Mary, Mother of God

The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

[NYer]

January 1 is the Solemnity (Holy Day) of Mary, Mother of God.  To call Mary the “Mother of God” must not be understood as a claim for Mary’s motherhood of divinity itself, but in the sense that Mary was mother of Jesus, who is truly God.  The Council of Ephesus in 431—long before the schisms with the Eastern churches and the Protestants—proclaimed “Mother of God” a theologically correct title for Mary. 

So far from being a cause of division, the common confession of Mary as “Mother of God” should unite all Christians, and distinguish Christian orthodoxy from various confusions of it, such as Arianism (the denial that Jesus was God) or Nestorianism (in which Mary mothers only the human nature of Jesus but not his whole person).

Two themes are present in the Readings for this Solemnity: (1) the person of Mary, and (2) the name of Jesus.   Why the name of Jesus? Prior to the second Vatican Council, the octave day of Christmas was the Feast of the Holy Name, not Mary Mother of God.  The legacy of that tradition can be seen in the choice of Readings for this Solemnity.  (The Feast of the Holy Name was removed from the calendar after Vatican II; St. John Paul II restored it as an optional memorial on January 3.  This year it is not observed in the U.S., because Epiphany falls on January 3.)

1.  The First Reading is Numbers 6:22-27:

The LORD said to Moses:
“Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them:
This is how you shall bless the Israelites.
Say to them:
The LORD bless you and keep you!
The LORD let his face shine upon
you, and be gracious to you!
The LORD look upon you kindly and
give you peace!
So shall they invoke my name upon the Israelites,
and I will bless them.”

This Solemnity is one of the very few times that the Book of Numbers is read on a Lord’s Day or Feast Day.  Here’s a little background on the Book of Numbers:

The Book of Numbers is a little less neglected than Leviticus among modern Christian readers, if only because, unlike its predecessor, it combines its long lists of laws with a number of dramatic narratives about the rebellions of Israel against God in the wilderness, which create literary interest.  The name “Numbers” is, perhaps, already off-putting for the modern reader—it derives from the Septuagint name Arithmoi, “Numbers”, referring to the two numberings or censuses, one each of the first and second generations in the Wilderness, that form the pillars of the literary structure of the book in chs. 1 and 26.  The Hebrew name is bamidbar, “In the Wilderness,” which is an accurate description of the geographical and spiritual location of Israel throughout most of the narrative.

         The Book of Numbers has a strong literary relationship with its neighbors in the Pentateuch.  In many ways it corresponds with the Book of Exodus.  Exodus begins with the people staying in Egypt (Exodus 1-13), then describes their journey to through the desert (Exodus 14-19), and ends with them stationary at Sinai (20-36).  Numbers begins with the people staying at Sinai (Num 1-10), describes their journey through the desert (Num 11-25), and ends with them stationary on the Plains of Moab.  Sinai and the Plains of Moab correspond: at each location the people will receive a covenant (see below on Deuteronomy).  Furthermore, there are strong literary connections between the journeys through the Wilderness to and from Sinai (Ex 14-19; Num 11-25).  Both these sections are dominated by accounts of the people of Israel “murmuring” (Heb. lôn), “rebelling” (Heb. mārāh), or “striving” (Heb. rîb) against the LORD and/or Moses, together with Moses’ need for additional help to rule an unruly people (Ex 18; Num 11:16-39), and God’s miraculous provision for the people’s physical needs (Ex 15:22-17:7; Num 11:31-34; 20:1-13).  This is evidence of careful literary artistry: the central Sinai Narrative (Exod 20–Num 10) is surrounded by the unruly behavior of the people wandering in the desert.

         Numbers also has a close relationship with Leviticus.  If Leviticus established a sacred “constitution” for the life of Israel, exhibiting a logical, systematic order concluded, like a good covenant document, with a listing of blessings and curses (Lev 26), Numbers is more like a list of “amendments” to the “constitution,” together with accounts of the historical circumstances that led to their enactment.  And like the lists of amendments on many state and national constitutions, the laws have an ad hoc, circumstantial character, with little logical connection between successive “amendments.” 

         Finally, Numbers “sets the stage” for the Book of Deuteronomy, providing us the necessary information about Israel’s geographical and moral condition when they arrived at the “Plains of Moab opposite Jericho” in order to appreciate Moses’ extended homily and renewal of the covenant that he will deliver at this site in the final book of the Pentateuch.

The specific text we have in this First Reading is the famous Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6.  The formula for blessing given to the priests involves the invocation of the Divine Name (YHWH) three times over the people of Israel. 

