Speak lovingly of Mary

[Thekla]

to repeat:

A remnant of that old Apostolic epoch was saved in one of Justin's writings (100 - 165 AD) in a Syriac translation which goes like this: "Some writer [note: one of many, as it says "εις των συγγραφέων" i.e. one among the many writers] that lived during the time of Augustus and Tiberius, wrote that Mariah the Galilaean, the one who gave birth to the Messiah, Who was the one crucified in Jerusalem, never met a husband and even though Joseph did not abandon her, he stayed nevertheless in purity without a woman and Mariah stayed without a man" (Zahn Geschichte des neutestamentl dichen Kanons, tome II, p. 177).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Prove then the ressurection took place then....despite that the Bible says that... Where are the eyewitnesses?

But the Bible says it did happen. I'd accept any quotes you can offer from the Scriptures that states that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I can quote you Scriptures that state the resurrection of Jesus (including eye witnesseses to the resurrected Christ). Since we ALL accept the Authority of Scripture, it's a valid norm for us ALL. But I haven't held this dogma to that standard, in spite of it being DOGMA, I've been very open to other substantiations (really, anything you'd accept from a Protestant or Mormon - including Protestant or LDS "Fathers", opinions of those who agree with Protestants or Mormons, etc.), and I'm more than willing to accept reliable, credible history. If you can quote from just 5 credible people who personally knew Mary or Joseph for example, and who specifically state that Mary had no sex ever, that would seem compelling to me. In spite of the DOGMA status, I've asked for only reasonable subtantiation - to the same level as would be accepted by Catholics from say a Mormon or Lutheran. I haven't limited the substantiation to Scripture (unless the point is that SCRIPTURE teaches it, THEN I'll ask for where - but we've been there and nothing was offered that said anything about Mary or the frequency of sex with Joseph).




.



.

 

[Philothei]

Okay then provide with verses that mention eyewitnesses to the ressurection...

 

[MamaZ]

Okay then provide with verses that mention eyewitnesses to the ressurection...

LOL. Not only were there witnesses to the risen Christ but also those who were ressurected with Him. For He is the ressurection and the life. There may not have been eyewitnesses to Him actually rising but there sure was and it is written there were witnesses to Him after the ressurection. Now with Mary there is nothing said in scripture about her being a forever virgin. In fact scripture tells us that Jesus had brothers and even names them and sisters. I know that the CC and the EO try to claim these could be cousins or kinsmen but that is not how scripture speaks of them. The word for cousin was not used in the greek.

 

[Amylisa]

Regarding Mary's perpetual virginity:

It helps to know some stuff about the culture of that time. It was not uncommon for women to choose to be what was called a 'consecrated virgin.' And some people in that state still chose to marry for various reasons. People of both sexes sometimes chose that life.

Things that sound so unreal and foreign to us are sometimes just a matter of cultural differences (and time differences of course).

 

[katholikos]

LOL. Not only were there witnesses to the risen Christ but also those who were ressurected with Him....

You only know that by reading the Bible. And you only have a Bible because of the authority of the Church that canonized it - the same Church that teaches us about these Marion doctrines.

Your reasoning is flawed. If you think the Church can err in these matters, then you must think that the Church could have erred in canonizing the Bible, and therefore you have no idea what you ae reading.

Conversely, if you are sure that the Bible is the Word of God, then you must assume that the Holy Spirit led the councils that canonized it - the same councils that give us our Marian doctrines.

Or are you going to sit back and say: "Yes the Holy Spirit led the Church in that decision. No, the Holy Spirit did not lead the Church in that decision over there. Lets see, the Holy Spirit was at Nicea, but not at Constantinople......"

It gets a bit silly.

.

Regarding Mary's perpetual virginity:

It helps to know some stuff about the culture of the time. It was not uncommon for women to choose to be what was called a 'consecrated virgin.' And some people in that state still chose to marry for various reasons.

