My scriptures on Mary

Thekla said:

Because Paul says that Christ was "made of a woman". Does Paul mean the divinity of Christ, who is fully God, was made by a woman ? Certainly not ! Then it was the flesh of Christ, fully human, that was "made of a woman".
Christ's flesh was Mary's flesh ! His flesh was not a sharing of an earthly father and an earthly mother. His flesh was only of a mother, Mary. Her flesh was Christ's, Christ's flesh was hers. If she gave her flesh - in any form - to another, she would be giving Christ's flesh to another. This would be an abomination.

Click to expand...

Christs flesh was His own flesh.. We are to know no man according to the flesh.. If Mary gave her body to Joseph as married women do this would not damage Christ what so ever..Just as in other marriages.. Us giving our body to our husbands do not do anything to our children.. We all have individual bodies..

CaliforniaJosiah said:

I was MADE of my mother and father. My flesh is theirs. How does that give dogmatic substantiation that my mother and father are perpetual virgins?


She didn't give Christ's flesh to herself or any other, she gave Her flesh to Jesus - just as my mother gave "flesh" to me, I didn't to her. And how does this dogmatically substantiate that therefore my mother is a perpetual virgin?

I was born of a woman, too - that doesn't dogmatically substantiate that my mother is a perpetual virgin, isn't that obvious?


.

Click to expand...

You are the pattern/typos for Christ, the God-man ??????

This is about YOU,what you say, not about Christ !

Thekla said:

Josiah said:

I was MADE of my mother and father. My flesh is theirs. How does that give dogmatic substantiation that my mother and father are perpetual virgins?


She didn't give Christ's flesh to herself or any other, she gave Her flesh to Jesus - just as my mother gave "flesh" to me, I didn't to her. And how does this dogmatically substantiate that therefore my mother is a perpetual virgin?

I was born of a woman, too - that doesn't dogmatically substantiate that my mother is a perpetual virgin, isn't that obvious?

Click to expand...

You are the pattern/typos for Christ, the God-man ??????

Click to expand...

Again, you didn't address what I posted or answer the questions I asked of you. Sure is hard to have a conversation with you....

No, I'm not a "type" of Christ. Neither is Mary. How how does that dogmatically substantiate that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin? I was born of a woman, too - that doesn't dogmatically substantiate that my mother is a perpetual virgin, isn't that obvious? I guess not....




.

I think a biology lessen would help..

Thekla said:

Stop twisting my words in such a repugnant fashion !!!!!!
How can you even say such things about Christ; how can you state such things, even as a question, about Christ ? Have you NO RESPECT for CHRIST ? To support your opinion, you would even say such things as a question ??????

Christ was MADE of a woman's; His flesh was Mary's flesh, and no other's!

She gave her flesh to Christ, her flesh was HIS through her assent. How could she give Christ's flesh, through any action, to another ?

Click to expand...

Thekla, walk away. It has become pointless and unhealthy and as you say, "repugnant"


God have Mercy



Q

Qoheleth said:

Thekla, walk away. It has become pointless and unhealthy and as you say, "repugnant"


God have Mercy



Q

Click to expand...

Thank-you !

Kyrie eleison !

Thekla said:

Thank-you !

Kyrie eleison !

Click to expand...

Glory to God for all things!



Q

MrPolo said:

No, just sound doctrine.

Titus 1:9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.​

Paul speaks about that a lot to Timothy and Titus.

Click to expand...

Not to be disrespectful but that's just wrong. Two words: Bible only. Not doctrines conceived by the church or man. From Titus by 'sound doctrine' he means using the Bible as a basis.

Inbox24 said:

Not to be disrespectful but that's just wrong. Two words: Bible only. Not doctrines conceived by the church or man. From Titus by 'sound doctrine' he means using the Bible as a basis.

Click to expand...

There's a problem. Not all of the Bible was written when Titus was written.

He could not have used the Bible only. Also the Bible does not say use Bible only but what has been handed down by epistle and word of mouth.

Peace

lionroar0 said:

There's a problem. Not all of the Bible was written when Titus was written.

Click to expand...

I find this argument - so often used by Catholics and Mormons - to be, well, interesting.