A Brief Excursus on the Divine Name

“If they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say?” “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” say … “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex 3:13-14).  The revelation of the divine Name to Moses (Ex 3:13-15) is one of the most theologically significant passages of the Old Testament.  By revealing himself as “I AM”, God distinguishes himself from the other gods of the nations, which “are not.”  He is the only God who truly is.  Furthermore, the name “I AM” stresses that God exists of himself; unlike all other beings he does not take his existence from some other cause.  Later philosophical language will describe God as the one necessary being.  While lacking technical philosophical language, the ancients did have the concept of self-existence: in Egyptian religion, the sun-god Amon-RÄ“ “came into being by himself” and all other beings took their existence from him.  However, God reveals to Moses that it is He, the LORD—not Amon-RÄ“ or any other Egyptian god—who is the ground of being and the source of existence. 

The actual word given to Israel to serve as the Name of God is spelled YHWH in the English equivalents of the Hebrew consonants. It is not the full phrase “I AM WHO I AM” but rather an archaic form of the Hebrew verb HYH, “to be,” with the meaning “HE IS.” Out of respect for the third commandment, Jews after the Babylonian exile (c. 597–537 BC) ceased to pronounce the divine name at all, but instead substituted the title “Lord,” in Hebrew adonai, in Greek kyrios.  Thus the God of Israel is called ho kyrios, “the Lord” in the New Testament.  This sheds light on the meaning of the phrase, “Jesus is Lord!” (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3).

The Hebrew language was written without vowels until around AD 700, when Jewish scribes developed a vowel-writing system.  The form YHWH, however, was written with the vowels for adonai, the word Jews actually pronounced.  The English translators of the King James Version did not understand this system, and in a few instances combined the Hebrew consonants of YHWH (called the tetragrammaton, lit. “the four letters”) with the Hebrew vowels of adonai to form the erroneous name “Jehovah.”  Catholic tradition addresses God with neither the mistaken form “Jehovah” nor the ancient pronunciation “Yahweh,” but uses “LORD” to refer to the God of Israel, in keeping with the practice of Jesus and the Apostles.  In most English Bibles, “LORD” in caps represents YHWH in the Hebrew text, while “Lord” in lower case represents the actual Hebrew word adonai.

The concept of “name” in Hebrew culture was of great significance.  The “name” represented the essence of the person, and invoking the name made the person mystically present.  Therefore, God will speak of the manifestation of his presence in the Temple as the “dwelling of his Name” in various places of the Old Testament.

The invocation of the Name of God over the people of Israel communicates God’s presence and Spirit to them at least a mediated way. 

In post-exilic Judaism, the Divine Name (YHWH) was seldom if ever pronounced, except on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), when the High Priest would make atonement for the whole nation in the Holy of Holies, and then exit the Temple in order to bless the assembled people in the Temple courts.  There, he would pronounce the blessing of Numbers 6, including the vocalization of the Divine Name.  Every time the people would hear the Name pronounced, they would drop prostrate on the ground.  This is recorded in Sirach:

Sir. 50:20 Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name, and to glory in his name;  21 and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Similar information is recorded in the Mishnah, the second-century AD collection of rabbinic tradition and teaching that become the basis of the legal system of modern Judaism.  So in the Mishnah, tractate Yoma 3:8 and 6:2:

And [when the people heard the four letter Name] they answer after [the High Priest]: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious Kingdom forever and ever”. (M. Yoma 3:8)

Then, the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit Name from the mouth of the High Priest, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces, and they would say, "Blessed be the Honored Name of His Sovereignty forever!" (M. Yoma 6:2)

We read this passage of Scripture in today’s liturgy for a variety of reasons. 

First, we gather as God’s people around the world on this, the first day of the civil year, to ask from God his blessing upon us. 

Second, we commemorate (in the Gospel) the circumcision and naming of Jesus.  For us in the New Covenant, the Name of God continues to be a source of blessing and Divine Presence, but the name we are to use is no longer YHWH but “Jesus.”  Jesus is God’s Name, the source of salvation.  When Paul speaks to the Philippians about the Name of Jesus, he may have in mind the prostrations in the Temple at the Divine Name:

Phil. 2:10  At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth …

It has never been the Christian tradition to pronounce the holy name “YHWH.”  Jesus and the Apostles practiced the Jewish piety of substituting “Lord” (‘adonai, kyrios, dominus) for the pronunciation of the Name.  For this reason, under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the pronounced name “Yahweh” was removed from contemporary worship resources.  The sect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses insist on the pronunciation of the Name, although their form of pronunciation is erroneous, and there is nothing in Christian tradition or the New Testament to encourage such a practice.  For us, the saving name is now “Jesus,” and although full prostration at the pronunciation of the name of Jesus is impractical, Catholic piety dictates a bow of the head at the mention of the Holy Name.

