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

[MamaZ]

Jesus enters each and everyone of His believers through His Spirit. Does this mean then that we are not to marry any more but just live together and pretend we are married?

 

[Musa80]

Jesus enters each and everyone of His believers through His Spirit. Does this mean then that we are not to marry any more but just live together and pretend we are married?

The Holy Spirit has entered believers, and Jesus by way of the Sacraments, but no not all of His Believers have given birth to God Incarnate.

 

[MamaZ]

The Holy Spirit has entered believers, and Jesus by way of the Sacraments, but no not all of His Believers have given birth to God Incarnate.

So which is of more importance.. That He was born in the flesh or that He died and Rose again on the third day and now indwells His people through His Spirit..I understand that He became flesh and dwelt among us.. This is important.. But His death is where victory lies and His ressurection is where we have our Hope in Him..Our hope is not in the fact that it was Mary who gave birth To Jesus..

 

[Musa80]

So which is of more importance.. That He was born in the flesh or that He died and Rose again on the third day and now indwells His people through His Spirit..I understand that He became flesh and dwelt among us.. This is important.. But His death is where victory lies and His ressurection is where we have our Hope in Him..Our hope is not in the fact that it was Mary who gave birth To Jesus..

I'm not playing the tap dance around the faith game. We're speaking of a specific subject, and you asked what the Scriptures presented had to do with that subject. It does no good to now say "Well yeah, but Jesus' resurrection is more important, so it's ok to ignore the subject at hand"

 

[bbbbbbb]

Dear b7,

In the UK, historically dissenters are those belonging to a Church which is neither Anglican nor RCC nor Orthodox.

Those who do not give assent to the Nicene Creed are, of course, by that token, unorthodox, since it is the standard of orthodoxy.

I use it in no sense other than a descriptive one.

peace,

Anglian

Dear Anglian,

Thank you for the clarification. I think you will agree that I am orthodox because I assent to the Nicene creed, although I dissent concerning Marian dogma as expressed by the RCC and Orthodox Churches.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Where do you even get that this scripture was speaking anything about Mary though?

MamaZ, this is classic Catholic eisegesis (proof-texting) where they come up with a dogma which is believed by faithful Catholics without any question. However, when questioned by Protestants, they decided to find a quote from the Bible to support it. The very best they could do was rip this out of Ezekiel and pretend it is all about Mary. The reality for anyone who ever reads Ezekiel is the Ezekiel talks loads and loads about gates and the new Temple, so that anyone could cut and paste anything from Ezekiel and make it say anything they want. It is thus that many critics of Christianity accuse us of making the Bible say anything we want it to say. The Bible is not a mouthpiece for the Church, but the Church should be the mouthpiece of the Bible.

 

[MamaZ]

I'm not playing the tap dance around the faith game. We're speaking of a specific subject, and you asked what the Scriptures presented had to do with that subject. It does no good to now say "Well yeah, but Jesus' resurrection is more important, so it's ok to ignore the subject at hand"

Fair enough.. The scripture you have quoted is not speaking of Mary.. No where does it even allude to Mary

 

[MamaZ]

MamaZ, this is classic Catholic eisegesis (proof-texting) where they come up with a dogma which is believed by faithful Catholics without any question. However, when questioned by Protestants, they decided to find a quote from the Bible to support it. The very best they could do was rip this out of Ezekiel and pretend it is all about Mary. The reality for anyone who ever reads Ezekiel is the Ezekiel talks loads and loads about gates and the new Temple, so that anyone could cut and paste anything from Ezekiel and make it say anything they want. It is thus that many critics of Christianity accuse us of making the Bible say anything we want it to say. The Bible is not a mouthpiece for the Church, but the Church should be the mouthpiece of the Bible.

In fact the Church is to uphold the bible..

 

[Musa80]

And this is exactly what I was getting at on page one, though not in such clear words. As expected, I was completely ignored. People's attachment to their pet heresies seem to have that affect.

MamaZ, this is classic Catholic eisegesis (proof-texting) where they come up with a dogma which is believed by faithful Catholics without any question. However, when questioned by Protestants, they decided to find a quote from the Bible to support it. The very best they could do was rip this out of Ezekiel and pretend it is all about Mary. The reality for anyone who ever reads Ezekiel is the Ezekiel talks loads and loads about gates and the new Temple, so that anyone could cut and paste anything from Ezekiel and make it say anything they want. It is thus that many critics of Christianity accuse us of making the Bible say anything we want it to say. The Bible is not a mouthpiece for the Church, but the Church should be the mouthpiece of the Bible.

