There's something about Mary.......

[Blues4now]

There are many different beliefs and understandings about Mary, the woman God chose to give birth to His Son. If we rely solely upon what the Bible has to say about her, we find some very different truths about her than most traditional teachings present. What Jesus said about her, and what the Gospel writers said about her, proves that many of us place her "on a pedestal" that God never intended for her to be placed on. I will point out passages in the Gospels where she is mentioned, and let's see what is actually being said about her.

First, as most of us know, Mary had children other than Jesus. He was her first born, and she was a virgin when He was conceived and until he was born. But she and Joseph had several children after Jesus was born.

Matthew 13
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and ]udas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us?

Nothing is said in the Gospels about Jesus or His family from the circumstances of His birth until He was 12 years old, when Jewish males are considered to have "come of age." In the 2nd chapter of Luke, there is the story of Mary and Joseph losing track of Jesus, searching frantically for Him, and finding Him in the temple conversing with the Jewish scholars. Upon finding Him there, Mary scolds Him and lets him know how displeased she was about what he did (Luke 2:48.) And His reply to her was not the reply of a sorrowful and repentant child:

Luke 2
49 And he said unto them,: How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

And in the next verse, it says that Mary and Joseph had no idea what He was talking about. Jesus, a 12 year old whom they raised, asked them why they were bothering looking for Him. Didn't they know that He was supposed to be "about his Father's business?" They didn't understand why He didn't empathize with their dilemma, and they may have also not understood who Jesus was referring to when He spoke of his "Father." It is at this point in his life that Jesus seems to be establishing a definite distinction between Himself and His human parents. And he is letting them know that their authority over Him has ended. We don't know if He ever referred to Joseph as "father." But we do know from the age of 12 on, He knew who His real Father was. As for Mary, we also do not know if He ever referred to her as "mother." It is a fact, however, that He is never quoted in the Gospels as referring to Mary as "mother." Look at how He addresses her in the following verses:

John 2
3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Not only does He call her by the generic term "Woman," but again, He asks her why she is bothering Him and why she assumes that He is obligated to her. Then later, while He is on the cross and sees her and one of His disciples standing there, says:

John 19
26 Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Not only does He call her "Woman" here again, but he tells His disciple that Mary is his mother and he is her son. We know that this is not physically the case, so either he meant it figuratively, or literally in a spiritual sense. The following verses show that He meant it in a spiritual sense:

Matthew 12
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

There is no mistaking what Jesus is saying here. He is saying that His family consists of only those who believe in Him and follow Him. In other words, the fact that Mary gave birth to Him does not entitle her to any special treatment. The same with His physical siblings. His spiritual family is the only family that matters to Him. It takes precedence over His physical mother and brothers and sisters. As a matter of fact, the following verses state this fact quite clearly:

Luke 14
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 19
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

The writers of the Gospels often refer to Mary as Jesus' mother, but there are instances where they refer to her as the mother of certain of His physical siblings:

Mark 15
40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salo'me;

Mark 16
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

It can only be speculated as to why Mary is sometimes referred to as the mother of Jesus' siblings instead of Him. But it is no speculation to say that Jesus made every effort to let His family and everyone else know that God is His true Father and that only those who believe in Him and follow Him are His true family. And the same goes for all Christians. The spiritual family is the true family of born again believers. And Christians who allows their physical family to come between or before their spiritual family are not following the will of God.

As for Mary, she can certainly be said to be blessed. Why God chose her to give birth to Jesus we have no clue. She was a sinner in need of salvation just like everyone else. She knew this was true, for this is what she told Elizabeth after she told her that she (Elizabeth) was going to give birth to another special person. Speaking of her own situation, she said:

Luke 1
46 My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.

Mary knew that she was giving birth to her Savior. She may not have understood the difference between the physical and spiritual family and all that, but she did know that Jesus is the Messiah and Savior, and that she needed His salvation as did everyone else. Contrary to traditional understandings, Mary is no more or no less important or special to God than any one of us are. If Mary would not have accepted Jesus as her Savior, she would not have made it to Heaven. And in Heaven, I don't believe that she will have any special treatment or special place. God didn't choose her because she was better than any other woman. He chose her because the circumstances of her life, which He foreknew, would be the necessary circumstances for His Son to be born into and raised in. That's it. And we are not to view her or the disciples or Paul or Moses or Noah or anyone else as being anymore special or divine than any of us are who do the will of God. Mary was not voluntarily doing the will of God by becoming pregnant and giving birth to Jesus. She had no choice. On the other hand, she did do the will of God by recognizing Who Jesus is and understanding him to be her Savior.

