Posted on 12/09/2012 2:05:12 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Edited on 12/09/2012 5:21:35 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicbridge.com ...
Do you also believe she had a painless childbirth?
I have never given it much thought, and since Scripture is silent and there is no Church doctrine on it I am free to believe or disbelieve as my reason and faith lead me. However, reasonable person, viewing miraculous events that happened 2,000 years ago, would certainly weigh the witness of those much closer in time and in degrees of separation. And if I can believe that there was a virgin birth I have no reason to doubt the possibility or dismiss it outright out of a disdain for those who believe it.
Peace be with you
There is an explicit doctrine of Mary's ever-virginity.
This derives its moral significance from the fact that Mary was chaste, and its Christological significance from the fact that she was made pregnant by God and not a man. However it has a third significance: freedom from the rupturing membranes, bleeding and pain indicates freedom from "corruption" in the purely physical sense of deterioration: the tendency toward tearing and strife and pain which accompanies procreation for the female, and is akin to death.
If Christ is reversing the curse of Eve, it makes theological sense that Mary's becoming pregnant and giving birth would be occasions of unalloyed bliss and not of bleeding: the integral opposite of "[tearing] pleasures with rough strife/ Through the iron gates of life."
Where does one find scriptural support for that doctrine?
The curse only applies to those born under the curse.. that would mean with original sin ... so was Mary exempt from that curse?
There is an explicit doctrine of Mary's ever-virginity.
Maybe it's doctrine in the Catholic religion but it's certainly not Bible doctrine...
**He protected her from the transmission of the effects of Original Sin, and yet she is Kecharitomene, full of grace from the beginning. This is a real, true Singularity. Never happened before, and has never happened since.**
So....even more special than....
“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) FULL OF GRACE and TRUTH”.
**Archangel calls her Kecharitomene, which means she was completely and fully filled with grace, at the beginning and continuing into the present.**
From the beginning to the present? I’d say there a little bit too much imagination going on there.
Besides, that does not automatically mean she was free from sin, just that she was favored above any other woman for the mission.
Mary was chosen. Full of grace (unmeritted favor), in any translation, does not exclude the need of the shed blood of Jesus for the remmitting of sins.
The ark was made of wood. The wood was dead (no life in it), but kept from decay by the gold. The body of Jesus was kept from decay: “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thine holy one see corruption........ David.....therefore being a prophet.....seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”
This I know. For the Bible tells me so.
But: all doctrines are related in some way to Scripture, either:
An example of #2, above, would be the following:
Re: the “types” and/or foreshadowings of Mary found in the OT., Mary is untouchable and inviolate for even stronger reasons than the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy of Holies would be untouchable. For instance, the Ark contained signs of God’s presence, providence and power (the manna, the tablets of the Law, Aaron’s staff) but Mary, in a way far excelling this, contained the Living God Himself.
If only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, certainly no man could enter Mary: the idea here is inviolability.
In the NT, Mary herself bears witness to her commitment to virginity. When the Archangel Gabriel tells Mary she will conceive and bear a son, she seems astonished --- revealing that she was not only a virgin, but committed to virginity.
Imagine this: You are at a bridal shower for a friend and somebody remarks to the bride, “You are going to have such adorable kids!” Everybody laughs, but the bride draws back in astonishment and says, “But...but...how shall this be? I know not man.” **Huh?** For a woman who is engaged to be married, there are only two possible explanations for such a reaction: either she has no idea where babies come from,—or she has every intention of remaining a virgin after marriage.
Why else would Mary be astonished? She’s a woman betrothed to Joseph, she knows about the birds and the bees. Yet she reacts with amazement at the news that she, a woman betrothed, will bear a son.
Notice that the angel does not say “You are pregnant.” He says “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Luke 1:31). This is a promise that has been made to other women in Jewish history such as Sarah and Hannah. All of them understand the promise to mean, “You and your husband will conceive a child.” So why should the same promise astonish Mary, a young woman who also plans to marry—unless she had already decided to remain a virgin throughout her life?
