Not all the Church Fathers said Mary was sinless

[Arsenios]

The virgin conception and virgin carrying to term (bear) was a miracle. Whatever Mary and Joseph did thereafter is between them. If one understands Joseph as an old man, then one might think he's no longer interested, laughing as it were like Sarah.

The dogma states a virgin before, during, and after nativity. To say Christ was birthed/born normally is to agree with Scripture (came by water and blood, born of a woman, etc) and tradition through Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others. It is at the same time the rejection of the tradition of Origen and his source (Protoevangelium of James, Gospel of Peter).

To clarify, the issue at that time was whether Christ was born normally with afterbirth, water and blood (as a human). Or was He born as if passing like water through a straw somehow through Mary and perhaps coming out her side (east gate).

So, call Mary blessed all you want, but it may help to know some of the history of the ever-virgin claim. Scripture says generations will call Mary blessed. Not blessed is some unknown ever-virgin.

PS. Herod didn't care about theology. Only about his earthly kingdom.

This is a disturbing post, SUP...

Do you really think that Biblical water and blood means the afterbirth following delivery of a newborn babe?

This view utterly carnalizes Holy Writ...

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

This is a disturbing post, SUP...

Do you really think that Biblical water and blood means the afterbirth following delivery of a newborn babe?

This view utterly carnalizes Holy Writ...

Arsenios

I understand it seems foreign to modern ears. But if you'll examine for yourself the discussion at that time (c100-c300), you'll find more information. John is very keen to make sure we understand the Word became flesh and the anti-Christ portrayed that Christ did not come in the flesh. What better way than to say Christ was born normally?

C/u around.

 

[justinangel]

Called "happy" by all generations.

Just to remind you:

In her Canticle of Praise, recorded in the Gospel of Luke 1:48, Mary speaks prophetically when she proclaims: "From now on all generations shall call me blessed." Protestants have generally said that what Mary means by being blessed (makaria) is that she has been highly favoured to be the mother of Jesus. In its primary fulfilment the prophecy has been realized. Unless Mary is the mother of the Lord in his humanity, there is no reason for Christians to rejoice in Mary's happiness for her sake on account of this singular favour which has been granted to her by God. Yet we are still left with the prophecy's secondary fulfilment which the evangelist alludes to in the following verse: "The Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name." What Mary refers to with respect to her blessed state is connected with her Divine Maternity, and by virtue of this singular favour extends beyond it.

The original Greek word makarizó (μακαρίζω) for being pronounced blessed, in the given context, can interpreted "to be pronounced blessed as a result of enjoying privileges that extend from God's favour", that being the Divine Maternity. Thus the "great things" which God has done for Mary are blessings that rest on her being the mother of the Lord. The future generations of the Christian faithful shall not simply honour Mary for having been chosen from among all women to be the mother of Jesus. The Greek word for blessed is more than an honorary term. It also serves as a benediction that promotes a goodness and well-being, which Mary particulary possesses because she is the Mother of God, acnowledged by all the faithful of each generation. The word connotes how one personally stands in their relationship with God. All future generations shall acknowledge blessings that by virtue of Mary's maternal right exclusively belong to her in the order of divine grace. These are in fact privileges that are closely tied to Mary's association with her divine Son in his work of redemption, for which other important reason she was chosen to be his mother. Jesus was not made of a woman only to acquire his flesh and blood from her.

Protestant biblical scholar Donald G. Dawes, in his exegesis of this verse, informs us that this same word for blessed (makaria) is "more than a polite honorific term" and was used in Patristic literature to characterize the martyrs. He states: "The highest expression of their blessedness was in the possibility of their ascension into heaven to dwell in the immediate presence of God" (The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in Ecumenical Perspective). In other words, the martyrs were not simply blessed for having sacrificed their lives for Christ in faith no more than Mary was blessed for having consented in faith to be the mother of the Lord. What is more important from an eschatological point of view the final consummation of these acts of faith informed by charity and grace. In a similar vein, when Jesus prophetically says, "Blessed (makaria) are the pure of heart, for they shall see God," the highest expression of being blessed is their seeing God which results from their being pure of heart. Thus Mary's Divine motherhood in and of itself is not the highest expression of her being blessed or "happy" in the eyes of future generations of believers, though her blessed state ultimately stems from it.