One other thing worth mentioning.......Mary is not a virgin!!! She was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus. But she had other children afterwards, and therefore cannot be said to still be a virgin. There are some who view her as a perpetual virgin, and for this and other reasons see her as having special status in Heaven. But this is a figment of their imagination.

 

[Musa80]

OP, please do us all a favor before this thread takes off and ends up with 600 repeat posts, and go read the literally hundreds of threads on this very subject. Every one of your assertions has been debunked numerous times already.

 

[Jpark]

Yes, I agree. Perpetual virginity is incorrect.

Nearly every theologian disagrees with something concerning salvation, yet they all seem to agree with something concerning Mary.

Augustine, John Calvin, John Wesley, Martin Luther, Jacobus Arminius...

 

[Blues4now]

Debunked?? Not possible. The truth cannot be debunked. Attempts can be made, and in this case, it is your opinion that the attempt(s) were successful.

 

[clint25n]

Debunked?? Not possible. The truth cannot be debunked. Attempts can be made, and in this case, it is your opinion that the attempt(s) were successful.

Yea, like he said, next time you go to start a thread, make sure to read the previous 3,437,641 to find out if the topic has already been discussed. lol, j/k

 

[Sojourner1]

Mod Hat On​

​

​

Thread has been moved from Christian Apologetics to the Mariology & Hagiography forum.


Mod Hat Off​

 

[GailMc]

Dear Bluesfornow, I just read some of your thoughts about Mary and here is where it takes you: "He knew who His real Father was. As for Mary, we also do not know if He ever referred to her as "mother." It is a fact, however, that He is never quoted in the Gospels as referring to Mary as "mother." Look at how He addresses her in the following verses:" DENYING THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. Was God not born of a woman? And her name was Mary. But for you, trying to remove her perpetual virginity with your words deny Jesus as God. I feel pity for you for you are still a sheep without a sheperd. I'll pray for you and hope you get better.

Of course you probably need to keep denying the Truth to remain a protestant. That is your choice. It isn't a good one though.

Peace and all good,

Gail

 

[Dorothea]

Will post this here as I did in the other Mary thread:

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

WHAT SOME PROTESTANTS THINK ON THIS…

I will first turn to the "Fathers of the Reformation" to speak for Orthodoxy in defending the teaching that Mary was "Ever Virgin". First I will let Ulrich Zwingli (leader of the Swiss Reformation, divided from Lutheran Reformers because he denied Christ's real presence in any form in the Eucharist) speak to this:

"She (Mary) had to be a virgin and perpetually a virgin..." (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 422, by H. Heppe).

And in a prayer he calls her:

"the pure and ever virgin..." (Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 184, by Jasper & Cuming).

Regarding the verse that "Joseph kept Mary a virgin until" [Matthew 1:25], John Calvin maintains in his commentary:

"Those words of Scripture do not mean that after His birth they cohabitated as man and wife..." (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).

And on the subject of Jesus' brethren he said:

"In the Hebrew manner relatives of any sort are called 'brethren'...It is therefore very ignorant to imagine that Mary had many sons because there are several mentions of Christ's brethren" (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).

This has always been the undisputed theology regarding Mary. From the Apostles on down nobody disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary for nearly 1600 years. This teaching is even considered to be prefigured in the Old Testament as reflected in the hymnology of the Orthodox Church:

"The shadow of the law passed when grace came, as the bush burnt, yet was not consumed, so the virgin gave birth yet remained a virgin, the Sun of Righteousness has risen instead of a pillar of flame, instead of Moses, there is Christ, the Saviour of our Souls" (Theotokion, tone 1).

THE ORTHODOX VIEWPOINT: BIBLICAL ANALYSIS


The word "brother" has a broader meaning in the Bible. It is not only used to mean the actual brother, but also the cousin or even the nephew.

For instance, Lot is called "Abraham's brother" whereas in reality he is his nephew (Gen. 14:14). Jacob is called a brother of Lavan whereas in reality Lavan is his uncle i.e. Jacob is his nephew (Gen 27:43. 29:15).

Kis's sons are called brothers, whereas in reality they are cousins of Eleazar's daughters (1 Paralip. /1 Chron. 23:21-22). 2 /4 Kings 10:13-14 talks about 42 brothers of Ochozius. Clearly, it must talk about people related to him but in a more general sense of the word.

