On the Blessed Virgin

[Carey]

Because on the Mt of Olives Jesus w as asked to
(show us how to pray)
(not what to say)

And when did Jesus say Death did not aplly as it had in the past.

And where did he say that anyone would not take part in the resurrection spoken of at the time of his return in Revlations 20?

 

[prodromos]

I dont recite the"lords prayer"

Because on the Mt of Olives Jesus w as asked to
(show us how to pray)
(not what to say)

What could we possibly come up with that would improve on God's own words?[bible]Matthew 6:7[/bible]
Of what use then is our "much speaking"

BTW, you still have not given a response to the fact that Moses was dead yet he clearly did not "know nothing". So it indicates that your interpretation of Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 is not correct.

John

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Because on the Mt of Olives Jesus w as asked to
(show us how to pray)
(not what to say)

I think you need to read Luke 11:1-2.

 

[djbcrawford]

I'll answer your question with a question. When Jesus says that "Heaven rejoices when a single sinner repents," does this mean that the saints and angels in Heaven are omnipresent?

Maybe there's a bell that rings, or an angel announces it, or maybe they can see the name going into the Lambs Book of Life.

 

[djbcrawford]

I think you need to read Luke 11:1-2.

Yup, there he is teaching us how to pray to God

 

[djbcrawford]

Calling St Mary the Mother of the Son of God is equal to saying she is the Theotokos, as well she is!
The Son is one of the Trinity, that makes Jesus God. Therfore St Mary, the Champion of Christians is the THEOTOKOS - Mother of GOD!

And yet God always existed while Mary only comes into existance a few thousands of years after creation.

Why did Jesus speak to his Father in heaven if he actually was his Father at the same time. When he was born he was separated from his Father physically so there was no link between Mary and God.

 

[djbcrawford]

I think it is a matter of time that Mary will be given the title of Co-Redemptrix. I think Pope John Paul II did notr refrain from declaring this the official teaching of the Church not because he did not believe, but because this doctrine is so misunderstood by Protestants and would cause a greater division between us.

The Bible says we are co-laborers with Christ. This does not mean we are equal to Christ. Co-Mediatrix does not not mean equality with Christ.

When Jesus was on the cross, he told the apostle to treat His mother as if Mary was the apostle's very own mother. Why would Jesus had done this if Mary had other sons to take care of her?

True, there is a passage that says that Jesus had "brothers", but Aramaic (which is what they spoke) did not have a word for cousins or nephews. Instead they just used the word "brother" and "sister".

Here are some examples of the word "brother" and "sister" used when the word relative was meant.

Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

John 19:25

Here we have Mary, Jesus's mother, and then we have Mary the wife of Clopas, who is described as Mary's "sister". It is higly unlikely that parents would name both their daughters Mary. It is more likely that Mary, the wife of Clopas, is Mary's (mother of Jesus) relative, maybe a cousin.


Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew.
Genesis 12:5

The Hebrew word for used for nephew is actually "son" or "child". Go to http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ge+12:5&it=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en and click on the word "nephew". "Nephew" is not even listed as an option. But we know Lot was Abraham's nephew by Genesis 11:27. The translators translated this word to "nephew" because they knew that under the Semitic culture words such as "son", "daughter" and "brother" were used much more broadly than we use them

So just because a verse says that Jesus had brothers, that means nothing. Just has the Bible saying that Mary had a "sister" called Mary does not mean she actually had a sister, or that Lot was Abraham's son.

Also, in Mark 6:3 it says:

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.


In Greek, the definite artcle is there - THE son of Mary. This means that Jesus was The ONE and ONLY son of Mary. Jesus is also call THE Son of God. The definite artcle is there, too, meaning He is the ONE AND ONLY Son of God. I learned in a Protestant Seminary that the definite artcle points out the total uniqueness of Jesus to God. He and no one else is the Son of God. If that is the case, we must be consistent. If THE Son of God means that the God the Father has no other sons (at least not by nature), then THE Son of Mary must mean that Mary had no others sons besides Jesus.