This verse in the Gospel of Luke is vital to the Catholic dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary body and soul into Heaven. Here we not only see Mary's role in the Incarnation, which in itself was an essential part of God's plan in the economy of salvation, but also the final consummation of salvation which included Mary in a singular way. What our Lady has been graced with is something all future generations shall especially rejoice in for her sake alone, since she alone has been granted this privilege for being the Mother of God. Mary shall not be pronounced blessed either for simply having died and gone to heaven along with all the other faithful departed. This is the hope of all Christians who die in the state of sanctifying grace. The redemption of their bodies on the Last Day is a divine truth that already has been manifested by the resurrection of Christ. Mary is speaking prophetically about herself in particular, of a form of bodily redemption that applies exclusively to her in her relationship with God. The secondary fulfilment of her prophecy is eschatologically found in the Assumption. All future generations shall pronounce Mary blessed for having received this pre-eminent favour that no other human being shall ever receive by God's gratuitous grace; not only because she is the Mother of God, but also because of the other extended privilege which God favoured her with on account of her Divine motherhood - that being the Immaculate Conception.

Finally, the verse reads: 'for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.' In the original Greek, “Behold” idŏu (ιδου) is a demonstrative particle, with no exact English equivalent. Like the Hebrew-Aramaic equivalent hinnēh, the term idŏu often serves to enliven a narrative by introducing something new or extraordinary. The term is often used to emphasize the importance of something great. There is nothing extraordinary in the Christian belief of a saint having died and gone to Heaven. What is extraordinary and unique is the fact that Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven because of her exemption from all stain of sin by virtue of her Divine motherhood. All the other saints must still wait for the redemption of their bodies on the Last Day. The connotations of the word “Behold” signify a renewed and singular state of being for Mary rather than a change of circumstance in her life that occurred at the Annunciation. All generations shall not pronounce Mary blessed simply because she was chosen to be the Mother of God. The faithful shall also take into consideration the great things God has done for Mary, those privileges that extend from that one supreme privilege.

"It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."

St. John of Damascene, Dormition of Mary [ante A.D. 749]





"The Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name!"

 

[Panevino]

I understand the party line. But it's John who says death by blood and water, while it's birth by water and blood.

You'll have to work it out for yourself. Not my issue anymore.

We discussed this a while ago and I found out that tertullian interprets 1john5:6 in relation to water baptism and cross. See chapter 16, On Baptism

Chapter 16. Of the Second Baptism— With Blood
We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, I have to be baptized with a baptism, when He had been baptized already. For He had come by means of water and blood, 1 John 5:6 just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.

 

[Standing Up]

We discussed this a while ago and I found out that tertullian interprets 1john5:6 in relation to water baptism and cross. See chapter 16, On Baptism

Chapter 16. Of the Second Baptism— With Blood
We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, I have to be baptized with a baptism, when He had been baptized already. For He had come by means of water and blood, 1 John 5:6 just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.

Many interpret John's "came by water and blood" as a reference to baptisms of water and blood (cross). But John is clear as to his meaning; the context is Jesus is the Christ born of God.

The witness on earth is three, Spirit water and blood. That's the point.

John expressly denies the interpretation of adoptionism (Jesus became Christ at baptism). Rather John is pointedly telling us Christ was born normally.

 

[Arsenios]

Apparently in the NT, aside from Lk, only James 5:11 shows makarios as regards to those who endure.

Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

The Greek MAKARIZOMEN is a strange word to my ears - It transliteralizes in English as: WE HAPPIFY, which is an odd way to say we regard as happy through receiving blessing(s) from God... So it literally tells us: "Behold! We are happifying those enduring." Greek does that from time to time... Taking a perfectly good adjective (in English at least) and wrenching it into a verb... Greek is the language of verbs... Latin less so generally...

But the point of all this is that IF you have faith in Christ, and if you ARE one of those in the generations following His Conception in the Womb of the Theotokos, then you MUST call Her MAKARIOS... And more than this, you must not just call Her Blessed or Happy ONCE or so every once in awhile, but you are obliged by this Scripture in Luke TO BE CALLING Her Blessed.

That is why I keep asking you about Her Blessed STATUS in your eyes and heart and voice/pen... You see, very few Protestants DO so... They give but a brief nod to the Scripture we are discussing, and then relegate Her to the pile of dead bones in the history of ordinary Jewish women living carnal child-rearing lives...