2.  The Second Reading is Galatians 4:4-7:

Brothers and sisters:

When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,

born of a woman, born under the law,

to ransom those under the law,

so that we might receive adoption as sons.

As proof that you are sons,

God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,

crying out, “Abba, Father!”

So you are no longer a slave but a son,

and if a son then also an heir, through God.

This Reading has ties to the Gospel, which emphasizes Mary’s role in Christ’s birth (“born of a woman”) as well as Jesus and his family being obedient Jews, faithful to the Old Covenant in submitting to circumcision (“born under the law.”)

This Reading also reminds us that Jesus calls us to Divine sonship (or childhood, if gender neutrality is desired).  Let’s not forget that this is unique to the Christian faith.  Christianity—unlike Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Atheism—is a religion about becoming children of God.  In Judaism, Divine childhood is metaphorical; in Islam, it is blasphemy.  In Eastern religions, it is irrelevant, because God is not ultimately a personal being, but rather an impersonal force or essence that animates all or simply is All.  Christianity alone holds out the possibility of familial intimacy with Creator as a son or daughter to a Father.

Let us also notice the close connection between the gift of the Holy Spirit and divine sonship.  From a legal perspective, it is the New Covenant that makes us children of God; from an ontological perspective, it is the Spirit that makes us children.  The sending of the Spirit “into our hearts,” as St. Paul says, is parallel to the inbreathing of the “breath of life” into the nostrils of Adam, causing him to become “a living being.”  So we are revivified by the Holy Spirit, as Adam was brought to life at the dawn of time.  Adam was king of the universe, as it says: “Have dominion over the over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen 1:28).  The word “dominion” (Heb radah) evokes the context of kingly rule: later it will be used of Solomon’s imperial reign (1 Kings 4:24; Ps 72:8; 110:2; 2 Chr 8:10).  So the Holy Spirit makes us royalty in Christ: as St. Paul says, “no longer a slave but a son … also an heir, through God.”  No longer a slave to what?  Sin, death, and the devil.  If we live controlled by lusts, in fear of death, and swayed by the suggestions of Satan, than we are still slaves.  If we are free of these things, then we are walking in the Spirit, as children of God.  This is a theme in the First Epistle of John, which is read during daily mass all through the Christmas season.

4.  The Gospel is Luke 2:16-21:

The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,

and the infant lying in the manger.

When they saw this,

they made known the message

that had been told them about this child.

All who heard it were amazed

by what had been told them by the shepherds.

And Mary kept all these things,

reflecting on them in her heart.

Then the shepherds returned,

glorifying and praising God

for all they had heard and seen,

just as it had been told to them.

When eight days were completed for his circumcision,

he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel

before he was conceived in the womb.

We note several things: Mary “kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.”  This is not only an historical indication of where St. Luke is getting his information about these events (so John Paul II [in his Wednesday audience of Jan. 28, 1987] and the Catholic tradition generally), but also a model of the contemplative vocation to which all Christians are called.  Especially during this Christmas season, up until the Baptism (Jan 13), we should carve out some time for quiet prayer, to meditate on the incredible events we celebrate and allow their meaning to sink into our hearts. 

Then we see the shepherds “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen …”  This, too, describes the Christian’s vocation.  Pope Francis in particular has been calling us to return to the aspect of praise and joy that characterizes the disciple of Jesus.  Our faith is experiential, it is not just a philosophy.  It is an encounter with a person.  All of us should know what it means to come into contact with Jesus, to “hear and see” him.  In his First Epistle (which we are reading right now in daily mass), St. John sounds much like the shepherds:

1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life —  2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us —  3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.

Observe the connection in this passage with “seeing” and “hearing” and the culmination in proclamation and joy.  This is what disciples of Jesus do: they experience Jesus and then proclaim in joy what they have encountered.

Finally, we see the naming of Jesus at his circumcision.  Christians no longer practice circumcision, because Baptism is the “circumcision of the heart” promised by Moses that surpasses physical circumcision (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Acts 2:37; Col 2:11-12).  Yet at our Baptism, the “circumcision of our heart,” we still receive our Christian name.

The name given to Jesus is the Hebrew word y’shua, meaning “salvation.”  In the Old Testament, we are more familiar with the name under the form “Joshua,” who was an important type of Christ.  Just as Moses was unable to lead the people of Israel into the promised land, but Joshua did; so also Jesus is our New Joshua who takes us into the salvation to which Moses and his covenant could not lead us.