The reason for this "brother" word problem is that neither the Jewish nor the Aramaic tongues have a special word in order to express the notion of a "cousin". When they wanted to mention the actual cousin as such they would do so periphrastically i.e. "son of the [father's] uncle" or "son of the brother of the mother". For this reason the actual cousin is expressed by the word "brother" when mentioned at one word. Thus, from the other verses will we only be able to (hopefully) understand if it really means “brother” or some other form of relation.

OK, so how can we be sure though that when the NT talks about "brothers of Jesus", it uses the word "brother" with a broad meaning and not the narrow one?

There are many reasons which force us to adopt the general meaning. Here are a few typical ones:

1. - The angel, when he evangelised the Theotokos (the Mother of God), said: "Here, you will conceive in your womb and bear" (συλλήψει εν γαστρί και τέξ&#951. He speaks to her about conceiving and giving birth (τέξη - to give birth). Both are in the future structure. In the future also belonged her marriage with Joseph. She replied: "how come this, for I know no man?" (Luke 1:34). If the Virgin Theotokos was planning to come in matrimonial relations with Joseph, to have children, how come she places this question "Man I know not"? Isn't it more reasonable to accept that she had decided to stay a virgin after her betrothal by living under the protection of a male and not aim to become truly married, since had she intended to get married to Joseph in the first place she would not have said "man I know not"?

Of course, the Protestant will hasten to add here that he or she will not accept the word "ιδού" (= here) in "Here, you will conceive ..." as referring to the future but to the immediate present. For example, the Holy Writ says "ιδού άγγελος Κυρίου εφάνη" (Mt. 2:13), "ιδού μάγοι από Ανατολών παραγίνονται" (2:1) etc.

The word "ιδού" in the Holy Writ does not have the meaning of taking place in the immediate present but it refers to something that will take place unexpectedly. We bring a few examples: "Ιδού η Παρθένος έξει εν γαστρί" (Is. 7:14), "Ιδού ούτος κείται εις πτώσιν και ανάστασιν" (Lk. 2:34), "Ιδού έρχομαι ως κλέπτης" (Revel. 16:14). All of the above verses refer to future and unexpected events.

2. - When Jesus was 12 years old, it is evident that the holy family consisted of three persons only: His mother, Joseph, and Himself. Nowhere are any other brothers of His present (Lk. 2:41) until that age and public appearance of the Lord. Therefore, if other brothers of Jesus were born they must have been born after Jesus' 12th year of age.

But after His 12th birthday, nowhere is Joseph seen any more. Thus Joseph had probably died; the Theotokos seems to be on her own.

But even if we suppose that the so-called "brothers" had been born after the 12th birthday of Jesus, we will have to face the following logical difficulties: These brothers of Jesus were (at least) four (Matt. 12:46. Mark 6:3). The eldest one of these would be younger than Jesus by at least 12 years, whereas the youngest one would have to be younger than Jesus by at least 20 years for the following reason: If we presume that every 2 years one of these brothers would be born, since we have 4 brothers, these would have been born within a period of 8 years. Thus we have 12 + 8 = 20. Therefore when Jesus was 30 years old, the other "brothers" would be: the youngest 30 - 20 = 10 and the eldest would be 30 - 12 = 18. The behaviour, however, of these who behave in everything to Jesus like his guardians (c.f. John 7:3 and Mark 3:21) contradicts the fact that they would be younger than Jesus, who was the firstborn. Why?

Because the Holy Bible says that the eldest brothers, especially the firstborn, preside over the younger ones.

In other words, according to the verses from Genesis 27:29-40 "become master of your brother" and "supervise your brother" that Isaac said to Jacob when receiving Esau's birthrights (πρωτοτόκι&#945, similarly Jesus must command his brothers and not be commanded by them, according to the customs. On the other hand, if we assume that the brothers were older than Jesus, this contradicts the fact that He is called the "firstborn" child (Matt. 1:25. Luke 2:7) [which means the first child that opens his mother's womb, not necessarily having other children following; this is plain Greek for the word "πρωτότοκος"; for more see below at (*)].

Therefore the brothers of Jesus were neither younger nor older than Him, impossible; therefore not real brothers. They were probably older in age and certainly relatives of His in the broader sense of the word (either children of Joseph's with another woman, or cousins of Jesus).

