Some contend against Blessed Mary

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,822
12,309
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,204,324.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
"until the child was born" is not at all the same as "until the day he died".

there is a not-so-subtle difference that all can see.

One allows for a number of things to happen after the child is born - the other does not.
Grammatically, the two statements are identical, as is the third example I gave which you apparently missed. The argument is that "until" necessitates a change in the state or condition described previously. That is not the case at all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Valletta
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,642
10,795
Georgia
✟932,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Grammatically, the two statements are identical
But their meaning is very different. One allows for some change at one point - and the other does not allow for any change.

"until the child was born" is not at all the same as "until the day he died". -- not the same at all.

If a student says at 7 pm -- "I am going to study until 7:30 pm for my final test tomorrow" we read him the riot act.
We don't say "Oh -- I guess that is your way of saying you are gong to stay up all night studying".

This is not a difficult concept for the average person -- I think you would agree.

The argument is that "until" necessitates a change in the state or condition described previously.
"until" allows for a change once the future point stated is reached.

If I say to my wife "I will love you until I die" , I am saying - "until I can make no change at all in my love for you -- for then I will be dead".
But if I say "I will love you until tomorrow at 2pm" she will be very very angry.

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,822
12,309
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,204,324.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing
Nor I. I've given you an example showing how "until" does not require a change in state or condition, and you refuse to even acknowledge it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeT
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,642
10,795
Georgia
✟932,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Nor I. I've given you an example showing how "until" does not require a change in state or condition
And I posted a number of examples of that - all of which you are ignoring.

So let me ask it another way --

given the following incredibly obvious examples
===================================
Grammatically, the two statements are identical
But their meaning is very different. One allows for some change at one point - and the other does not allow for any change.

"until the child was born" is not at all the same as "until the day he died". -- not the same at all.

If a student says at 7 pm -- "I am going to study until 7:30 pm for my final test tomorrow" we read him the riot act.
We don't say "Oh -- I guess that is your way of saying you are gong to stay up all night studying".

This is not a difficult concept for the average person -- I think you would agree.

The argument is that "until" necessitates a change in the state or condition described previously.
"until" allows for a change once the future point stated is reached.

If I say to my wife "I will love you until I die" , I am saying - "until I can make no change at all in my love for you -- for then I will be dead".
But if I say "I will love you until tomorrow at 2pm" she will be very very angry.

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing.
=========================================================

how can you expect that to still appear to be "confusing" to the objective unbiased reader??

If as you say - you agree that this is incredibly obvious and you do not find the point above the least bit confusing...
then post a comment as to how you think the examples do not deal with what comes after the "until" point.

give us your POV
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,822
12,309
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,204,324.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
And I posted a number of examples of that - all of which you are ignoring.
The examples you have posted are grammatically distinct from the verse we are discussing, since you are using the present continuous tense and not the past tense. Your argument is an appeal to emotion.
 
Upvote 0

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,225
169
Southern U.S.
✟110,570.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
And I posted a number of examples of that - all of which you are ignoring.

So let me ask it another way --

given the following incredibly obvious examples
===================================

But their meaning is very different. One allows for some change at one point - and the other does not allow for any change.

"until the child was born" is not at all the same as "until the day he died". -- not the same at all.

If a student says at 7 pm -- "I am going to study until 7:30 pm for my final test tomorrow" we read him the riot act.
We don't say "Oh -- I guess that is your way of saying you are gong to stay up all night studying".

This is not a difficult concept for the average person -- I think you would agree.


"until" allows for a change once the future point stated is reached.

If I say to my wife "I will love you until I die" , I am saying - "until I can make no change at all in my love for you -- for then I will be dead".
But if I say "I will love you until tomorrow at 2pm" she will be very very angry.

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing.
=========================================================

how can you expect that to still appear to be "confusing" to the objective unbiased reader??