And there's the difference. To defend the position that Mary remained a virgin, you have to start assuming that the references to Jesus brothers and sisters were actually references to cousins. However nowhere does it say in the bible that she remained a virgin. So again you have to assume that she did. And you know what is said about assuming...

Anyway, why is it important to "prove" she remained a virgin. What need is there for her to live her life as a virgin. Once the job of the immaculate conception was over, she could have carried on with her life as a normal woman/wife/mother.

In addition, (to my recollection, which may be wrong), in Revelation, probably one of the fullest pictures of Heaven in the bible, I can't think of any references to Mary? We have lots of angels, saints, God, the Lamb, but no Mary. She is probably included with the Saints, as well she should be, but no special God-like place. Surely someone with such a special role would get a mention.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

And there's the difference. To defend the position that Mary remained a virgin, you have to start assuming that the references to Jesus brothers and sisters were actually references to cousins. However nowhere does it say in the bible that she remained a virgin. So again you have to assume that she did. And you know what is said about assuming...

Anyway, why is it important to "prove" she remained a virgin. What need is there for her to live her life as a virgin. Once the job of the immaculate conception was over, she could have carried on with her life as a normal woman/wife/mother.

In addition, (to my recollection, which may be wrong), in Revelation, probably one of the fullest pictures of Heaven in the bible, I can't think of any references to Mary? We have lots of angels, saints, God, the Lamb, but no Mary. She is probably included with the Saints, as well she should be, but no special God-like place. Surely someone with such a special role would get a mention.

Try Revelation 12.

(For the following, I'm going to "assume" that you haven't read the Church Fathers or the Councils on this.)

There was hardly ever any controversy over Mary's perpetual virginity. No church councils were ever called to deal with it. No group arose that denied her perpetual virginity such that the church had to make a canonical ruling on the issue. Surely the issue of Christotokos vs. Theotokos would have brought this matter up, but to my knowledge it didn't. Why? Because there was no controversy about the matter. Luther and Calvin believed in her perpetual virginity. It was primarily post-Reformation Protestants who made Mary not ever-virgin.

What evidence do you have that the early Christians believed these brothers and sisters were Mary's natural children? I know the Greek of Matthew 1:25 could suggest that Joseph had relations with her after Jesus' birth, and this is actually, IMO, the way one would normally understand that verse. But there seems to be a lengthy church tradition that goes against this view - and, as I mentioned, Protestant Greek scholars like Luther and Calvin believe in her perpetual virginity, and they knew Matthew 1:25.

P.S. "immaculate conception" has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth or Mary's Perpetual Virginity. "Immaculate Conception" refers to the conception of Mary by Joachim and Anna, not to Mary's conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

From: http://poor-brother.blogspot.com/2006/08/y-fendigaid-fair-blessed-mary.html

"This is a poem in Welsh with a translation into English in which the author, former miner and librarian Einion Evans (1926 &#8211, a Nonconformist, makes a tender and perceptive apology for his own and for his contemporaries' lack of reverence for the Virgin Mary. In so doing he speaks for so many of us, Catholic and Protestant."

The Blessed Mary

We turned our backs on you, Virgin Mary,
And respected you less than a rag doll from a fair;
In the blazing light of Christ and his eternal radiance
Our eyes were blinded to your great part.
Your sincerity we doubted a hundred times, yes,
And we treated you like some cheap local girl.
We had forgotten that you were God’s means
To place his only son among the living.
Your sleepless nights, who has counted them?
Your son was mocked, yet you loved Him more,
And no one but He and you can really know
What anguish was yours on Calvary.
Listen to us tonight in your heaven above,
Accept your due respect, holy virgin,
And forgive now every disrespectful word
That came from our lips, O Blessed Mary.​

 

[djbcrawford]

Try Revelation 12.

Just did, and not exactly named is she. Seems like she gives birth, runs from the Dragon, is sheltered by God and disappears from the story.

(For the following, I'm going to "assume" that you haven't read the Church Fathers or the Councils on this.)

Good assumption, but I'm happy to stick with what's in the bible.