3. - In the gospels these brothers are mentioned as brothers of Jesus but not as sons of the Theotokos, as is said specifically regarding Jesus (Mark 6:3). Other than that, the gospels correctly call the Theotokos as woman of Joseph's before Christ is born: "do not be afraid to receive Mariam, your woman" (Matt. 1:20), but not after Jesus' birth. The angel in other words tells Joseph: "rise and take the child and his mother" (Matt. 2:13-21). He doesn't say "rise and take your child and your wife". In other words, if after Jesus' birth the Theotokos had truly taken Joseph as her husband (in other words, had had matrimonial relations with him after a wedding that might have taken place according to the Protestant interpretation, but which is not in fact mentioned in the Bible as ever having taken place, as we only have the information that they betrothed) the angel would have said to him: "take your child and your wife". (Further down we will examine more closely the circumstances surrounding the event with the angel, and see exactly why he calls Mariam as Joseph's "woman" in verse 20).

4. - Why would the Lord, during His Crucifixion, give His mother to be looked after by John (John 19:26-27), since she had other children as well (we 're talking at least four male children)? Clearly Christ would not suggest something like that, contrary to the time's laws! The custom of the time was that if the eldest son died, the other children (male) would look after their mother; and it would never be allowed for the mother to be taken care of by another person altogether without the society commenting harshly on such an event!

5. - The Holy Bible does not only speak about brothers of Jesus, but also about sisters of His, for it says: "all His sisters" (Matt. 12:46. Mark 6:3). Therefore we have a family with (at least) 9 members: 6 brothers and sisters of Jesus', 7th member being Jesus Himself, and His two parents. How come, therefore, the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos came about and was accepted so easily from the times of the Apostolic Fathers - bar a few exceptions, the most important one of which we will discuss below, and which not only does not disprove this point but re-iterates its validity - and all the way not only to the 4th century AD but to 1600 A.D? One would have expected much more of a commotion! Think about it! A 9-member family and the Virgin being called Ever-Virgin? That would not be an easy issue to settle or believe! We should have expected to see a big wave of protests, even riots! But if people knew she only had Jesus as a child, the issue would be much simpler to settle; as it clearly was. And this contradicts and disproves the fact that Mary had other children apart from Jesus.

6. - The Holy Bible considers virgin life superior to married life, because "the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband" (2 Corinth. 7:34), and "both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better "(v. 38), and Apostle Paul also suggests celibate life: "But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I" (7:8), in particular celibate. (It is also interesting to note that, through History, those who opposed the Ever-Virginity were people who did not like celibacy, because it gnawed on their conscience.)

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Why is it important for you to insist that the relatives of Jesus are children of Mary and Joseph? You say, "As most of us know..." yet most people don't "know" that. Indeed, the majority of the world's Christians do not believe that, which includes not only the Christians living today but essentially all of the Church Fathers and theologians and faithful for the past 2,000 years. All of the major Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Cranmer, etc.) not only do not deny that Mary remained a Virgin but actively defend her virginity.

So, why is it important to you to overthrow two millennia of understanding in order to read the word adelphoi as "other children of Mary and Joseph"? In the early Church, one of the major sects which held that belief were the Ebionites. They were essentially Messianic Jews, Judaizing Christians, who followed the Mosaic Law and considered St. Paul a heretic. They believed that Jesus was the biological son of Mary and Joseph and denied His divinity, though they accepted Him as the Messiah. Some Arians and Gnostics also held Jesus had biological siblings. St. Epiphanius labeled the sect which claimed Jesus had biological siblings as "antidicomarianites" (opponents of Mary), they appeared in the 3rd century and lasted through the 5th, it pops up periodically but has never lasted long after that. It's only been in the last hundred years or so that it's become a popular belief (at least among Protestant sects).

But the big question is WHY? Why is it important that we read the Bible the way that you read it, rather than the way it's been read for 2,000 years? Why is it important that you ascribe other children to Mary?

 

[bbbbbbb]

One question that has crossed my own benighted brain is why do some Christians get so extremely worked up at the very hint that Mary and Joseph might have had marital intimacy? For most Protestants, this issue is, in the words of CaliforniaJosiah, a matter of pious opinion. Nobody's salvation rests upon it any more than one person's opinion that any one of the various skulls of John the Baptist was actually his. We Protestants do not attach the taint of sin to marital intimacy nor do we exalt on a higher spiritual plane those of us, like myself, who happen to be virgins. One's sexuality becomes sinful only when exercised outside the boundaries of God's law as in adultery and fornication. I doubt that anyone here would ever think that a legitimate marriage such as that between Joseph and Mary could have been described as adulterous or immoral in any biblical sense of those words.