I'd like to see a Catholic use this. Let's say a friendly man in blue pulls over lionroar0. His imposing car, with many lights flashing, stops behind lionroar's. The office, big gun on his belt and black book in his hand, approaches the driver's window. Politely, the officer notes that lionroar drove through a stop sign and begins to write out the citation. But lionroar objects. "You CANNOT give me a ticket for that!! You cannot prove that ALL the laws that will ever exist now exist, so none of them are relevant to ME! When you can prove that every driving rule that will ever exist, does exist, THEN we can talk about it!" I'd be interested to see how the friendly man in blue reacts to this often-made Catholic and Mormon point. Would he say, "Of course! The Rule of Law is moot unless we can all prove that no more laws will ever be written!" Or would he laugh his head off? Or would he just have a huge puzzled look on his face and reply, "WHAT???" Or maybe he'd just continue writing out the citation, yes, I think that would be the most likely response.





.

EmperorConstantine said:

No one worships Mary (with possible exception of some random cargo cult in the middle of the Pacific Ocean).
...
Call me crazy, but being that Mary is the Mother of God, I think that puts her recognition-earning up a little more than the late Queen Mum.

Click to expand...

Ok then, you're crazy.

Especialy if you continue to deny Mary isn't worshipped "hyper-dulia" style.

Thekla said:

Because Paul says that Christ was "made of a woman". Does Paul mean the divinity of Christ, who is fully God, was made by a woman ? Certainly not ! Then it was the flesh of Christ, fully human, that was "made of a woman".
Christ's flesh was Mary's flesh ! His flesh was not a sharing of an earthly father and an earthly mother. His flesh was only of a mother, Mary. Her flesh was Christ's, Christ's flesh was hers. If she gave her flesh - in any form - to another, she would be giving Christ's flesh to another. This would be an abomination.

Click to expand...

Thekla, I can agree that His flesh was derived from hers, but her flesh did not become His flesh. Her flesh was not the bread of life, His was. What she gave to Him became His, so it was no longer hers.
To say that Joseph had God-approved normal sexual relations with his wife was to have the same with the flesh of Jesus is outrageously irrational.

Do I understand correctly that you believe Mary never became married to Joseph, rather they remained only "betrothed"? I think I came to that understanding on the now closed thread "Speak Lovingly~". The reasonI ask is becauseI just read;
Matt1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

Thanks,
-Rick

Rick Otto said:

Thekla, I can agree that His flesh was derived from hers, but her flesh did not become His flesh. Her flesh was not the bread of life, His was. What she gave to Him became His, so it was no longer hers.
To say that Joseph had God-approved normal sexual relations with his wife was to have the same with the flesh of Jesus is outrageously irrational.

Do I understand correctly that you believe Mary never became married to Joseph, rather they remained only "betrothed"? I think I came to that understanding on the now closed thread "Speak Lovingly~". The reasonI ask is becauseI just read;
Matt1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

Thanks,
-Rick

Click to expand...

This form of the word for man used 33 times in NT, last time in 1 Timothy 3:2.............

Matt 1:16 Jacob yet generates the Joseph the husband/man/andra <435> of Mariam out of whom was generated Jesus the one being said Christ.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Textus Rec.) Matthew 1:16 iakwb de egennhsen ton iwshf ton andra mariaV ex hV egennhqh ihsouV o legomenoV cristoV

435. aner an'-ayr a primary word (compare 444); a man (properly as an individual male):--fellow, husband, man, sir.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

GOD'S Scriptures on Mary:


Matthew 1:23/Isaiah 7:14
Mark 3:31-35; 6:1-6
Luke 1:27, 31-33, 39-55; 2:1-24, 49
John 2:4; John 19:26-27
Acts 1:14



.

Click to expand...

"God's Scriptures", interesting terminalogy.

I believe the above Scriptures are in the Bible which is the inspired Word of God... but who wrote the Scriptures on paper.... interesting. (although, the Scriptures hopefully are written on our hearts forever and always).

CaliforniaJosiah said:

So, all women are perpetual virgins? IF so, why single out Mary? with the dogma?

I fail to see how the word "woman" gives dogmatic substantiation for Mary as a PERPETUAL VIRGIN.






