify that He was who He said He was...

(Young) Acts 13:29 and when they did complete all the things written about Him, having taken [him] down from the tree, they laid Him in a tomb;

 

[lionroar0]

umm.. the purpose of telephone was to get the MOST accurate message through, if possible.
but it shows that it gets distorted, even in a short time.

mayve we played it differently.

We go from this:

He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin

And as I said I read ever-virgin. We obviously disagree.

to this.

Athanasius​

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).​

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
The Didache also says ever-virgin
between (50-120)
Eusibus Life of contantine book 4 mentions Mary being Ever Virgin 265-340
The Acts of St. Peter of Alxandria Mentions Mary being Ever-Virgin written between 300 and 311 and fragmenst.​

Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196.

... it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us--for 'grace and truth came through Jesus Christ' [Jn 1.17]--nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother.
​

​

I have already explained this excerpt.​

​

 

[lionroar0]

you are only attributing a double standard, as you cannot make a truly conclusive case that PV is taught anywhere in the bible, or in the first 300 odd years of ECF.

See other post

There is no one verse that states "God, Jesus, HS, are God. No, you are correct in that. the trinity is clearly demonstrated, however.

Here is the DBL standard. You stated that there is no verse that explicitly states the Trinity just as I said that there is no explicit verse that states that Mary is Ever-Virgin but yet the Trinity is clearly demostrated. Just as I have stated that the Ever-Virginity of Mary is clearly stated.

ans "Ever virgin" is only seen that way because it supports your ideology. Try reading it without forcing it into your Dogma. There is no mention of ever virginity in those quotes.

The same can be said on your view of the Trinity

The only difference is that we both hold to the Trinity.

Peace