It seems to me that Catholic and Orthodox intrinsically perceive any and all forms of sexual intercourse as inherently sinful so that the one who abstains from them, even within the bounds of a legitimate marital relationship is somehow more spiritual and more deserving of sainthood. Thus it is that a disproportionate number of recognized saints in the Catholic Church were unmarried and, thus, virgins.

I, for one, am grateful that my ancestor, who was married and begot children, became a saint during the medieval period prior to the obsession with virginity. Otherwise, I might not be here to write this. Now, think about that a while.

 

[Musa80]

One question that has crossed my own benighted brain is why do some Christians get so extremely worked up at the very hint that Mary and Joseph might have had marital intimacy? For most Protestants, this issue is, in the words of CaliforniaJosiah, a matter of pious opinion. Nobody's salvation rests upon it any more than one person's opinion that any one of the various skulls of John the Baptist was actually his. We Protestants do not attach the taint of sin to marital intimacy nor do we exalt on a higher spiritual plane those of us, like myself, who happen to be virgins. One's sexuality becomes sinful only when exercised outside the boundaries of God's law as in adultery and fornication. I doubt that anyone here would ever think that a legitimate marriage such as that between Joseph and Mary could have been described as adulterous or immoral in any biblical sense of those words.

It seems to me that Catholic and Orthodox intrinsically perceive any and all forms of sexual intercourse as inherently sinful so that the one who abstains from them, even within the bounds of a legitimate marital relationship is somehow more spiritual and more deserving of sainthood. Thus it is that a disproportionate number of recognized saints in the Catholic Church were unmarried and, thus, virgins.

I, for one, am grateful that my ancestor, who was married and begot children, became a saint during the medieval period prior to the obsession with virginity. Otherwise, I might not be here to write this. Now, think about that a while.

Catholics, Orthodox, and well any and all Christians, have zero issue with marital intimacy. The problem as you pointed out yourself is when it is done outside marriage. Joseph and Mary were betrothed, not married. There is a world of difference between the two. Not even getting into the fact that Mary is the new Eve as well as the new ark of the covenant, and Joseph would have been a complete fool to even think of having sexual intercourse with her, on it's face the accusation of their being intimate is equal to accusing the Mother of God of fornication. Now seriously, can you not understand from that perspective why people get all up in arms when this nonsense gets trotted out?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

As for Mary, she can certainly be said to be blessed.

As St. Gabriel, St. Elizabeth, and the Blessed Virgin herself attest. Why do I rarely hear Protestants call her "blessed" then? Why do I hear almost nothing but disdain for her and complaints about any respect given to her? God Himself through the mouth of St. Elizabeth, calls her "blessed among women". Then why don't you?

Why God chose her to give birth to Jesus we have no clue.

Jesus could not have been born from anyone else, He was born "in the fullness of time" to a woman predestined for the role with the correct lineage and the correct preparation of holiness.

She was a sinner in need of salvation just like everyone else. She knew this was true, for this is what she told Elizabeth after she told her that she (Elizabeth) was going to give birth to another special person. Speaking of her own situation, she said: Luke 1
46 My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.

Mary knew that she was giving birth to her Savior.

This is a non sequitur. That Jesus is the Savior of Mary does not mean that she is a sinner. He saved her by preventing her from contracting the stain of Original Sin and helped her to lead a holy, pure life, free from sin, so she might be the only creature worthy to bear the Lord (at least among creatures, it is still an infinite condescension for the Creator to lower Himself and subject Himself to the creation). So Jesus can and is the Savior of Mary but that does not conflict with the traditional belief in the sinlessness of Mary. If it did, you would have thought we'd have noticed that at some point in the past 2,000 years. It doesn't.

Contrary to traditional understandings, Mary is no more or no less important or special to God than any one of us are.

So God does not love some people more than others? That is certainly a fallacy. How then could God say that Jacob He loved and Esau He hated? If everybody is equal in the eyes of God, even before they act, explain predestination. If everybody is equal in the eyes of God, even after they act, explain judgment. If everybody is rewarded or punished equally, how can it be said that God rewards people according to the good works that they do or punishes them according to their sins? Your theory of absolute equality may sound nice, but it is completely contrary to the Bible.

If Mary would not have accepted Jesus as her Savior, she would not have made it to Heaven.