There was hardly ever any controversy over Mary's perpetual virginity. No church councils were ever called to deal with it. No group arose that denied her perpetual virginity such that the church had to make a canonical ruling on the issue. Surely the issue of Christotokos vs. Theotokos would have brought this matter up, but to my knowledge it didn't. Why? Because there was no controversy about the matter. Luther and Calvin believed in her perpetual virginity. It was primarily post-Reformation Protestants who made Mary not ever-virgin.

Yet no mention is made of it in scripture and no reason for her to remain a perpetual virgin

What evidence do you have that the early Christians believed these brothers and sisters were Mary's natural children?

Oh I don't know, just the fact that when you talk about someone's brothers and sisters, you are usually refering to actual brothers and sisters.

I know the Greek of Matthew 1:25 could suggest that Joseph had relations with her after Jesus' birth, and this is actually, IMO, the way one would normally understand that verse. But there seems to be a lengthy church tradition that goes against this view - and, as I mentioned, Protestant Greek scholars like Luther and Calvin believe in her perpetual virginity, and they knew Matthew 1:25.

Church tradition has not always been right. I would have thought such an important and unique person would have been mentioned more in scripture.

P.S. "immaculate conception" has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth or Mary's Perpetual Virginity. "Immaculate Conception" refers to the conception of Mary by Joachim and Anna, not to Mary's conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

And the difference? Once the virgin birth is completed, there is no reason for Mary to remain a virgin, unless you want to portray her as sinnless and believe it is wrong for a wife to have a sexual relationship with their husband.

From: http://poor-brother.blogspot.com/2006/08/y-fendigaid-fair-blessed-mary.html

"This is a poem in Welsh with a translation into English in which the author, former miner and librarian Einion Evans (1926 –), a Nonconformist, makes a tender and perceptive apology for his own and for his contemporaries' lack of reverence for the Virgin Mary. In so doing he speaks for so many of us, Catholic and Protestant."

The Blessed Mary

We turned our backs on you, Virgin Mary,
And respected you less than a rag doll from a fair;
In the blazing light of Christ and his eternal radiance
Our eyes were blinded to your great part.
Your sincerity we doubted a hundred times, yes,
And we treated you like some cheap local girl.
We had forgotten that you were God’s means
To place his only son among the living.
Your sleepless nights, who has counted them?
Your son was mocked, yet you loved Him more,
And no one but He and you can really know
What anguish was yours on Calvary.
Listen to us tonight in your heaven above,
Accept your due respect, holy virgin,
And forgive now every disrespectful word
That came from our lips, O Blessed Mary.​

Nice poem, but not treating Mary as some sort of diety does not mean disrespecting her. Would you pray to Abraham who by faith believed God? Moses, who met God face to face and gave us the 10 Commandments? King David, a man after God's own heart?

I think will keep my reverence and worship for God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I will respect her as someone who fulfilled a very special purpose, but keep the glory for God.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Just did, and not exactly named is she. Seems like she gives birth, runs from the Dragon, is sheltered by God and disappears from the story.



Good assumption, but I'm happy to stick with what's in the bible.



Yet no mention is made of it in scripture and no reason for her to remain a perpetual virgin



Oh I don't know, just the fact that when you talk about someone's brothers and sisters, you are usually refering to actual brothers and sisters.



Church tradition has not always been right. I would have thought such an important and unique person would have been mentioned more in scripture.



And the difference? Once the virgin birth is completed, there is no reason for Mary to remain a virgin, unless you want to portray her as sinnless and believe it is wrong for a wife to have a sexual relationship with their husband.



Nice poem, but not treating Mary as some sort of diety does not mean disrespecting her. Would you pray to Abraham who by faith believed God? Moses, who met God face to face and gave us the 10 Commandments? King David, a man after God's own heart?

I think will keep my reverence and worship for God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I will respect her as someone who fulfilled a very special purpose, but keep the glory for God.

Some questions:

1. Based on your views of the church's traditions about Mary, why do you trust the Bible? Its books were treasured and preserved and transmitted and canonized by persons who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Why do you accept their views about which books were "Scripture" and could be read in church, and reject their views about Mary? On what basis do you say that their views on Scripture were correct but their views on Mary were incorrect?