Lastly, the “ever-virgin” argument boils down to, “The Church believes this because the Church has always believed this.” All the ancient churches –Coptic, Chaldean, Assyrian, Arabic-speaking, as well as Latin --- which existed from Apostolic times --- refer to Christ’s mother as "Our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary," Aeiparthenos in Greek, or the equivalent in Syrian or Coptic or whatever. Our martyrs killed by Nero and Diocletian believed this. You can find an inscription in the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome: “Beata Maria Semper Virgine”, "Blessed Mary Ever Virgin.”
This same truth was firmly held by Luther, Zwingli, and other Christians until well into the Reformation --- even Calvin rejected arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity based on the mention in Scripture of “brothers of Jesus,” whom Calvin understood to be other close kin, e.g. half-brothers and cousins. The Anglicans in the 16th, 17th, even the 18th century, (John Wesley) hailed Mary as ever-virgin.
So you can either think that the ancient churches and the devout and learned Christians for 20 centuries were right; or you can think they were all wrong. I, myself, would think it rash to presume that most Christians have been wrong about most things, most of the time.
The older I get, the more I realize how dependent I am on the protection and guidance which, millennium after millennium, Christ has provided, as promised, to those who look to Him in every age.
There is so much suffering there: may God bless you, goat granny, and your children, both those who are with us and those who have passed on.
...what you wrote: "Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Using typology, when the Ark of the Old Covenant was touched — the person died."Your reply (except for the one brief strawman reply):Therefore if that is true, anyone touching Mary would die. The use of typology seems quite a stretch unless there is a scripture in the NT saying that Mary is the latter day Ark of the Covenant.
I've never seen anything like that.
Mary and Joseph were married, as noted in scripture.
20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife...There was no qualification (don't have sex with her or you will die), the angel said take her as your wife.
24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[d] And he called His name Jesus."...and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son"That is the same as saying that he DID "know" (Biblical lingo for having sex) her after Jesus was born.
Seems pretty cut and dried.
Joseph had sexual relations with his wife, and he did not die.
I know that Catholicism and the church fathers and many others outside of Catholicism spent centuries trying to make Mary a perpetual virgin, but scripture doesn't uphold that theory.
I am quite familiar with the controversy of cousins vs brothers, and it is pretty much settled. Most of what is covered in the article I have researched in depth for many years.Did you read the WHOLE article? Especially the sections about “brothers”?????
Please read it here.
Mary had other children after God blessed her marriage to Joseph and they did what God wants every married couple to do, procreate.
The scriptures I have posted to you are the Biblical answer.
No one, not even centuries of Catholic leaders should try to misread them, or discount them, or re-translate them.
Like putting in a "her" in place of Jesus.
Which reminds me, my question asking if there is a special translation of the Bible for Christians?
I remember seeing Bibles in the past (I used to deal in Bibles quite a bit) that said in the front pages something like "approved for Catholics". I never took the time to compare it word for word to the Christian Bible.
Oh, and here is the Bible in the KJV:
Please read it here:
**Joseph had sexual relations with his wife, and he did not die.**
I totally disagree. Joseph and Mary agreed to live in mutual respect and celibacy.
They had no additional children. The brothers spoken of, could, of course, be from a previous marriage of Joseph where his wife had died. Thus they would be the step brothers of Jesus.
Also the word for cousin — not used that much in the Bible because of language difference — is translated as brothers.
Even Paul used brothers and sisters in his letters.
For shortness of time, I hurried my last comment, so here is somewhat more:
**Ark contained signs of God’s presence, providence and power (the manna, the tablets of the Law, Aaron’s staff) but Mary, in a way far excelling this, contained the Living God Himself.**
Mary symbolizing the ark...Far excelling?? For your review again:
The ark was made of wood, covered with out and within with gold. The wood was dead (no life in it), but kept from decay by the gold. The body of Jesus was kept from decay: “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thine holy one see corruption........ David.....therefore being a prophet.....seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”
The manna, Aaron’s rod, and the stone tablets were hidden IN the ark. “IN him was life; and the life was the light of men”. John 1:4
“IN whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Col. 2:3
“For IN him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily.” Col. 2:9
**but just to remind you that Catholic exposition of doctrine is not confined to proof-texting.**
That reminds me of going to a birthday party while in 5th grade (5 decades ago). We played games that we all thought we knew the rules to, but he added to them when it seemed that they would help him win.