True. And if Mary hadn't had faith in God, giving her fiat to Him through St. Gabriel, to give birth to Jesus, none of us would make it to Heaven.

And in Heaven, I don't believe that she will have any special treatment or special place.

That is your opinion. It is not the opinion of St. Gabriel, St. Elizabeth or God the Holy Spirit, nor of St. John.

God didn't choose her because she was better than any other woman. He chose her because the circumstances of her life, which He foreknew, would be the necessary circumstances for His Son to be born into and raised in. That's it.

That's your personal opinion. It has nothing to do with the Biblical or Patristic accounts. She was established, planned before the Creation of the world to be the Mother of God. It was far from random.

And we are not to view her or the disciples or Paul or Moses or Noah or anyone else as being anymore special or divine than any of us are who do the will of God.

I have no idea what you mean by "divine" in this sentence. In this context, "divine" specifically refers to the divine nature -- Godhood (rather than something sacred to God like "Divine Office" or "Divine Liturgy"). So, replace it with the word "God" and re-read it: "And we are not to view her or the disciples or Paul or Moses or Noah or anyone else as being anymore special or God than any of us who do the will of God."

So you aren't sure that people can tell the difference between Moses and God? Moses was the guy with the long beard and the staff, now God the Father also is sometimes portrayed as as a guy with a long beard and a staff, true, but Moses is Charleton Heston and God is Morgan Freeman (or, Alanis Morisette). They're quite different....

But, again, your theory of "absolutely equality before God" is thoroughly anti-Biblical.

Mary was not voluntarily doing the will of God by becoming pregnant and giving birth to Jesus. She had no choice.

So you're saying that God raped Mary?!? I hope you have some justification for saying this.

On the other hand, she did do the will of God by recognizing Who Jesus is and understanding him to be her Savior.

True. St. Augustine notes well that Mary was more blessed for bearing Christ in her heart than in her womb -- her submission to God was the actions borne out by her immaculate faith in God.

One other thing worth mentioning.......Mary is not a virgin!!! She was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus. But she had other children afterwards, and therefore cannot be said to still be a virgin. There are some who view her as a perpetual virgin, and for this and other reasons see her as having special status in Heaven. But this is a figment of their imagination.

That's your assertion. You have neither the evidence to back it up or any way to prove it. We can just tell you what we have believed for 2,000 years or you can make up your own religion as you go along.

Either way... Contrary to your opinion, St. John says that those who remain virgins for God and are pure have a special place in Heaven:

And I beheld, and lo a lamb stood upon mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty-four thousand, having his name, and the name of his Father, written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the noise of many waters, and as the voice of great thunder; and the voice which I heard, was as the voice of harpers, harping on their harps. And they sung as it were a new canticle, before the throne, and before the four living creatures, and the ancients; and no man could say the canticle, but those hundred forty-four thousand, who were purchased from the earth. These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb: And in their mouth there was found no lie; for they are without spot before the throne of God.

That sounds like a rather exalted place, don't you think? They are the firstfruits of salvation, the cream of the crop. It says, "were not defiled with women: for they are virgins" but undoubtedly, these 144,000 include women who have not been defiled with men either. So these are the holy monks, nuns, brothers, sisters, hermits, anchorites, consecrated virgins, deacons, priests, bishops, and all those who have kept themselves pure with vows before God (including private vows). These are those who are holy, pure, and virginal. So, your personal opinion that Mary does not have a special place in Heaven for being virgin because virgins do not have a special place in Heaven is false -- virgins do have a special place in Heaven.

Secondly, Mary is the holiest person ever to live, which is shown necessarily by the simple fact that she was the one chosen to bear the Christ. If there had been any woman more holy, He would have chosen her. St. Gabriel calls her "Full of Grace", not even as a descriptive, but as a name -- "Hail, Full of Grace..." and Mary wonders at this greeting. Mary is more full of Grace throughout her entire life than anyone else in the world, ever -- perfectly filled with God, perfectly hidden in God.

Since your assertion that God loves everyone the same and rewards everyone the same regardless of their works (contrary to what Jesus says) is clearly anti-Biblical, and that at least virgins are accorded a particular status in Heaven, it necessarily goes to show that the Virgin of Virgins -- the only woman to ever be both a virgin and a mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary -- is accorded a particular status in Heaven.

Indeed, she is the Queen of Heaven.

And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars

 

[clint25n]

And if Mary hadn't had faith in God, giving her fiat to Him through St. Gabriel, to give birth to Jesus, none of us would make it to Heaven.

