Posted on 12/23/2010 11:08:38 AM PST by marshmallow
But the view of modern RC apologists is that Mary as the ark of the new covenant is, in part, proven by the proximity of Rev. 11 (“Then the temple of God was opened in heaven”) and Rev. 12 (the image of the woman). The argument claims that the woman is Mary, and, therefore, the ark. I take it you don’t buy that argument.
Any thoughts on Jerome?
I’ve read Jerome. Same old same old. What is it that, as a sola Scriptura protestant, I should be impressed with? Bottom line here is that you must first accept the Mary myth in order to swallow Jerome’s interpretation of the Scriptures. (I hate to do this …) It’s like dispensationalism, you have to first believe dispensationalism is true in order to discover dispensational truth in the Bible.
If he could have explained what happened to Jesus’ brothers Simon and Judas mentioned in Matt. 13 in light of his theory regarding Mary of Clopas, that would be interesting.
UBI PRIMAM 1849 Pope Pius IX: "For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."
So you see, as a Catholic, your salvation is by Mary, not the Lord Jesus Christ. So in order to support that Pius IX says of her Spinelessness:
UBI PRIMAM 1849 Pope Pius IX: "We define as a dogma of the Catholic Church that the most blessed Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate and free in every way of all taint of original sin.
This so that she could be your Savior. For it could only be maintained that a Sinless person could come "all salvation"
But of course, we will have to Dismiss Mary's Magnificat where she says "My Soul Rejoices in GOD MY SAVIOR", because a sinless person cannot say "MY SAVIOR". The argument you are going to have with me is not whether she had other children, but convincing me that she is my Savior. Good luck.
UBI PRIMAM 1849 Pope Pius IX: "For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."
So you see, as a Catholic, your salvation is by Mary, not the Lord Jesus Christ. So in order to support that Pius IX says of her Sinlessness:
UBI PRIMAM 1849 Pope Pius IX: "We define as a dogma of the Catholic Church that the most blessed Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate and free in every way of all taint of original sin.
This so that she could be your Savior. For it could only be maintained that a Sinless person could come "all salvation"
But of course, we will have to Dismiss Mary's Magnificat where she says "My Soul Rejoices in GOD MY SAVIOR", because a sinless person cannot say "MY SAVIOR". The argument you are going to have with me is not whether she had other children, but convincing me that she is my Savior. Good luck.
“To deny what this passage says is to deny the entire context of why this passage was written.”
Oh. How is arguing that Mary was a perpetual virgin contrary to the Virgin Birth?
That’s a rather difficult argument.
“because Joseph had not KNOWN his wife before that”
Mary wasn’t Joseph’s wife, until after Christ was born, which is why it’s worded this way. You are assuming that ‘till’ heoS refers to him not knowing her, not to the fact that he didn’t accept her to be his wife until after Christ was born.
Which is why you’ve just said that Mary was Joseph’s wife prior to Jesus being born.
“If they never KNEW each other this sentence would not have said UNTIL Jesus was born, but it would have simply been “Joseph did not EVER know Mary” period.”
You seem to like arguing from silence. The verse is not the same as the sentence the sentence starts in verse 24 and carries on through verse 25. Until refers to Joseph accepting Mary.
“This so that she could be your Savior. For it could only be maintained that a Sinless person could come ‘all salvation’ “
The sources for which I am sure you’ll provide. You do know how easy this statement is to refute using the Catechism? Look, I’m trying to buy your argument. I even used to believe your argument.
But it’s not true. The Catechism explicitly says otherwise. Salvation is through Christ Jesus, who saved Mary from sin at her conception. If it were true that Mary could save herself, then the doctrine of the Immaculate conception would be unnecessary.
“My Soul Rejoices in GOD MY SAVIOR”
Two contradictory arguments here.
One, if Mary were her own Saviour, why would she rejoice in God?
Two, if God preserved her from sin, then it’s clear that God is her saviour. She did not keep herself from sin, but Christ chose her and kept her from sin in her immaculate conception.
Next?
“What is it that, as a sola Scriptura protestant, I should be impressed with?”
Which is sorta like sola scriptura, no? The term isn’t found in any Christian literature prior to the 16th century. Jerome is in the 5th century, so one would assume that his opinion would carry more weight than the reformers, assuming all is equal.
You would think that we would find one attestation of the concept that the bible was to be the sole understanding of Christ, but you don’t see any from the early church fathers. Why? Because they understood that the bible was the product of the Church, not the other way around. The Church came first, then the bible, not the bible before the Church. The bible even expresses this, it never talks about the process of writing the bible, but it spends considerable time on the process of the formation of the Church. Particularly in Acts.
GAG . . . WHAT AN ABSURD NOTION . . . perpetual barrenness.
Doesn’t sound like Scripture.
Doesn’t sound like God.
Doesn’t sound like Truth.
Doesn’t sound like Joseph or Mary.
Doesn’t sound rational.
You know the whole he wasn’t married yet thing is a joke, given they were Jewish and engaged. An engagement then was marriage. Which is why Joseph was planning to divorce her, because the pledge of marriage was regarded as LEGAL and it would take LEGAL ACTION form Joseph to end it (Divorce).