2. Why and on what basis do you decide which things to accept of what the early Christians believed, and which things to reject of what they believed? Why and on what basis do you decide whether to accept your interpretations of what the Bible says and means or theirs?

3. Why do you accept the decision of most of the early Christians to exclude 1 Enoch from the canon, but don't accept the Coptic Christians' (I believe they are the ones) decision to keep 1 Enoch in the canon?

4. Since you seem to abide by Martin Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura (i.e., the Scriptures alone are the rule of faith), do you also agree with Luther's decision that James and Revelation don't belong in the Bible? If not, why not?

5. What is your authority for your positions/views?

Just asking ...

(Being forced to ask myself these questions and/or being confronted with them caused a paradigm shift in my thoughts about these things.)

 

[prodromos]

Church tradition has not always been right.

Where do you believe it has been wrong?

John

 

[djbcrawford]

Where do you believe it has been wrong?

John

Tradition is doing something because it's always been done, regardless of whether the reason still exists or not and being unwilling to change because if it was good enough for them it's good enough for us.

Did church tradition not say the earth was at the centre of the universe at one time. Papal indulgences were church tradition.

 

[djbcrawford]

Some questions:

1. Based on your views of the church's traditions about Mary, why do you trust the Bible? Its books were treasured and preserved and transmitted and canonized by persons who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Why do you accept their views about which books were "Scripture" and could be read in church, and reject their views about Mary? On what basis do you say that their views on Scripture were correct but their views on Mary were incorrect?

They might have had many views which would seem ridiculous now. (flat earth, slavery, woman's rights, etc.) However when choosing the books they were choosing pre-existing knowledge. They didn't write them themselves, but gathered writings already in existance. The perpectual virgin idea may have just been an idea which had caught on at the time or a way to talk to Pagan's who worshiped earth godesses and fertility deities. Do we have any idea when this idea first appeared, cause it's not mentioned in any of the books they decided to include and it does seem quite important.

2. Why and on what basis do you decide which things to accept of what the early Christians believed, and which things to reject of what they believed? Why and on what basis do you decide whether to accept your interpretations of what the Bible says and means or theirs?

How early? Was this not a couple of hundred years later. The first Christian writings, which they themselves chose as scripture don't mention anything about Mary other than her part in the story of Jesus birth, life, death and resurrection. Surely someone with such divine importance would be followed almost as closely as Jesus was and be a big player in the early church.

3. Why do you accept the decision of most of the early Christians to exclude 1 Enoch from the canon, but don't accept the Coptic Christians' (I believe they are the ones) decision to keep 1 Enoch in the canon?

Can't comment on that as I haven't read it and so know nothing about it, though I would be interested in what it said and why it wasn't included.

4. Since you seem to abide by Martin Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura (i.e., the Scriptures alone are the rule of faith), do you also agree with Luther's decision that James and Revelation don't belong in the Bible? If not, why not?

I think scripture is the anchor to which truth is moored. Without it we drift off depending on the direction of the wind and current at the time. Humanity is fallible. If he was around I would ask him why and be interested to hear his answer.

5. What is your authority for your positions/views?

Do views need an authority? I hear someone say something and wonder why they think that. I check the bible and see no mention of it and wonder where it came from. I can tell from their posts that they passionately believe it, but see no reason for it. Maybe it helps them, but to me, it just seems like extra baggage that comes between us and Jesus.

Just asking ...

(Being forced to ask myself these questions and/or being confronted with them caused a paradigm shift in my thoughts about these things.)

I find these discussions challenging as I find my views less concrete that I thought they were.

 

[Jim49]

Sorry, Sola Scriptura is a false, unbiblical, man-made doctrine that didn't even exist until the sixteenth century.

The Catholic Church has changed their own doctrines many times over the centuries. (read dogma)

Many of the rituals were not even in place until several centuries after the death of Christ.

If you don't like Sola Scriptura that is ok and to say it is an unbiblical doctrine and man made that is ok too but look at why the sola's were created in the first place.