Things that sound so unreal and foreign to us are sometimes just a matter of cultural differences (and time differences of course).

Great point. People don't realize how our sex-driven society shapes their thinking. They try to impose 21st century American thinking on 1st century Jewish people. That is why the traditions of the ECF's is crucial to understanding the meaning of God's revelation, and why protestantism errs so badly so often.

 

[Thekla]

Remember (one example among many), the Bible says that Abraham's nephew Lot was his brother ...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Regarding Mary's perpetual virginity:

It helps to know some stuff about the culture of that time. It was not uncommon for women to choose to be what was called a 'consecrated virgin.' And some people in that state still chose to marry for various reasons. People of both sexes sometimes chose that life.

Let's assume that that's correct, how does that give substantiation for Mary being a PERPETUAL VIRGIN as a matter of highest importance and certainty? IMHO, your substantiation is the same as I arguing that it a certain of the highest level that I have a Ph.D. from Harvard because it is known that hundreds do, therefore I must. And you'd need to agree that Joseph Smith MUST be an Apostle from Christ because we know that 13 ( or 14) others were, or that it is DOGMA that there are 6.5 billion people living on the Moon because there are on the Earth. I regard your argument as nonsubstantiating. AT MOST, you are indicating that it's theoretically possible - but that's been conceded for Scripture stated, "with God all things are possible." But not possibilities are true.




.

 

[Amylisa]

Well, a person who chose to be a consecrated virgin did so for life. Otherwise what is the point of it, do you know what I mean?
Hence, it would be perpetual. I think it is to demonstrate purity, and that would certainly be fitting of the mother of Jesus Christ.
As to whether the perpetual aspect is of highest importance, I don't know that it is, other than that it's a teaching of the church which Catholics are supposed to trust. And I guess it is a matter of honoring the mother of our Saviour. That is how I take it anyway.

Sorry, I haven't read this entire thread so maybe i don't know what you're addressing.

 

[MamaZ]

You only know that by reading the Bible. And you only have a Bible because of the authority of the Church that canonized it - the same Church that teaches us about these Marion doctrines.

Actually men are just that men. It is God who has inspired scripture and not man. God can even make rocks be the children of Abraham and He can and did use a donkey to speak forth His word. I am quite positive that God can put His cannon of scripture together by any means that He sees fit. I trust is God and His inspired written word above what any man may say. When something is preaced I take it to the written scripture to make sure what is being said is actually what has been written. I hold all spiritual matters up to the light of the written word and not mens mouths. For I can and do trust God fully.

Your reasoning is flawed. If you think the Church can err in these matters, then you must think that the Church could have erred in canonizing the Bible, and therefore you have no idea what you ae reading.

I have addressed this above.

Conversely, if you are sure that the Bible is the Word of God, then you must assume that the Holy Spirit led the councils that canonized it - the same councils that give us our Marian doctrines.

I do not trust in the counsel of men. For God is greater.

Or are you going to sit back and say: "Yes the Holy Spirit led the Church in that decision. No, the Holy Spirit did not lead the Church in that decision over there. Lets see, the Holy Spirit was at Nicea, but not at Constantinople......"

It gets a bit silly.

If what is being taught is not found in the written scriptures then I do not believe it. Marian doctrine cannot be found in the written pages of scripture therefore all anyone has to go on with these doctrines is hearsay from the mouth of men and not out of the mouth of God.
.



Great point. People don't realize how our sex-driven society shapes their thinking. They try to impose 21st century American thinking on 1st century Jewish people. That is why the traditions of the ECF's is crucial to understanding the meaning of God's revelation, and why protestantism errs so badly so often.

 

[MamaZ]

Well, a person who chose to be a consecrated virgin did so for life. Otherwise what is the point of it, do you know what I mean?
Hence, it would be perpetual. I think it is to demonstrate purity, and that would certainly be fitting of the mother of Jesus Christ.
As to whether the perpetual aspect is of highest importance, I don't know that it is, other than that it's a teaching of the church which Catholics are supposed to trust. And I guess it is a matter of honoring the mother of our Saviour. That is how I take it anyway.