If as you say - you agree that this is incredibly obvious and you do not find the point above the least bit confusing...
then post a comment as to how you think the examples do not deal with what comes after the "until" point.

give us your POV
"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS" [Matthew 1:25]

Your argument is "till" denotes a point in time when the status, or an act changes substantially. Its a paradigm is full of holes. Catholics contend that "till" does not always mandate change after ‘till’; examples were supplied. Since “until” seems to hinge on supporting what happened after she brought fourth her first son lets look at a few things after "until".

At what point did Mary get a divorce from the Holy Spirit? Mary was the spouse of the Lord, Sacred Scripture tells us just that. Marriage is when one freely leaves their family, and 'cleaves to their spouse. The flesh of the two becomes one flesh. [Cf. Ephesians 5:31-32]. The soul of anybody joined to the word of God is a supernatural marriage. [Cf. St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, Book XXII] The humble Mary vowed to join God receiving the Incarnate Word within her. The Blessed Mary literally encompassed the Word of God. Her oath of fidelity was the connubial vow making her the handmaiden of the Lord, i.e. the spouse of God.

Then you might fancy saying Joseph suddenly became an unjust man. No God-fearing Jew, right with God, would take another’s spouse as his own and remain “just”, that is right with God [Cf. Matthew 1:19]. It is quite right when God claimed His spouse as the Spirit of God 'moved over' His creation [Cf. Genesis 1:2]. No God-fearing Jew would take what the Holy Spirit calls His own, being “full of grace” and with the God [Luke 1:28].

Getting past Joseph then what changed after till? Was she no longer a virgin? If so, then we should be able to read where another individual is the “son or daughter of Joseph and Mary”. I haven’t seen those specific words in Scripture. Nor have I read Joseph took his privileges afforded him in marriage. Mary’s first progeny was God, would other sons and daughters be demigods? Assuming you can find these individuals in Scripture, should we worship these demigods? Consider that Christ is fully and wholly God and fully and wholly man without being deprived of original justice; much like Adam, created with original justice - or you might say a New Adam was created without original sin. Christ's two natures are inseparable and exist in perfect harmony in the One hypostasis of One Person, Jesus Christ. The birth of such a Person is, Divine and human, and must be born of woman without inheriting the effects of Adam's original sin. Immaculately Mary conceived the New Covenant by way of her son. Had Mary had additional children they too would have the same human nature as the New Adam and also be New Covenants. Other offspring would also have inherited Christ's nature, at least in part. The result would have been multiple claims to the throne of God's Kingdom. We know of One claimant. Consequently, by necessity of ascending to the Throne of God there can be only one Child born of Mary.

Thus, we are left with an empty paradigm, one that is unable to hold water.



JoeT
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟121,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God raised her up to Heaven, she is spoken of in Heaven in Revelation.
Which verse?

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars?

If that is Mary why is she fleeing into the wilderness in Rev 12:6 ?

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
 
Upvote 0

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,225
169
Southern U.S.
✟110,570.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Which verse?

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars?

If that is Mary why is she fleeing into the wilderness in Rev 12:6 ?

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
"ark of his testament was seen in his temple [Apocalypse 11:19]"

Think about it, what is an ark? Now turn the page to chapter 12.

JoeT
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟121,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"ark of his testament was seen in his temple [Apocalypse 11:19]"

Think about it, what is an ark? Now turn the page to chapter 12.

JoeT
That's not Mary, she is not the Ark. when Moses was instructed to make everything regarding
the earthly tabernacle, he was instructed to make it after the pattern of the true tabernacle which ALREADY existed in heaven.
And we know Mary did not descend from heaven and take upon herself human flesh to give birth to Jesus upon the earth and then ascend back into heaven to become queeen and then flee into the wilderness a few verses later at the time of the building of the earthly ark of the covenant which supposedly represents her.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

benadamm

Active Member
Mar 30, 2019
55
14
64
arizona
✟25,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
Faith is through hearing. Hearing the Word of God. The scriptures record the first time this happened. When the sound of Mary's voice reached Elizabeth's ear Elizabeth and her child were filled with the Holy Spirit and the knowledge and miraculous faith in the Lord.