Catholicism also has many man made dogmas

 

[prodromos]

Many of the rituals were not even in place until several centuries after the death of Christ.

Which rituals do you believe were introduced later and what evidence do you have to support this? I'm just asking because I think you might have rituals and disciplines confused but it would help if you could provide some examples of what you mean in order to clarify.

John

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I stepped in dogma once, had to bleach my shoes and use my toothbrush to clean amongst the tread. That was a good toothbrush I lost to dogma.

 

[Rick Otto]

tomato. tomahto...
worship or venerate, doctrine or discipline...
differences so fine they eliminate distinction.

"What you need to know : Catholic do NOT worship Mary. They venerate her..like your venerate your mother."

>>>What you need to know: I do not venerate my mother with repetitious prayers, I do not venerate my mother with statues, grandiose myths, etc., etc.,<<<<


"Mary: Perpetual Virgin.
It is a point of doctrine that Mary remained a Virgin her entire life. The references in Mark and Matthew to "brothers" refer to either Joseph's children thru a previous marriage, or can be translated as close relatives or cousins."

>>>But what could possibly be the point of such a doctrine?
God's glory? Doesn't seem like it. Mary's glory, obviously.<<<

"Mary: Immaculate Conception....
In the middle ages the idea begin to develop of weather Mary was sinless or not. The Francisicians came up with an idea of Immaculate Conception in which Mary, from the moment of her conception, had been preserved by God from all sin.
The Dominicans...St. Thomas of Aquinas and that crowd...said, wait a minute, Mary received Grace just like anyone else.
The Franciscans won the day, and in 1854, Pope Pius IX in his Ineffabilis Deus made it dogma."

>>>Then it MUST be true! <<<<

"The Assumption of Mary:
In 1950, Pope Pius XII stated, "at the end of her earthly course, Mary was assumed into heavenly glory, body and soul"."

>>>From The Book of Popes?<<<

"Mary Co-Redeemer:
Highly controversial, a push to get John Paul II to make Mary co redeemer, not that she is equal to Jesus in salvation but rather, that she is "co -operates" with Jesus in bringing man to God. Kinda of like a co pilot to a Pilot.
Some 6 million signatures were counted for this concept. But other Catholics both within and without the Vatican said.."No way John...don't do it!"....
Though several Popes have used the phrase co-redemptrix in referring to Mary..it is NOT Catholic doctrine."

>>>And I bet this is spun as an example of unity of faith?<<<

"Praying to Mary...
It is Catholic doctrine that there is only one Sole Mediator (1 Tim 2:5) between Man and God, Jesus....but that doesn't prevent others from called upon to help bring man to God.
The saints, Mary, even if you ask me to pray for you..I am in effect mediating between you and God."

>>>And you do so in direct conflict with your own doctrine. So scripture & official doctrine have no impact on practice. I find that typical.<<<<

"Well, thats your crash course in Mary today,..."
A virtual trainwreck of doctrines & pratice.
Thanks?

The guys who cook up this stuff should've spent more time feeding the poor & visiting the sick.

 

[Trento]

tomato. tomahto...
worship or venerate, doctrine or discipline...
differences so fine they eliminate distinction.

"What you need to know : Catholic do NOT worship Mary. They venerate her..like your venerate your mother."

>>>What you need to know: I do not venerate my mother with repetitious prayers, I do not venerate my mother with statues, grandiose myths, etc., etc.,<<<<


"Mary: Perpetual Virgin.
It is a point of doctrine that Mary remained a Virgin her entire life. The references in Mark and Matthew to "brothers" refer to either Joseph's children thru a previous marriage, or can be translated as close relatives or cousins."

>>>But what could possibly be the point of such a doctrine?
God's glory? Doesn't seem like it. Mary's glory, obviously.<<<

"Mary: Immaculate Conception....
In the middle ages the idea begin to develop of weather Mary was sinless or not. The Francisicians came up with an idea of Immaculate Conception in which Mary, from the moment of her conception, had been preserved by God from all sin.
The Dominicans...St. Thomas of Aquinas and that crowd...said, wait a minute, Mary received Grace just like anyone else.
The Franciscans won the day, and in 1854, Pope Pius IX in his Ineffabilis Deus made it dogma."