.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you get this understanding regarding his post.

I didn't realize that we were sharing about Mary's perpetual virginity.

You seem to have a burr in your saddle friend about Mary being a virgin and all of that. What's up? Are you okay.

Rick Otto said:

Do I understand correctly that you believe Mary never became married to Joseph, rather they remained only "betrothed"? I think I came to that understanding on the now closed thread "Speak Lovingly~". The reasonI ask is becauseI just read;
Matt1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

Thanks,
-Rick

Click to expand...

Hi, Rick -

the word in Matthew is "anir" - means (alphabetical order ) betrothed, husband, man of any age. Neither Semitic nor Greek usage distinguish terminology for betrothal and marriage. My point was that marriage cannot be Biblically proven.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Paul wrote, by inspiration, that Jesus was born "of a woman." He did not say that she was a perpetual virgin or that Christ had sex with her. I'm at a loss to see how Paul stating that Mary was a woman (I think the point is she was human, flesh) give dogmatic documentation that Mary was a perpetual virgin? Not only so, but I fail to see any remote connection. I was born of a woman, too - that doesn't dogmatically substantiate that my mother is a perpetual virgin, isn't that obvious?
.

Click to expand...

Let's look at Matt 1:25, the word "until" in Matt 1:25 is not used to imply that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus was born. Rather, the meaning of the passages is simply to make clear that Joseph was not the father of the Christ Child ---that, even though he took her as his wife, Joseph had no relations with her between the time that he took her into his home and the time that the Child was born. Here, you have to remember that the Virgin Birth was something new and unusal (and of course hard to believe) for Matthew's original readers. So, Matthew merely wants to make clear that Joseph could not be the Child's biological father. The passage is not concerned with the subsequent married life of Joseph and Mary or how they lived together, whether in chastity or not. Rather, the focus is on the Virgin Birth itself, and Matthew is defending its miraculous integrity. And the early Church fathers ---native speakers of Biblical Greek ---understood the passage in this way. For example, St. John Chrysostom writes:

" 'And when he had taken her, he knew her not, until she had brought forth
her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word 'until,' not that you should
suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the
Birth, the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But, why then, it may be
said, does he use the word 'until'? Because it is usual in Scripture often
to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times.
For so, with respect to the ark likewise it is said, 'the raven returned not
until the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that
time. And when speaking also of God, the Scripture says, 'From age until age
Thou art,' not as if fixing limits in this case. ...Thus, what it was
necessary for you to learn of Him, He Himself has said: that the Virgin was
untouched by man until the Birth, but that which both was seen to be a
consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn
He leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having
to become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail,
and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to
know her. For if he had know her, and had kept her in the place of a wife,
how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, having no one, to His
disciple, and commands him to take her into his home? How then, one may say,
are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way that
Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils
provided, that the birth, being such as it was, be for a time screened.
Wherefore, even John so called them, saying, 'For neither did His brethren
believe in Him.' " ---St. John Chrysostom, On the Gospel of Matthew V:5 (370
A.D.).

Likewise, even the original Protestants understood Matt 1:25 this way, preserving their belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. For example, the Protestant reformer John Calvin writes ...

"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this
passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of
God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For
the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply
wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been
well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had
therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company...And besides
this, Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because
there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard
to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or
not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25,
published 1562.)

So, those people today (in modern times) who go around saying that Matt 1:25 "proves" that Mary and Joseph lived as a normal married couple are unfaithful to both the Catholic and the traditional Protestant understanding of the passage.