Here is the text: (my super literal translation)

NAS – "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed

BYZ –
οτι επεβλεψεν επι την ταπεινωσιν της δουλης αυτου
Because He has looked upon the lowness of the female servant of Him

ιδου γαρ
For Behold!

απο του νυν μακαριουσιν με πασαι αι γενεαι
From this now shall be Makariosing me all the generations.

And the Apostolic Churches have ALL been extolling Her Blessedness throughout the day and the night for 2000 years now...

You see, we believe Her as Scripture records Her Holy Words...

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

The Greek MAKARIZOMEN is a strange word to my ears - It transliteralizes in English as: WE HAPPIFY, which is an odd way to say we regard as happy through receiving blessing(s) from God... So it literally tells us: "Behold! We are happifying those enduring." Greek does that from time to time... Taking a perfectly good adjective (in English at least) and wrenching it into a verb... Greek is the language of verbs... Latin less so generally...

But the point of all this is that IF you have faith in Christ, and if you ARE one of those in the generations following His Conception in the Womb of the Theotokos, then you MUST call Her MAKARIOS... And more than this, you must not just call Her Blessed or Happy ONCE or so every once in awhile, but you are obliged by this Scripture in Luke TO BE CALLING Her Blessed.

That is why I keep asking you about Her Blessed STATUS in your eyes and heart and voice/pen... You see, very few Protestants DO so... They give but a brief nod to the Scripture we are discussing, and then relegate Her to the pile of dead bones in the history of ordinary Jewish women living carnal child-rearing lives...

Here is the text: (my super literal translation)

NAS – "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed

BYZ –
οτι επεβλεψεν επι την ταπεινωσιν της δουλης αυτου
Because He has looked upon the lowness of the female servant of Him

ιδου γαρ
For Behold!

απο του νυν μακαριουσιν με πασαι αι γενεαι
From this now shall be Makariosing me all the generations.

And the Apostolic Churches have ALL been extolling Her Blessedness throughout the day and the night for 2000 years now...

You see, we believe Her as Scripture records Her Holy Words...

Arsenios

If you're doing so, then you're fulfilling her words. Keep doing it. Whether someone else does it has no bearing on the fact of your doing it in fulfilling her words.

 

[Arsenios]

I understand the party line.

Not quite yet!

But it's John who says death by blood and water,

He never said that. He clearly tells us, as the nearby eye-witness, which none of the other Evangellists were, that Christ "gave up His Spirit", which clearly shows that it was a voluntary death, and preceded the spear which released the Blood and the Water from His Most Pure Body upon the earth... That Blessing from our Lord gives us our Baptism in water into His Death, and Resurrection in Him by His Life-Blood...

while it's birth by water and blood.

John 3:5 says our Rebirth into Christ is by Water and Spirit...

Blood and Spirit are intimately connected in these two passages...

You'll have to work it out for yourself. Not my issue anymore.

Pilate said much the same to the Jews - Washed his hands even...

And died miserably...

For the woman with 7 demons [exorcized] reported him to Caesar...

Mary Magdalene...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

If you're doing so, then you're fulfilling her words. Keep doing it. Whether someone else does it has no bearing on the fact of your doing it in fulfilling her words.

We are, my Brother...

And we seek to share the Blessings of God with all...

Blessings which come through living the Faith Christ gave once, for all, to His Apostles...

And core to that living, is extolling the Blessedness of Christ's Holy Mother...

Because we are members of His Holy Body...

And He is the Law-Giver Who GAVE the Commandment:

HONOR THY MOTHER...

How can we NOT do so, night and day?

For we are His - We are not our own...

And as members of the Body of Christ...

The Blessed Virgin is OUR Mother too...

And WE are Her children...

Birthed in Her Baptismal Waters...

Into the Body of Christ...

Her Body given to Him...

"We hold the Mystery of the Faith in a pure conscience..." (Paul)

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

Not quite yet!



He never said that. He clearly tells us, as the nearby eye-witness, which none of the other Evangellists were, that Christ "gave up His Spirit", which clearly shows that it was a voluntary death, and preceded the spear which released the Blood and the Water from His Most Pure Body upon the earth... That Blessing from our Lord gives us our Baptism in water into His Death, and Resurrection in Him by His Life-Blood...