Anything revealed by the Holy Ghost is in complete agreement with the teaching of the Word. That’s why Paul could say to Timothy that all scripture was given inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in righteousness: The the man of God may be PERFECT, THROUGHLY furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 16,17
**1. an explicit Scriptural statement**
...which must be in context or agreement with other scriptural statements.
**2. a strictly logical corollary from Scripture**
...which can be yopios (even if constructed 1900 yrs ago. Didn’t take long. Approx 15 yrs after Pentecost, where there were Jews from many nations present, Paul ran into some in Cyprus that perverted the right way of the Lord. He, John, Peter, and Jude warned in their epistles of such present in their time).
**3. a reasonable inference from converging lines of thought founded in Scripture**
...which can be yopios.
**4. a proposition strongly attested by Sacred Tradition and not ruled out by Scripture**
...which can be yopios.
**Jesus Christ is God**
Jesus Christ was both human and divine. Mary was used to bring forth the human part, God inserted the divine part (himself).
**Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ.**
True, but did not make the soul, and did not fill him with the Spirit; God did those things.
**Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. (Logical corollary, defined by Church**
Their definition is crediting Mary with creating MORE of the infinite God. Not possible.
**As to Mary being “ever-Virgin,” it would be an example of #3 and #4, above. It derives from converging lines of Scriptural thought, and it is an ancient belief embraced in all the ancient churches, and not ruled out by Scripture.**
Converging lines of thought.....kinda like ‘Judas hung himself’...’do as you see me do’? There simply isn’t any scripture to even hint that Mary continued as a virgin, while several that point to possiblity of her having a normal marriage and giving birth to more children.
Scripture must harmonize with scripture:
Good example....
is the glorified Christ speaking as God, referring to the man Jesus Christ in the second person: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”.....”but tarry ye in Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high”. Luke 24:47,49
So, beginning at Jerusalem we find..”Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remmission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. Acts 2:38
Bad example:
Using the OT/NT prophecies/passages of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, choosing to include Rev. 12:1-5, but EXCLUDING verse 6, where it says (AFTER the child was born AND caught up unto God in verse 5)”..that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and three score days.” That passage is clearly about the nation of Israel when compared with OT prophecies.
"In Him (Christ) was life; and the life was the light of men”.(John 1:4) and “ In whom(Christ) are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Col. 2:3)
That's right. All these things are true primarily of Jesus. By God's will, Mary contained him (for 9 months), so was a container=Ark.
It would be like if my son said, “I left my shoes in the garage,” and his brother said, “No you didn’t, you left them in the box.” If the box was in the garage, both are true: he left them in the box, and he left them in the garage.
About proof-texting:
“PROOFTEXTING ONLY” was never one of the rules. The Lord Himself authorizes the use of reason ( Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD) (Acts 17:17 So he (Paul)reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.) --and in fact commands it whenever He commands us to show “just judgment.”
None of this will contradict Scripture in terms of context, and it will be in agreement with other Scriptural statemnts. “A strictly logical corollary from Scripture” cannot be merely yopios, because right reason applied to truth, necessarily yields truth.
My #3 (Reasonable inferences from converging lines of thought founded in Scripture) and #4 (a proposition strongly attested by Sacred Tradition and not ruled out by Scripture) COULD be in error (mere yopios), but that’s what Church councils (like the one in Jerusalem) are for: to make an authoritative judgment based on what the Holy Spirit is telling the Church.
Now, back to your argument:
**Jesus Christ is God** Jesus Christ was both human and divine. Mary was used to bring forth the human part, God inserted the divine part (himself).True, yet it needs clarification, since Mary didn’t just bring forth a “human part,” she brought forth a person. (Mothers are mothers of persons, not just of parts.) It’s like if I’m a Smith and my husband is a Longfellow, and we have a son, I’m not just the mother of “the Smith part,” I’m the mother of our son, a person: I gave him birth. I am not, however, the origin of his Longfellow genes.
But if what you’re trying to say is that Mary was not the source of Jesus’ divinity, then we are in agreement: the Divine Word, Second Person of the Trinity, pre-existed Mary and all created things, from eternity. Mary is not the mother of the Godhead.Exactly correct.
**Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. (Logical corollary, defined by Church**
Their definition is crediting Mary with creating MORE of the infinite God. Not possible.??? “Their”??? definition? Who would that be? The Catholic definition has nothing to do with Mary “creating” “more” of the infinite God. That is, as you say, impossible. We mean in English (“Mother of God”) what the Councils of Ephesus said in Greek: “Theotokos.” She is the birth-giver of Jesus Christ, who is God. She is NOT “older than God” or the source of His Spirit. His Spirit pre-existed from all eternity, as the Council of Ephesus said.
**As to Mary being “ever-Virgin,” it would be an example of #3 and #4, above. It derives from converging lines of Scriptural thought, and it is an ancient belief embraced in all the ancient churches, and not ruled out by Scripture.**
There simply isn’t any scripture to even hint that Mary continued as a virginAh, but there is: right in Mary’s words: (Luke 1:34)”But how shall this happen, since I do not know man?” She is clearly astonished --- revealing that she was not only a virgin, but committed to virginity.
Think that’s a stretch? Consider this example:
You are at a bridal shower for a friend and somebody remarks to the bride, “You are going to have such adorable kids!” Everybody laughs, but the bride draws back in astonishment and says, “But...but...how shall this be? Since I do not know man.”
Everybody would think, **Huh?**
For a woman who is engaged to be married, there are only two possible explanations for such a reaction: either she has no idea where babies come from —or she has every intention of remaining a virgin after marriage.
Why else would Mary be astonished? She’s a woman betrothed to Joseph, she knows about the birds and the bees. Yet she reacts with amazement at the news that she, a woman betrothed, will bear a son.
Notice that the angel does not say “You are pregnant.” He says “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Luke 1:31). This is a promise that has been made to other women in Jewish history such as Sarah and Hannah. All of them understand the promise to mean, “You and your husband will conceive a child.” So why should the same promise astonish and trouble Mary, a young woman who also plans to marry—unless she had already decided to remain a virgin throughout her life?
You say that other Scriptures point to possiblity of her having a normal marriage and giving birth to more children. This is because of the Scriptures’ saying that Jesus has adelphoi ((brothers)
However, the possibility that these adelphoi are children of Mary, is struck down by two other Scriptures: first, Luke 1:34, in which Mary reacts with a bewilderment which only makes sense if she is committed to virginity; John 19:26-27, when Jesus, from the cross, entrusts his mother to the care of the Apostle John. He would not have done that if she had other children to care for her, especially in the light of Mark 7:11, in which Jesus says that the obligation to care for one’s own aged parents is a strict commandment of the Law.
Therefore, we're obliged to think, "Who else would they be, if they weren't Mary's children?" Then examination of the Hebrew and Greek yields the conclusion that they could have been near kin: half-brothers, step-brothers, cousins. Some people think Joseph may have been a widower with children, who would have been Jesus' step-brothers. But we don't know for sure. What we DO know for sure is that both Hebrew and Greek, as used n the Bible, frequently use the word "brother" to mean not a sibling, but near kin. You can find that in your own concordance: there's lots.
We are in a great deal more agreement than perhaps we thought at first. Thank you for the thought and care you have put into this discussion: I hope it continues to be valuable to both of us.
“Because Mary is what God wanted us all to be, she speaks of herself as the eternal blueprint in the mind of God, the one whom God loved before she was a creature. She is even pictured as being with Him not only at creation, but before creation. She existed in the Divine Mind as an Eternal Thought before there were any mothers. She is the Mother of mothers. The closer one is to God, the greater the purity. But since no one was ever closer to God than the woman whose human portals he threw open to walk this earth, then no one could have been more pure than she. This special purity of hers we call the Immaculate Conception. The word ‘immaculate’ is taken from two Latin words meaning ‘not stained.’ Conception means that at the first moment of her conception, the Blessed Mother in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne, and in virtue of the anticipated merits of the Redemption of her Son was preserved free from the stains of original sin.” - Archbishop Fulton Sheen (The World’s First Love)
Thank you, NL. Beautiful!