Salvation is now found in the Name of Jesus, because salvation means to enter into a relationship of childhood with God the Father.  It’s not that other great religious leaders (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius etc.) claimed to be able to lead us into divine childhood, but couldn’t. It’s that they did not even claim to be able to do so.  Jesus is unique.  So Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).  This is not arrogance.  Jesus is the only great religious founder in human history to proclaim that God is a Father and we can become his children.  This concept of divine filiation is at the heart of the Gospel.  In a sense, it can be said to be the heart of the Gospel. 

On this Solemnity, let us give thanks to God that he has, through Jesus, made a way for us to become his children and receive a new name which he has given us (see Rev 2:17).  This intimate, personal relationship with God has been made possible by the cooperation of Mary, who became the mother of the one whose Name is Salvation. 

[The Cuban]

Read it no. I’ll clarify - provide a proper reading of the Greek in the context in which it was understood when the Aramaic concept was transcribed.

[The Cuban]

Read it no. I’ll clarify - provide a proper reading of the Greek in the context in which it was understood when the Aramaic concept was transcribed.

[blackpacific]

Metmom,
Given that Jesus has four brethren as listed in Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55, namely James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon, and given that two of them are explicitly listed as the sons of Alpheus in Acts 1:13, James and Jude (actually James is listed numerous times as the son of Alpheus to differentiate him from James the son of Zebedee as they were often found together at the same events), I propose a truce.

If you will give me two cousins/close relatives in James and Jude, I will give you two siblings of Jesus in Joseph and Simon. I think it is a fair deal.

But in order for me to make this concession, you have to admit that the other two where close relatives, explicitly named as sons of Alpheus, that they were not Jesus’ siblings.

Over all I think everyone would be happy with this arrangement.

Black Pacific

[blackpacific]

“Hail Mary FULL OF GRACE, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.” This is something I say numerous times during the day while I contemplate deep mysteries from the life of Jesus Christ, my Creator, my Lord (Adonai), my Savior and Redeemer, my beginning and final end. The Alpha and the Omega.

What is self evident to Catholics is that Marian devotion always leads us closer to Jesus. I suppose those on the outside do not understand this?

I am so glad you cited the passage, it is so awesome, I love verse 43, here it is in full:

“And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [42] And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. [43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? [44] For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. [45] And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.

[Elsie]

Over all I think everyone would be happy with this arrangement.

Wanna BET!!??

LOL

[Elsie]

What is self evident to Catholics is that Marian devotion always leads us closer to Jesus. I suppose those on the outside do not understand this?

But why the middle man (woman)?

---

What is self evident to Protestants is that Marian devotion is entirely unneeded to lead us closer to Jesus. Why can't Catholics understand this?

Behold!!

The Lamb of GOD!

Go check with His mom to see if you can follow Him.

[Elsie]

What is self evident to Protestants is that Marian devotion takes up time that COULD have been used being DEVOTED to Jesus.

Why can’t Catholics realize this?

[Elsie]

My Prayer to Our Mother Mary

Hail and praise be unto thee, Mary, whom God Almighty has exalted above all of his other servants!!

God has entrusted us unto your care and graciously grants any request that you make of Him on our behalf, if it is in accordance with His Divine Will.

Our hearts burn with zeal as we honor you, Our Mother.

We love you as a child loves a mother and you love us as mother loves her children.

Please guide us, your little ones, to our Eternal and Almighty Father God through our prayers and through your love for us.

Many in this world may slander and degrade you while still claiming to exalt God, please forgive them and pray for them for they may dishearten your devoted children.

May we be made worthy of the promises of Christ through your prayers.

You love us so freely and we are so unworthy of it.

You love us because God and Christ loved us first.

Mary, Mother, I love you.

Amen.

 

 

The above is dang near heresy according to Protestants.             source ---->  http://www.marypages.com/PrayerstoMary.htm

 

 

---

My Prayer to Jesus in Heaven

Hail and praise be unto thee, Jesus, whom God Almighty has exalted above all of his other servants!!

God has entrusted us unto your care and graciously grants any request, if it is in accordance with His Divine Will.

Our hearts (who can know them) wait;  as we honor you, Our Saviour.

We love you with imperfect human love and you love us with an Love that is indescribable.

Please guide us, your sinful ones, to our Eternal and Almighty Father God, for your Word says that NONE will be lost that he gave you.

Many in this world may slander and degrade you while still claiming to exalt God, please wait for them to repent and forgive them.

May we be made worthy of your promises; oh Jesus.

You love us so freely and we are so unworthy of it.