Fair enough.. The scripture you have quoted is not speaking of Mary.. No where does it even allude to Mary

You guys are gonna make me a prophet yet

 

[Anglian]

Dear Anglian,

Thank you for the clarification. I think you will agree that I am orthodox because I assent to the Nicene creed, although I dissent concerning Marian dogma as expressed by the RCC and Orthodox Churches.

Dear b7,

Indeed. Catholic orthodoxy would require the assent to the Marian dogmas, but no other form of orthodoxy.

Those who agree of the Nicene Creed agree on so much that it is such a shame that a few things divide us.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Livindesert]

O.k. I went to an Ash Wednesday service and ended up talking to the Priest and came out with a Daily Bread Devotional booklet and a Mary Queen of heaven picture card and a Icon Jesus picture card.

Talking to a Priest is much different than reading about Catholicism on CF forums.

 

[Anglian]

O.k. I went to an Ash Wednesday service and ended up talking to the Priest and came out with a Daily Bread Devotional booklet and a Mary Queen of heaven picture card and a Icon Jesus picture card.

Talking to a Priest is much different than reading about Catholicism on CF forums.

That's good to know. It is always a good idea to experience things for oneself in such matters.

For my part it is really very simple. Through Marian devotion I have found my devotion to her Son has deepened. For that I thank her.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

In fact the Church is to uphold the bible..

Indeed, and the same Church which established the Canon practiced Marian veneration. So you ought to get with the practice of the Church which upholds the Bible and forego these late, man made objections to that practice


peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

Indeed, and the same Church which established the Canon practiced Marian veneration. So you ought to get with the practice of the Church which upholds the Bible and forego these late, man made objections to that practice


peace,

Anglian

Don't see Paul writing about this.. Nor Peter. Nor John. Nor James.. I don't see any inkling to this devotion to Mary in the scriptures. In fact after the Gospels, and, once were we see Mary with the other believers there is no mention of her that I can see..

 

[bbbbbbb]

Dear b7,

Indeed. Catholic orthodoxy would require the assent to the Marian dogmas, but no other form of orthodoxy.

Those who agree of the Nicene Creed agree on so much that it is such a shame that a few things divide us.

peace,

Anglian

I agree. The Nicene Creed encapsulates such a vast ocean of doctrine in comparison with the RCC Marian dogmas.

 

[Anglian]

Don't see Paul writing about this.. Nor Peter. Nor John. Nor James.. I don't see any inkling to this devotion to Mary in the scriptures. In fact after the Gospels, and, once were we see Mary with the other believers there is no mention of her that I can see..

And I do not see Paul nor Peter nor John nor James saying that their own works are to be considered Scripture, or that it is by the written word alone that we are to proceed. This does not stop you from claiming it is so, even though you have no written justification for it.

But then nowhere in the Bible does it say that the written word is all we go by, even as it nowhere tells us the exact composition of the written word.

The Church founded by Christ, to which we owe Scripture, practiced Marian veneration. Now, either the Fathers saw no problem with this, or they had not read their own book; since we know they studied Scripture closely, we can see which answer is correct.

Now, we can either follow the example of the Fathers who were inspired enough to name the Canon, or we can follow a line unknown before the sixteenth century when some men invented it.

peace,

Anglian

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Where do you even get that this scripture was speaking anything about Mary though?

Because Mary is the Temple of God, the New Jerusalem, the City of God, the Ark of the New Covenant, etc. Here, specifically, she is the Temple of God and moreso as the Living Temple rather than brick and mortar like the ones which were destroyed and now has laid fallow for the past 1940 years.

But what is that "gate of the sanctuary," that "outward gate which looketh towards the East, which remains shut and no man," it is said, "shall enter in by it but the Lord the God of Israel." (Ezek 44:1-2) Is not Mary this gate by whom the Saviour entered into the world? This is the gate of righteousness as He Himself said, "Suffer us to fulfil all righteousness." (Mt 3:15) Blessed Mary is the gate whereof it is written that "the Lord hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut" after birth; for as a virgin she both conceived and brought forth.

On the contrary, It is written (Ezekiel 44:2): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it." Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this--'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'--except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this--'it shall be shut for evermore'--but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?

The Seraphic Doctor continues:

I answer that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards.