It was not Mary's choice but God's.

Indeed, she is the Queen of Heaven.

No. Mary needed Jesus to die for her sins just as we did. She was blessed more than other women, but she would not want you to praise her or worship her.

Only God is worthy of praise. To Him alone be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

One question that has crossed my own benighted brain is why do some Christians get so extremely worked up at the very hint that Mary and Joseph might have had marital intimacy?

For the same reason why I might get worked up at someone who called my biological mother a harlot. I don't take kindly to people lobbing ignorant slander at my Heavenly Mother either.

There are two questions here: Were Mary and Joseph even married? (Catholics say yes and call it a celibate "Josephite marriage", Orthodox note that at no point was it mentioned that they ever got married after they were betrothed and refer to Joseph as "the Betrothed"). The second is: Whether they had children after Jesus? (The theoretical opinion that they had relations without bearing children is not really found, that I know of).

In a nod to my Anglican past, I will quote here from Thomas Cranmer's Remains:

Moreover all the said authors [Cyprian, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, and Austen (Augustine)] prove perpetual virginity by this text of Scripture: "This door shall be still shut and not opened for any to go through it but only for the Lord God of Israel yea he shall go through it else shall it be shut still" (Ezek 44:2) For if these, and such other Fathers, had not judged her perpetual virginity to have been written in the Scriptures, they would never have judged it to have been a thing to be believed under pain of damnation. Saint Jerome also calleth Helvidium a rash and an ungodly man because that he taught that our Lady had other children by Joseph after Christ's birth; which doctrine he could not prove by the Scriptures of God. In like manner we call all them preach any doctrine in the Church without the authority of God's word, both ungodly, rash and wicked members of Antichrist.

So Cranmer says that the Fathers believed that the words of the prophet Ezekiel applied to the Blessed Virgin "under pain of damnation." Cranmer calls those who teach that "our Lady had other children by Joseph ungodly, rash and wicked members of Antichrist." Now, that's pretty harsh. At least I haven't called anybody Antichrist yet...

Martin Luther also remarks regarding Helvidius:

Helvidius, that fool, was also willing to credit Mary with more sons after Christ’s birth because of the words of the Evangelist: “And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son” (Matt. 1:25). This had to be understood, as he thought, as though she had more sons after the first-born Son. How stupid he was!

John Calvin:

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned

So it is not just an issue for Catholics and Orthodox. It's an untenable position and something which is used to sully the name of the Holy Virgin.

For most Protestants, this issue is, in the words of CaliforniaJosiah, a matter of pious opinion. Nobody's salvation rests upon it any more than one person's opinion that any one of the various skulls of John the Baptist was actually his.

Well, actually it is dogmatic for Catholics, which means that it is considered a necessary part of the faith and denial of it would be heresy ("Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" -- CIC 751)

The matter is of a much higher importance than the integrity of relics because it is Mariological, which means that it is Christological. It was those who wanted to assault the divinity of Christ who denied the virginity of His Mother. Though the modern-day neo-antidicomarianites do not deny the divinity of Christ, why it has become a popular teaching is unknown to me. Which is why I asked why it is important for those who deny the virginity of Mary to proclaim such matters unreservedly, regardless of 2,000 years of Church history and their own Protestant past.

We Protestants do not attach the taint of sin to marital intimacy

Neither do Catholics. Intimacy within Holy Matrimony is not only not sinful, it is a sacramental, just like blessed candles and holy water -- it confers Grace.

nor do we exalt on a higher spiritual plane those of us, like myself, who happen to be virgins.

It can be your "opinion" as long as you recognize that you are going against what Jesus, St. Paul and St. John say about (intentional) virginity.

One's sexuality becomes sinful only when exercised outside the boundaries of God's law as in adultery and fornication. I doubt that anyone here would ever think that a legitimate marriage such as that between Joseph and Mary could have been described as adulterous or immoral in any biblical sense of those words.

No one has said it would be sinful for Mary and Joseph to have relations (apart from the idea that her virginity was related to a vow, of course, which then would be sinfully breaking that vow -- the presence or absence of a specific vow is adjunct to the dogma), assuming they were even married.

It seems to me that Catholic and Orthodox intrinsically perceive any and all forms of sexual intercourse as inherently sinful so that the one who abstains from them, even within the bounds of a legitimate marital relationship is somehow more spiritual and more deserving of sainthood. Thus it is that a disproportionate number of recognized saints in the Catholic Church were unmarried and, thus, virgins.