Further Matthew 1:18 also says this - KJV:
Mt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this; for after his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
“Before they came together” is not about them being married, the context is clear, it is about sexual union.
But we may a well just go our way, we will not change each others’ minds. Take care.
“Man made religious beliefs cannot survive the spotlight of the internet.”
Quite the opposite. Quite the opposite. Man made beliefs invented in the 16th century still hold sway because they were easy to pass around to others. The same is true of the internet.
Remember the old axiom? Lies travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on her boots.
“You know the whole he wasn’t married yet thing is a joke.”
‘Nuff said. I need make no further argument.
“GAG . . . WHAT AN ABSURD NOTION . . . perpetual barrenness.”
How is she perpetually barren if she bore Christ?
As for perpetual barrenness, you are opposed to sterilization? Interesting take on it Quix.
I asked a question.
We are referring to Jerome here, the same man who translated scripture from the Greek and Hebrew to the Latin. You are saying that you believe his interpretation to be in error.
Does this mean that his translation is also in error? Yes or no. You can’t argue that he was unreliable in intepretation and at the same time, retain the belief in sola scriptura.
Actually, I got a vasectomy early on.
In that culture, even Biblically . . . multiple children were considered a Blessing of God.
And, The Bible notes that Mary and Joseph WERE blessed with multiple blood children after Christ.
The farcical notion about “cousins” does NOT fit the language, does NOT fit the context and does NOT fit the culture.
There would be no point of the example in Scripture if it was cousins as cousins would be a dime for 2 dozen. There would be NO emphasis.
The emphsis in Scripture makes sense ONLY if they were truly Christ’s blood half brothers and half Sisters.
The Vatican Alice In Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling is responsible for another
EPIC FAIL of utter fantasized falsehood.
“It is good for them to stay unmarried.”
That much is clear. There is nothing wrong or improper about choosing to remain a Virgin.
Now, if you are correct about ‘fill the earth and subdue it’, what about contraception use in marriage? Isn’t it your duty to have as many children as possible, if you choose to be married?
This whole thing mystifies me. Which would be more biblical, a young jewish wife that stays a virgin for her entire life or a young jewish wife that provides beautiful babies for her and her husband to share and raise.
Unless somebody can show me that sex in marriage is sin, I won’t understand why Mary would need to remain a virgin after giving birth to Jesus.
“Actually, I got a vasectomy early on.”
So it’s really perpetual barrenness, yay! But icky if you stay a Virgin because that’s unnatural. Got it.
“In that culture, even Biblically . . . multiple children were considered a Blessing of God.”
Well it does say fill the earth and subdue it. It doesn’t say, fill the earth, but if you get to 2, make sure you cut off your tubes. I don’t see that one anywhere in the Gospel of Margaret.
“And, The Bible notes that Mary and Joseph WERE blessed with multiple blood children after Christ.”
Which is why it says, “And 3 years after the birth of Christ, Mary gave birth to her second child.” Oh wait, no it doesn’t say anything of that sort.
“The farcical notion about “cousins” does NOT fit the language, does NOT fit the context and does NOT fit the culture.”
The greek word is Adelphoi. Same as in Philadelphia the city of apparently blood brotherly love.
“There would be no point of the example in Scripture if it was cousins as cousins would be a dime for 2 dozen. There would be NO emphasis.”
Which is why they merit a whole chapter instead of a verse. Oh wait.
It’s a very different culture. Back then you waited until marriage, even if you were betrothed, or promised to be married.
Secondly, she got pregnant, while she was betrothed to Joseph. Who didn’t sleep with her. Imagine how that one went over with him. Then she claims that Christ was conceived by YHWH himself. Which is confirmed. By God.
I can totally understand him believing she was now consecrated.
Strange.
You asked for Scripture.
Jerome uses nothing but Scripture in his discourse. That's all he uses.
He uses the Old Testament to show clearly and comprehensively how Scripture uses the word "brethren". Of course, he doesn't take a single verse from Matthew and say "the Bible sez......." so that opens him to accusations of "intellectual gymnastics".
He uses Scripture. Just not the way you like it. He uses it in toto,.
It must be disconcerting to find that the errors one has embraced are a) not new and b) were condemned almost two millenia ago but that is the simple truth of it.
Interesting you should say that.
Your original entry to this thread was along the lines of "this issue is totally unimportant", along with a number of other posters. That's a canard. It's quite obvious that this issue is very important to you. How else to explain your multiple contributions?
Upon further reading of your posts is clear that the truth is that you actually hold the contrary position; namely that she was not a perpetual virgin. That's important to the Protestant position because it is an integral part of the argument that Mary was nobody special. Acceptance of the doctrine of her perpetual virginity makes her someone quite important and that can't be accepted.
Ever heard of Helvidius?
Neither have I.
That's because he was a heretic whose errors have been swallowed by the mists of time while Jerome's teaching is immortal and lives on. He, along with other teachers and Church doctors have embraced the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.