John 3:5 says our Rebirth into Christ is by Water and Spirit...

Blood and Spirit are intimately connected in these two passages...



Pilate said much the same to the Jews - Washed his hands even...

And died miserably...

For the woman with 7 demons [exorcized] reported him to Caesar...

Mary Magdalene...

Arsenios

I understand Christ died and was pierced, then came blood and water. Likewise, Christ conceived, then came water and blood.

Try to understand what you've said re our born-again and John's 3 witnesses in heaven and earth.

Good thing for some of us that we don't live in the times of Caesar anymore.

 

[Arsenios]

I understand Christ died and was pierced,
then came blood and water.

And it fell upon the earth, the water of Baptism into His Death,
and the Blood of His Life unto our Resurrection from that Death...
"IF you do not... Drink My Blood... You have no Life in you..."
And we are Baptized into Christ...

Likewise, Christ conceived, then came water and blood.

Nowhere in the Bible is anything written about Christ's afterbirth, not even if there was any...

You are grasping something that Scripture does not include...

Christ was not conceived in a normal way...

What makes you think He was born normally?

Or carried to term normally by fallen human standards...

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

And it fell upon the earth, the water of Baptism into His Death,
and the Blood of His Life unto our Resurrection from that Death...
"IF you do not... Drink My Blood... You have no Life in you..."
And we are Baptized into Christ...



Nowhere in the Bible is anything written about Christ's afterbirth, not even if there was any...

You are grasping something that Scripture does not include...

Christ was not conceived in a normal way...

What makes you think He was born normally?

Or carried to term normally by fallen human standards...

Arsenios

1 Jn. 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come [erchomai] in the flesh is of God:

Do you think that refers to water baptism and the eucharist? Of course not. The context of 1 John is to prove Jesus is the Son of God.

1 Jn. 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
1 Jn. 5:6 This is he that came [erchomai] by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

 

[Arsenios]

1 Jn. 4:2
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God:
Every spirit that is confessing that Jesus Christ HAS come in the flesh is of God:

Do you think that refers to water baptism and the eucharist?
Of course not.
The context of 1 John is to prove Jesus is the Son of God.

I corrected your verbs above... John is speaking here of PROPHETIC SPIRITS, and how to test them, and what to hear from them to determine their source, God or the world... See 4:1

1 Jn. 5:5
Who is he that IS OVERCOMING the world,
but he that IS BELIEVING that Jesus is the Son of God?

That is what it takes to be overcoming the world - Believing in Christ...

1 Jn. 5:6
This is he that came [erchomai] by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;
not by water only,
but by water and blood.
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is Truth.[/QUOTE]

You correctly emphasize that the verb is erchomai, and not ginomai... (egeneto)
This means that he was NOT BORN by water and blood,

but CAME THROUGH water in Baptism by John
AND
CAME THROUGH His Blood on the Cross...

It took both, Baptism and Crucifixion...

And we are to follow Him...

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

but CAME THROUGH water in Baptism by John
AND
CAME THROUGH His Blood on the Cross...

It took both, Baptism and Crucifixion...

And we are to follow Him...

Arsenios

That is the adoptionist view; that Christ came by baptism to Jesus. We reject that.

Rather, Christ came by water and blood. The whole context of 1 John is to prove Emmanuel. The Word became flesh.

 

[Arsenios]

That is the adoptionist view;

I regret that you are throwing Orthodoxy into that foul pile...

that Christ came by baptism to Jesus.

The Person of Christ and the Person of Jesus
is always ONE and the SAME Divine Person...

We reject that. [eg that Christ came to Jesus by baptism]

So do we...

Because...

By the Christ permitting Himself to be Baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan,
He established OUR regeneration into Him by that same means...
Thus fulfilling His word to John: [my translation]
Matthew 3:15
And Jesus responded (and) said unto him,
Permit (it) now:
for in this manner fitting it is to us
to fulfill all righteousness.
Then permitted he Him (to be Baptized).

Rather, Christ came by water and blood.

If you want Scripture to say this, then you have to re-write Scripture...

The word you are translating as BY, which is the causal dative of means, is not a dative of means at all, but is the Greek word DIA, as is DIAmeter, and it means THROUGH... And it does not take a dative, but an accusative, and means MOVEMENT THROUGH, and not CAUSED BY, as you are insisting...