>>>Then it MUST be true! <<<<

"The Assumption of Mary:
In 1950, Pope Pius XII stated, "at the end of her earthly course, Mary was assumed into heavenly glory, body and soul"."

>>>From The Book of Popes?<<<

"Mary Co-Redeemer:
Highly controversial, a push to get John Paul II to make Mary co redeemer, not that she is equal to Jesus in salvation but rather, that she is "co -operates" with Jesus in bringing man to God. Kinda of like a co pilot to a Pilot.
Some 6 million signatures were counted for this concept. But other Catholics both within and without the Vatican said.."No way John...don't do it!"....
Though several Popes have used the phrase co-redemptrix in referring to Mary..it is NOT Catholic doctrine."

>>>And I bet this is spun as an example of unity of faith?<<<

"Praying to Mary...
It is Catholic doctrine that there is only one Sole Mediator (1 Tim 2:5) between Man and God, Jesus....but that doesn't prevent others from called upon to help bring man to God.
The saints, Mary, even if you ask me to pray for you..I am in effect mediating between you and God."

>>>And you do so in direct conflict with your own doctrine. So scripture & official doctrine have no impact on practice. I find that typical.<<<<

"Well, thats your crash course in Mary today,..."
A virtual trainwreck of doctrines & pratice.
Thanks?

The guys who cook up this stuff should've spent more time feeding the poor & visiting the sick.

The so-called cemetery of St. Priscilla, beneath the Basilica of St. Silvester, the Pope, contains a most precious painting, which represents the Blessed Virgin seated with the child Jesus on her knee. In the figure standing left of Our Lady, historians and theologians have discerned the Prophet Isaias, whose prophecy first predicted the Incarnation: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." There is a star between Isaias and the Blessed Mother representing the Star of Bethlehem, and to the left of Isaias the branches of a blossoming tree extend over the group. The tree represents another prophecy of the Old Testament: "The Rock of Jesse hath blossomed; a Virgin hath brought forth Love and Man." It is evident that the early Christians bestowed veneration on Mary soon after her Assumption into Heaven. This picture dates from the end of the second century--and, according to expert archeologist more specifically from around a.d. 150 to170 AD.

I will list just one of 150 Catholic Charitable organizations.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office for 2005.

Tusami Relief charities: Catholic Charities USA; Amount raised: 31,847,514.

Tusami Relief charities: Catholic Charities of NY; Amount raised: 25,400,000



The bush -Clinton Katrina fund and Catholic Charities were the Largest fund raisers rising $137 million and $100 million respectively.

 

[djbcrawford]

The so-called cemetery of St. Priscilla, beneath the Basilica of St. Silvester, the Pope, contains a most precious painting, which represents the Blessed Virgin seated with the child Jesus on her knee. In the figure standing left of Our Lady, historians and theologians have discerned the Prophet Isaias, whose prophecy first predicted the Incarnation: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." There is a star between Isaias and the Blessed Mother representing the Star of Bethlehem, and to the left of Isaias the branches of a blossoming tree extend over the group. The tree represents another prophecy of the Old Testament: "The Rock of Jesse hath blossomed; a Virgin hath brought forth Love and Man." It is evident that the early Christians bestowed veneration on Mary soon after her Assumption into Heaven. This picture dates from the end of the second century--and, according to expert archeologist more specifically from around a.d. 150 to170 AD.

IF the picture is real and IF it is dated correctly, it still only shows a picture of a woman, a child, a tree, a star and a man? This picture may show the essential points about Jesus birth, (born of a virgin, prophesied in scripture, birth signalled by a star, etc..) but doesn't prove anything about treating Mary differently than any other bible character. Does anyone pray to the Prophet Isaias who is also in the picture? Does this prove Mary remained a virgin after Jesus birth? No.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

The greatest Catholic in the universe is, unarguably... one of these two....

Mr T

Momma T