Compare how John the Baptists father Zachary responded to the angel Gabriel to how Mary responded. The priestly holy man of the Old Covenant reacted with terror and unbelief and was punished for it. Compare that to Mary who reacted with reason and faith in agreement with God's plan. Evidence of Mary's sinlessness. Zachariah was considered a holy man.

It's fitting that Our Lord's Divine life had a witness who's intellect wasn't clouded by sin, who wasn't seeing Him through a glass darkened. What a horrible reality that would be if she was the woman protestants Invision.

Thankfully His primary witness watched His life with the highest human clarity and blessedness possible. Jesus deserved no less.

A womb that produced a body for God is infinitely sacred. No Jew would think of using Mary's womb for ordinary purposes as protestants would. Unthinkable. It's fitting that Jesus received perfect maternal love rather than having to give it without anyone ever able to receive it.

I'm not sure anyone but Jesus would see Mary as anything but very holy before she was assumed to heaven body and soul. That's when it had finally become safe to reveal the lofty heights her Son had lifted her.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,225
169
Southern U.S.
✟110,570.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
That's not Mary, she is not the Ark. when Moses was instructed to make everything regarding
the earthly tabernacle, he was instructed to make it after the pattern of the true tabernacle which ALREADY existed in heaven.
And we know Mary did not descend from heaven and take upon herself human flesh to give birth to Jesus upon the earth and then ascend back into heaven to become queeen and then flee into the wilderness a few verses later at the time of the building of the earthly ark of the covenant which supposedly represents her.
Jesus Christ is the New Covenant, Mary carried Jesus Christ, like the ark of Moses carried the law. It was the custom of the day for the Kings mother to be the queen mother of the nation. So, yes it is completely understandable.

JoeT
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟121,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why is it when you google the picture of Mary and the Ark she in the place between the two cherubs which is in the place of God?

1692414857138.png


Exodus 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat H3727, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

The "mercy seat", is the golden plate of propitiation. And God set forth Jesus (not Mary) to be that.

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟121,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus Christ is the New Covenant, Mary carried Jesus Christ, like the ark of Moses carried the law. It was the custom of the day for the Kings mother to be the queen mother of the nation. So, yes it is completely understandable.

JoeT
Mary carried baby Jesus for 9 months. You guys really have to get past this.

The New testament is in his adult blood (not when he was a baby not yet born, still in Mary's womb)

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The new testatment was something that had to be in force, and when was this testament in force?

Was it before Christ was born? No, it was after he was dead. Mary wasnt carrying around the new testament.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟121,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Again, when Moses was instructed to make everything regarding
the earthly tabernacle, he was instructed to make it after the pattern of the true tabernacle which already existed in heaven.
And we know Mary did not exist in heaven (let alone earth) or before the birth of Jesus Christ.

God said to Moses

Exodus 25:40 And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount.

Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Mary was not a heavenly thing let alone an earthly reality yet.
 
Upvote 0

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,225
169
Southern U.S.
✟110,570.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
That's not Mary, she is not the Ark. when Moses was instructed to make everything regarding
the earthly tabernacle, he was instructed to make it after the pattern of the true tabernacle which ALREADY existed in heaven.
The tabernacle is the tent like structure built to house the Ark of the Covenant. What was the function of the Ark of Moses? It carried the covenant God. What was the purpose of Mary? She carried the Living Covenant, our God.
And we know Mary did not descend from heaven and take upon herself human flesh to give birth to Jesus upon the earth and then ascend back into heaven to become queen and then flee into the wilderness a few verses later at the time of the building of the earthly ark of the covenant which supposedly represents her.
Moses' ark was made on earth with natural materials, a tent that housed the ark.