Sorry, I haven't read this entire thread so maybe i don't know what you're addressing.

A virgin does not desire to marry. Mary was engaged before the Angel appeared to her.

 

[Amylisa]

Yes, right, she was engaged. Like I said, some people who chose that life also chose to marry. I don't know why they would! But some did.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes, right, she was engaged. Like I said, some people who chose that life also chose to marry. I don't know why they would! But some did.

And your substantiation that MARY did is.........




.

 

[MamaZ]

Celebacy is not for the married as scripture shows us.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well, a person who chose to be a consecrated virgin did so for life.

Perhaps...

Then give your substantiation to the highest level of certainty that Mary was a "consecrated virgin."

I think it is to demonstrate purity

Is a wife impure because she shares loving, marital intimacies with her husband? Why do you feel that such defile the wife and makes her impure? And how does that substantiate the DOGMA of Mary as a PERPETUAL VIRGIN?





.

 

[Yab Yum]

Where in Scripture does it say that God has inspired Scripture but not His church? Those who say that Scripture is inspired but not the Church have the burden of proof, and the only proof for this is - Martin Luther, who was, rumor has it, a mere man. Those who believe in biblical inerrancy have merely substituted the infallibility of the Pope for the infallibility of Scripture. Both Scripture and God's church are inspired and to cling to one or the other alone is a form of idolatry.

 

[MamaZ]

Where in Scripture does it say that God has inspired Scripture but not His church? Those who say that Scripture is inspired but not the Church have the burden of proof, and the only proof for this is - Martin Luther, who was, rumor has it, a mere man. Those who believe in biblical inerrancy have merely substituted the infallibility of Scripture for the infallibility of the Pope. Both Scripture and God's church are inspired and to cling to one or the other alone is a form of idolatry.

 

[Uphill Battle]

you nailed it, CJ.

the attitude towards marital sex is flawed. As if a married couple abstaining from sex is somehow more pure.

that is utter falsehood, and scripture details as such.

more evidence of the dim view on sexuality that is rampant in some church organizations.

 

[Amylisa]

Where in Scripture does it say that God has inspired Scripture but not His church? Those who say that Scripture is inspired but not the Church have the burden of proof, and the only proof for this is - Martin Luther, who was, rumor has it, a mere man. Those who believe in biblical inerrancy have merely substituted the infallibility of the Pope for the infallibility of Scripture. Both Scripture and God's church are inspired and to cling to one or the other alone is a form of idolatry.

Wow, that's a really good post!

From wikipedia~
According to the apocryphal Gospel of James she was the daughter of Joachim and Anna. Before Mary's conception, Anna had been barren, and her parents were quite old when she was conceived. They gave her to service as a consecrated virgin in the Temple in Jerusalem when she was three years old, much like Hannah took Samuel to the Tabernacle as recorded in the Old Testament (Tanakh, Hebrew Bible).

I am researching the rest (as to consecrated virgins of that time marrying). I have heard this taught several times and am tracking down the sources. As anyone here is free to do if they want to take the time.

I became Catholic because Jesus sovreignly gave me faith in His Real Presence in the Eucharist. I had been a protestant Christian for over 20 years at the time. It wasn't something I'd been seeking or ever thought I would believe! But I know it's true like I know my own name. Since that time I have been studying the doctrines of the faith, cause I want to know what else the Catholic church was right about! It continues to be a wonderful journey. I am still learning so much.

 

[Amylisa]

Is a wife impure because she shares loving, marital intimacies with her husband? Why do you feel that such defile the wife and makes her impure? And how does that substantiate the DOGMA of Mary as a PERPETUAL VIRGIN?





.

I didn't see this before and just wanted to respond...

A wife is certainly not impure if she shares marital intimacy with her husband! Of course not! I didn't imply that. You're taking a basic statement I made and running with it.