There is a difference between something that is a sin and something that it is better not to do. Reasonable and balanced eating of food is not the sin of gluttony; yet it is better to fast. Sex, when in the context of marriage and not perverted or to excess, is not the sin of lust; yet it is better to be celibate.

For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

Christ is, of course, not referring to literal eunuchs (castrated men), but rather to those who choose to remain celibate. Let us compare Christ's words to those of the prophet Isaiah:

And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree. For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs, They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant: I will give to them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish.

For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one has his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

Marriage is certainly better than the sin of fornication but celibacy is higher still.

Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity: that it is good for a man so to be. Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But if you take a wife, you have not sinned. And if a virgin marries, she has not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you.
...
But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinks on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinks on the things of the world: how she may please her husband.

And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. But if any man think that he seems dishonoured with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will. He sins not if she marry. For he that has determined, being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will: and has judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, does well. Therefore both he that gives his virgin in marriage does well: and he that gives her not does better.

A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband lives: but if her husband die, she is at liberty. Let her marry to whom she will: only in the Lord. But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel. And I think that I also have the spirit of God.

So marriage is not a sin, as some Gnostics falsely asserted. But celibacy is a higher state than marriage. Marriage is a sacrament and intimacy a sacramental, yet celibacy imparts more Grace than marriage because it is deeper intimacy with God.

Jovinianus (d. 405) abandoned the monastic life and started preaching against asceticism, teaching a multitude of heresies. We know him through St. Jerome's refutation:

He taught:
* That a virgin is no better as such than a wife in the sight of God.
* Abstinence is no better than a thankful partaking of food.
* A person baptized with the Spirit as well as with water cannot sin.
* All sins are equal.
* There is but one grade of punishment and one of reward in the future state.

I have heard all but the third on this forum and I could probably find examples of the third if I looked, it is a form of Christian perfectionism, similar to Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification.

Read Jerome's refutation. As for me, I have to be up to go to Mass in about 4 hours >.<

Happy Sunday!

 

[MamaZ]

Heavenly Mother of who?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

And if Mary hadn't had faith in God, giving her fiat to Him through St. Gabriel, to give birth to Jesus, none of us would make it to Heaven.

It was not Mary's choice but God's.

Mary didn't choose or merit for the Incarnation to happen -- that was established long before the Fall, even before the world was created. But Mary did choose to accept God's proposal.

Your rape theory is contrary to Scripture and to sanity.

Indeed, she is the Queen of Heaven.

No. Mary needed Jesus to die for her sins just as we did.

Is this related to quote of mine? I find it curious that you believe that Mary had to sin before Jesus could save her. So if God wants to save someone, they have to commit some sin first? God then demands that people sin? You blaspheme.

She was blessed more than other women, but she would not want you to praise her or worship her.

Only God is worthy of praise. To Him alone be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Only God is worthy of divine worship (latria), plenty of people are worthy of our respect and praise (dulia). The Blessed Virgin Mary, as the highest of all of God's creation, is worthy of exceptional praise above everyone else (hyperdulia).

I'm not sure that you have room to speak for the Virgin, how do you know what she wants and does not want? Was it wrong for God to praise her through the mouth of St. Elizabeth? So then not only does God demand that we sin, as you stated above, but God Himself sins.

You amaze me.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Heavenly Mother of who?

My Mother.

Mother of God
Mother of the Church
Mother of the Elect
Mother of All the Living (as the Second Eve, Mother of those truly alive in Christ)
Mother of Mercy

 

[Anglian]

Another one?

Here we go again then.

The same Church which recognised the canon of scripture received from the Apostles also venerated St. Mary as the Theotokos.

Now, either the Church Fathers who did both these things hadn't read the very NT which they so zealously guarded, or they saw no contradiction between that book and Marian veneration.

There remains the remote possibility that everyone before the Reformation in the West got it wrong, but in that case the Holy Spirit must have deserted the Church, which would make a liar of Christ, which is not possible.

But go ahead, let us take another journey, the road is well-travelled and most of us know the arguments on both sides.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

I do not look at Mary as my mother. I look at Mary as my sister in the Lord. For we are born of Gods Spirit and not Marys.

 

[Anglian]

I do not look at Mary as my mother. I look at Mary as my sister in the Lord. For we are born of Gods Spirit and not Marys.

All of which is very nice and has what to do with the OP?

peace,

Anglian