JoeT
 
Upvote 0

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,225
169
Southern U.S.
✟110,570.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Mary carried baby Jesus for 9 months. You guys really have to get past this.
Have carried Jesus Christ for any length of time? Have you nursed God? Why should I go past it when so evidently a place to be at home.
The New testament is in his adult blood (not when he was a baby not yet born, still in Mary's womb)
His blood IS life, at what point from conception was it not life?
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The new testatment was something that had to be in force, and when was this testament in force?

Was it before Christ was born? No, it was after he was dead. Mary wasnt carrying around the new testament.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth [John 1:1, 14]

JoeT
 
Upvote 0

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,225
169
Southern U.S.
✟110,570.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Again, when Moses was instructed to make everything regarding
the earthly tabernacle, he was instructed to make it after the pattern of the true tabernacle which already existed in heaven.
And we know Mary did not exist in heaven (let alone earth) or before the birth of Jesus Christ.

God said to Moses

Exodus 25:40 And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount.

Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Mary was not a heavenly thing let alone an earthly reality yet.

Moses' Tabernacle was indeed the foreshadow of heavenly things to come. All the elements making up the holy of Holies came to life in the New Covenant. The Tabernacle was the birthplace of the Jewish religion. Mary was a living Tabernacle and the birthplace of our Catholic faith as well. Christ said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He came to live, with perfection, to consummate the Old Covenant and to establish the New Covenant. But Matthew doesn’t stop quoting Christ with simply “filling”, “For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.” And too, we shouldn’t forget that in Christ’s birth, another wondrous birth occurs; the birth of God’s Kingdom on earth.

Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary. (Cf. Luke 1, Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1) God was infused into man becoming Christ. Christ was one person with two natures, one of God, the other of man. Thus after the proper time, Christ was born of Mary as foretold by the angel; “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-33) Eventually, like light passes through a window He passes through the veil, a veil now rent. Christ now becomes like the Menorah (light of the world), whose Word fell on the Altar of Incense to rise pleasingly to God, whose light fell on the loaves of proposition (likened to the Twelve Apostles). These loaves were consumed by the high Priests who were said to receive Divine knowledge. As you probably know, a Divine Hope is born out of knowledge giving the expectation of obtaining the Vision of the Divine. Other furnishings in the Tabernacle foreshadows the coming of the Second Kingdom, the Catholic Church. The mercy seat was sprinkled with the offered blood of the Victim as Christ’s blood atones for our sins. The Table of Shewbread was a food for knowledge as the Twelve are food of knowledge for our spiritual welfare. Likewise, we partake in the food of life, the Eucharist. The menorah is the light of Christ. The altar of incense are the prayers of the Church.

God’s residence on earth is made holy by His command. Therefore, Moses was ordered to keep the Tabernacle spiritually and ritually clean. The Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.) was the Incarnate Word of God; all of which take residence in the womb taking the form of the Person of Jesus titled our Christ. Judaism or Catholicism certainly wouldn’t suggest that God should take up residence in an unholy place.

JoeT
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟121,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Have carried Jesus Christ for any length of time?

You do not believe we are to carry Jesus Christ in us?

2 Cr 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Have you nursed God?

What a ridiculous question.

But I have nursed a baby, and so what? Women are built to do so. Its really no biggy.

Do you somehow think the son of God as a baby would suck a pap differently or something?


Why should I go past it when so evidently a place to be at home.


I dont know how anyone can conclude that carrying a child (even Jesus) in the flesh as one woman and doing so after the flesh only for 9 months as women somehow exceeds the glory of Christ being formed in us (Gal 4:19) after the Spirit and remaining.
which because of his death is become our hope of glory (Col 1:27).If given the choice between the two I would still chose the latter.


His blood IS life, at what point from conception was it not life?

You cut off the rest of my post, it applies

The New testament is in his adult blood (not when he was a baby not yet born, still in Mary's womb)

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The new testatment was something that had to be in force, and when was this testament in force?

Was it before Christ was born? No, it was after he was dead.

Mary wasn't carrying around the new testament.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth [John 1:1, 14]

JoeT
Amen
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0