As for Joseph and Mary merely being "betrothed," but at the same time calling each other "husband" and "wife," and Joseph having planned to "divorce" her, .... Here, you must remember that Joseph and Mary were Jews; and they were married according to ancient Jewish custom. In that ancient custom, the woman was literally a piece of propety that was more or less "sold" to the groom by her parents. The first step in this "transaction" was that the groom would sign a marriage agreement with the bride's parents. At that point, she technically belonged to him, and so was referred to as his "wife" ...and sometimes as his "virgin" (see 1 Corinth 7:36-38). However, the marriage contract was not completed at this time. Rather, according to custom, the groom would then return to his own home town (his own father's house) and "prepare a place" for them to live. That is, he would build an extension onto the family home for them to live in. This is the imagery that Jesus evokes when He says (speaking of Heaven), "In my Father's house, there are many mansions; I go to prepare a place for you." Jesus is speaking as the Bridegroom, with the Church as His Bride (see Ephes 5:25-32). So, after signing the contract with Mary's parents, Joseph would have gone to "prepare a place" for them. This was the betrothal period. Mary was already his possession: his wife. But, he had not yet formally claimed her. And, it was during this time that she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Not knowing this, Joseph was planning to "divorce" her, which, in the context of the Jewish custom, merely meant that he wanted to dissolve the marriage contract and give her back legally to her parents. But, after being told of God's plan in a dream, he fulfilled the marriage ceremony and took her into his own home. And it is in THIS context that Matt 1:25 says that he had no relations with her "until" the Child was born ...meaning that, even though he fufilled the marriage contract, which would normally have included consummating the marriage with sexual intercourse, he did not do this. Rather, she was legally his wife even before the Child was born ...which is what the "until" really refers to.

Mark Bonoco really helped me to understand this part of my Catholic faith.

I also would like to add the following:


Luther was devoted to Our Lady, and retained most of the traditional Marian doctrines which were held then and now by the Catholic Church. This is often not well-documented in Protestant biographies of Luther and histories of the 16th century, yet it is undeniably true. It seems to be a natural human tendency for latter-day followers to project back onto the founder of a movement their own prevailing viewpoints.


Since Lutheranism today does not possess a very robust Mariology, it is usually assumed that Luther himself had similar opinions. We shall see, upon consulting the primary sources (i.e., Luther&#8217;s own writings), that the historical facts are very different. We shall consider, in turn, Luther&#8217;s position on the various aspects of Marian doctrine.


Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):
Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary&#8217;s Immaculate Conception, which wasn&#8217;t even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until 1854. Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine. Luther&#8217;s words follow:
Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for Christmas (1533) and Against the Papacy of Rome (1545). In later life (he died in 1546), Luther did not believe that this doctrine should be imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn&#8217;t explicitly and formally teach it. Such a view is consistent with his notion of sola Scriptura and is similar to his opinion on the bodily Assumption of the Virgin, which he never denied&#8212;although he was highly critical of what he felt were excesses in the celebration of this Feast. In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:
Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language:
Luther goes even further, and gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians, much the same as in Catholic piety:
Luther did strongly condemn any devotional practices which implied that Mary was in any way equal to our Lord or that she took anything away from His sole sufficiency as our Savior. This is, and always has been, the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, Luther often "threw out the baby with the bath water," when it came to criticizing erroprevalent in his time&#8212;falsely equating them with Church doctrine. His attitude towards the use of the "Hail Mary" prayer (the first portion of the Rosary) is illustrative. In certain polemical utterances he appears to condemn its recitation altogether, but he is only forbidding a use of Marian devotions apart from heartfelt faith, as the following two citations make clear:

Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation. (Sermon, March 11, 1523).
To summarize, it is apparent that Luther was extraordinarily devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is notable in light of his aversion to so many other Catholic doctrines, as he was wont to describe them.


LINK

Thekla said:

Hi, Rick -

the word in Matthew is "anir" - means (alphabetical order ) betrothed, husband, man of any age. Neither Semitic nor Greek usage distinguish terminology for betrothal and marriage. My point was that marriage cannot be Biblically proven.

Click to expand...

Thanks for explainin', sis.
One more thing, please...Matt usin' "husband" doesn't prove it for ya?

Rick Otto said:

Thanks for explainin', sis.
One more thing, please...Matt usin' "husband" doesn't prove it for ya?

Click to expand...

well, no - because based on the word, the Matthew passage could equally accurately be translated "fiance". This is the case for all the words referring to Mary and Joseph. Basically, any conclusion we reach on the status of the relationship of Mary and Joseph is based on "tradition".

EDIT: note that in Matthew 1:19, which refers to the period of betrothal, Matthew also uses the word "anir" (the same term as Matthew 1:16, rendered in your translation as "husband")