The CT murders left me uninterested in posting for a couple days, and I let this thread slip my mind; didn’t log into FR until this morning.
**It would be like if my son said, “I left my shoes in the garage,” and his brother said, “No you didn’t, you left them in the box.” If the box was in the garage, both are true: he left them in the box, and he left them in the garage.**
Does that shoebox have a mercy seat on it?
I repeat, that the wood, of the ark of the covenant, was covered within and without with gold, thereby preserving the wood from corruption; and that the body of the Son was not allowed to see corruption while in the grave, and remains intact unto this day. Why is there a mercy seat on the body of the Son?.....”For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement unto the Son.” Jn 5:22. Peter testified: “..that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.” Acts 10:42
Mary is not the Judge.
You italicized this, but it must be your or someone elses:
“But if what you’re trying to say is that Mary was not the source of Jesus’ divinity, then we are in agreement: the Divine Word, Second Person of the Trinity, pre-existed Mary and all created things, from eternity. Mary is not the mother of the Godhead.”
You say this....
**??? “Their”??? definition? Who would that be? The Catholic definition has nothing to do with Mary “creating” “more” of the infinite God. That is, as you say, impossible. We mean in English (“Mother of God”) what the Councils of Ephesus said in Greek: “Theotokos.” She is the birth-giver of Jesus Christ, who is God. She is NOT “older than God” or the source of His Spirit. His Spirit pre-existed from all eternity, as the Council of Ephesus said.**
But you also say this:
**Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. (Logical corollary, defined by Church**
You agree that Mary did not make more of God, and that it would be impossible, yet say that she is the ‘Mother of God’. That’s not logical.
I said: There simply isn’t any scripture to even hint that Mary continued as a virgin.
You said: **Ah, but there is: right in Mary’s words: (Luke 1:34)”But how shall this happen, since I do not know man?” She is clearly astonished -— revealing that she was not only a virgin, but committed to virginity.**
Certainly, she was astonished to be told that she would become pregnant without ‘knowing’ a man. And Joseph ‘knew her not til she had brought forth her firstborn son’. There is no indication that she was committed to virginity after Jesus was born.
**Luke 1:34, in which Mary reacts with a bewilderment which only makes sense if she is committed to virginity;**
“..When as his mother Mary was ESPOUSED to Joseph, BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER (hmmm..), she was found with child of the Holy Ghost”. Matt. 1:18 (a side note: By trinitariian logic, the Holy Ghost is actually the ‘father’ of Jesus Christ. But that’s another topic of discussion.)
**John 19:26-27, when Jesus, from the cross, entrusts his mother to the care of the Apostle John. He would not have done that if she had other children to care for her, especially in the light of Mark 7:11, in which Jesus says that the obligation to care for one’s own aged parents is a strict commandment of the Law.**
Who did Jesus Christ call his ‘mother and his brethern’, after being alerted to the physical presense of his mother and his brethern?..”My mother and my brethern are these which hear the word of God, and do it.”
Which is why John (who was a brother in hearing the Word of God and keepng it) would be selected to watch over Mary; for his own (half) brothers didn’t believe in him (John 7:3-10). I do believe that the James that is mentioned as a brother in Matthew 13:55 is the same that years after the Lord’s ascension is mentioned by Paul in Galations 1:19; having become converted no doubt.
John and James of Zebedee were brothers;
Simon Peter and Andrew were brothers;
John the Baptist rebuked Herod for having his live brother’s wife contrary to the Law.
But, for building an unscriptural ‘forever a virgin’ teaching, the ‘brothers’ must be interpretted as cousins in select passages to reach that goal.
I believe that in the ‘Temple Alone’ incident (Jesus alone without his immediate family), Mary and Joseph had a flock of little ones to herd back to Nazareth after attending the passover when the Christ-child was 12. They travelled an entire day without noticing him missing, and then sought sorrowing for three days before finding him in the temple. If Mary had no other children, you think she’d be, at the very least, keeping her only child in eyeshot of him occasionaly. My wife says her motherly instincts wouldn’t let her lose track of her son, UNLESS, she was burdened with several others, some of which were not able to walk, or walk very far at their young age.
I too appreciate this discussion. Have a merry Christmas!
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.