There is no mention of Mary having other children, there is no mention of them having marital relations. You simply assume that and add it into the Scripture, contrary to the identification via prophecy of the Blessed Virgin with the Holy Temple. I quoted earlier what Thomas Cranmer, the theological founder of Anglicanism (The Church of England), said about people who presume to add to Scripture and contradict it by suggesting that they had other children or at least marital relations -- he called them "members of Antichrist".

So, there is no reason to change the Bible or to make up stories outside of it about Mary and Joseph having a sex life or other children. It is simply a flight of fancy, we might as well invent a certain tale about Jesus traveling to England:

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among those dark Satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my spear: O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land

But if Jesus traveled to England as a boy is fanciful but not objectionable. Mary and Joseph having sexual relations or even other children is not only fanciful but also objectionable. Through the centuries, the overwhelming bulk of Christian thought and practice has included Mary as remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ. The first specific mention of Mary specifically not losing her carefully preserved virginity comes less than a century after Christ:

Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence, but have been revealed to us.

St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John. Certainly, if Jesus had other siblings not written about in Scripture, he might have mentioned this to St. Ignatius and he would not have called her a virgin.

Arguments claiming that Mary and Joseph had other children don't really show up until almost 300 years later with Helvidius. Tertullian (d. 220) attacks the Docetists who said that Jesus was just an illusion, that He didn't really become human but just appeared to be. He even goes so far as to say things like that Jesus was even rather ugly:

But it was precisely the non-marvellous character of his terrestrial flesh which made the rest of his activities things to marvel at, when they asked, "Whence hath this man this doctrine and these signs?" (Mt 13:54) These were the words of men who even despised his outward appearance, so far was his body from being of human comeliness, not to speak of celestial glory.

Helvidius uses Tertullian to justify his position, since he refers to Jesus' brothers as such and as "blood-relations". St. Jerome just replies that Tertullian is not trustworthy because he is not of the Church. Like Origen, we sometimes quote from Tertullian but they both embraced heresy later in their lives (which is why neither are canonized as saints). Origen came up with a whole system of the pre-existence of souls, reincarnation and universal reconciliation and a whole host of other heresies. Because he was so influential already, Origen constituted a crisis of the Church until all of his peculiar teachings were anathematized (though, uniquely, not Origen himself). Tertullian left the Church and joined the Montanists. So we quote from them, just as from apocryphal gospels and epistles, to show historical evidence or particular orthodox teachings which they relate, but they should always be taken with a grain (or heap) of salt. Thus Tertullian doesn't overturn the entire rest of the Church (and the Church always outweighs the opinion of any theologian, from Tertullian to St. Thomas Aquinas -- no one is infallible).

Mary remained a virgin her whole life, not only is it a historical fact in light of a lack of mention of children but it is also of theological importance. There is no reason to impugn Mary's virginity and many reasons not to.

 

[MamaZ]

[Because Mary is the Temple of God, the New Jerusalem, the City of God, the Ark of the New Covenant, etc. Here, specifically, she is the Temple of God and moreso as the Living Temple rather than brick and mortar like the ones which were destroyed and now has laid fallow for the past 1940 years.
/QUOTE]



This Statement here really confuses me..So only Mary to some is the temple of God? How can Mary be the New Jerusalem, the City of God? The City of God is not a person. The New Jerusalem will come down from Heaven and this is not Mary either.. Does she have streets of Gold? Someone has assumed Mary to be all these things. Scripture never calls Mary any of these things. In fact Mary is only mentioned in the Gospels and the first Part of Acts. Someone has deified Mary and set her up as some kind of Godess and then took scripture out of the its full context to try to make this exageration look more real..

 

[Toti]

The Virgin Mary has an important meaning for The humanity and SHE has a teaching for us, The teaching is that we have to indetify us in the will of God like she did it.
I think that is not a casuality tha God had choosen her like The Mother of Jesus, in an environment of humble hearts.
To pray to The Virgin Mary is the most special, The Virgin Mary and Jesus are going to take us to The Father.

 

[MamaZ]

The Virgin Mary has an important meaning for The humanity and SHE has a teaching for us, The teaching is that we have to indetify us in the will of God like she did it.
I think that is not a casuality tha God had choosen her like The Mother of Jesus, in an environment of humble hearts.
To pray to The Virgin Mary is the most special, The Virgin Mary and Jesus are going to take us to The Father.