The whole context of 1 John is to prove Emmanuel. The Word became flesh.

We like to think of it as an effort to keep holy those who are holy...

It bears witness, to be sure, but PROVING is a philosophic enterprise...

Theological proving is done in Spirit and Truth in the flesh of the Saints...

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

I regret that you are throwing Orthodoxy into that foul pile...

The Person of Christ and the Person of Jesus
is always ONE and the SAME Divine Person...

I'd guess EO would reject adoptionism, but that's the interpretation of your idea to say Christ came by water baptism.

So do we...

Because...

By the Christ permitting Himself to be Baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan,
He established OUR regeneration into Him by that same means...
Thus fulfilling His word to John: [my translation]
Matthew 3:15
And Jesus responded (and) said unto him,
Permit (it) now:
for in this manner fitting it is to us
to fulfill all righteousness.
Then permitted he Him (to be Baptized).

The reason Christ submitted to baptism by John was to fulfill the fact that He did not call Himself into the ministry.

Heb. 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

He fulfilled all righteousness.

If you want Scripture to say this, then you have to re-write Scripture...

The word you are translating as BY, which is the causal dative of means, is not a dative of means at all, but is the Greek word DIA, as is DIAmeter, and it means THROUGH... And it does not take a dative, but an accusative, and means MOVEMENT THROUGH, and not CAUSED BY, as you are insisting...



We like to think of it as an effort to keep holy those who are holy...

It bears witness, to be sure, but PROVING is a philosophic enterprise...

Theological proving is done in Spirit and Truth in the flesh of the Saints...

Arsenios

Hello? It's KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, NET, ASV, and DBY.

 

[Arsenios]

I'd guess EO would reject adoptionism,
but that's the interpretation of your idea
to say Christ came by water baptism.

That is YOUR idea of me... I deny it...

By the Christ permitting Himself to be Baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan,
He established OUR regeneration into Him by that same means...
Thus fulfilling His word to John: [my translation]
Matthew 3:15
And Jesus responded (and) said unto him,
Permit (it) now:
for in this manner fitting it is to us
to fulfill all righteousness.
Then permitted he Him (to be Baptized).

The reason Christ submitted to baptism by John was to fulfill the fact that He did not call Himself into the ministry.

Heb. 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

He fulfilled all righteousness.

Christ disagrees, for Scripture states that He said to John:

"...for in this manner it is fitting for us
to fulfill all righteousness.

So read that sentence and report back to me:
Did Christ say that HE Himself would fulfill all righteousness by John Baptizing Him?
OR...
Did He say that He AND John would do so?

Hello? It's KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, NET, ASV, and DBY.

Theirs is a derivative translation...

DIA plus Accusative CAN mean Dative of Agency, but that is not the primary meaning...

To argue that it is dative of agency requires that Christ be in some manner CAUSED by Baptism, whereas we hold that John baptizing Christ caused Baptism to be elevated by the fact of it being Christ sanctifying the waters...
ios
Arsen

 

[Standing Up]

That is YOUR idea of me... I deny it...

By the Christ permitting Himself to be Baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan,
He established OUR regeneration into Him by that same means...
Thus fulfilling His word to John: [my translation]
Matthew 3:15
And Jesus responded (and) said unto him,
Permit (it) now:
for in this manner fitting it is to us
to fulfill all righteousness.
Then permitted he Him (to be Baptized).



Christ disagrees, for Scripture states that He said to John:

"...for in this manner it is fitting for us
to fulfill all righteousness.

So read that sentence and report back to me:
Did Christ say that HE Himself would fulfill all righteousness by John Baptizing Him?
OR...
Did He say that He AND John would do so?



Theirs is a derivative translation...

DIA plus Accusative CAN mean Dative of Agency, but that is not the primary meaning...

To argue that it is dative of agency requires that Christ be in some manner CAUSED by Baptism, whereas we hold that John baptizing Christ caused Baptism to be elevated by the fact of it being Christ sanctifying the waters...
ios
Arsen

How was Aaron called?

 

[prodromos]

How was Aaron called?

He was called... Aaron!

 

[justinangel]

He was called... Aaron!

I'm sure he had a last name, too.


J.A.