You love us because God IS Love, and loved us first.

Jesus, Lord, I love you.

Amen.

 

 

 

The above we can accept.

[daniel1212]

Why is Mary’s alleged virginity such an issue for Catholics and how does it affect one’s salvation?

Because the blessedness of the Mary of Catholicism was not because of who she was privileged to carry and to mother by God's grace (though that is what the Mary of Scripture expressed), but it was due to her surpassing all creatures in holiness and virtues, and perpetual virginity is one of those virtues necessary for elevation to Godhood. You must remember reading that in Gnosticism 3:16. And in Acts 29 it was prophesied that this Mary would precede all other believers by being bodily resurrected and even crowned in glory, thus completing her near parallelization with Christ, as the divinized Mother of God.

Moreover, in detailing the many ways the New Covenant is "better" - the key word in Hebrews - this Mary is presented as the fulfillment of the ark of the covenant, who no man was to touch, just as she is set forth as our great high priestess, who was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin - including during nights with Joseph - and ever lives to make intercession for us, and by whom we have access into the holy of holies in Heaven. Therefore we are exhorted to come to her at the throne of grace to obtain mercy and help in time of need. (Hebrews 14:6-66) For all such "scripture" is given by the seducing spirit of Catholicism.

The above actually falls under the heading, "Proofs that the Catholic church did not change the Bible." but instead she just exalts mortals far far far above what is actually written.

[kosciusko51]

Why would Luke use an Aramaic term, when he was not a Jew, and traveled with Paul, who knew well both Aramaic and Greek? If the point was as critical to the Christian’s understanding of the Bible, why would Luke not use a more precise term, as he did for the offices of the Roman officials?

Also, where is this original Aramaic document? I know there are some Aramaic translations that post-date the earliest known Greek versions, but I have not heard of any that pre-date the Greek.

[ealgeone]

Some context for the conversation:

53When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. 54He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? Matthew 13:53-55 NASB

1Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown; and His disciples followed Him. 2When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? 3“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. Mark 6:1-3 NASB

In both of these passages the context is clear the writers are talking about Jesus' family. The greek uses the genitive case to denote possession in these texts.

They are in His hometown. It would be natural for His family to be there.

The suggestion that James is the son of Alphaeus and not Joseph and Mary falls apart when Galatians 1:19 is read where Paul notes he did not see "any of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother."

Paul either did or did not know who James was. The text says he identifies him as the brother of Christ. Again the genitive is used in this text.

The catholic will often try to point out that the world adelfos can mean something other than a brother within your family.

That point is correct but only when evaluated in the context of the passage(s) in question.

For example, in Luke 21:16 "But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death,..."

The word for brothers is adelfos. We see in this passage Luke is going through an order of people who will betray you beginning with those closest to you. Your parents, your brothers, your relatives and then your friends.

Often the appeal is made to the argument that the names in Matthew and Mark are His cousins. If this were the case there is a Greek word for cousin, anepsios (an-eps-ee-os). It means a cousin or nephew.

However, it is used only in Colossians 4:10.

That Mary did not remain a virgin is shown by the above passages.

Further, there is nothing in either the Matthew or Luke account of the angel's appearance to suggest that Joseph and Mary, after the birth of Christ did not consummate the marriage as any newlywed couple would.

So no, there is no compromise on what the Word says.

[ealgeone]

That would be Luke as written in the Greek.

[The Cuban]

Again the Greek word does not indicate biological brotherhood for reasons that are readily explained on other sites. Moreover if you are correct why do modern greeks disagree with you? Why does every christian group that was around since before Luther disagree with you?

[ealgeone]

Why does every christian group that was around since before Luther disagree with you?

Are sure you want to stay with "every" Christian group before Luther? This means there was no dissent at all from anyone.

If you're sticking with that claim proof is required to back it up.

[kosciusko51]

Oh, sorry, I thought this was on reference to the Vulgate mistranslation of grace in Luke 1:28, which has been explained most recently in post 2457.

As brothers and sisters, why do you worry if Mary had more children, since you yourself said this is not an issue for one’s salvation?

[MHGinTN]

LOL, you would now call the eyewitnesses liars recorded in The Bible! Bwahaha, catholics will go to any extreme to keep believing the heresies and support the blasphemies.

[The Cuban]

Not how it works bud. You can’t create a claim there were dissident groups and them ask me to disprove your claim. Mainstream history proves there were no dissident groups at that time that were of any significance so as to be mentioned in the historical record. Gussied Cassava are proto protestants. Moreover your little gotcha question proves that the view that Mary was not always a virgen is a dissident position ie not accepted by the group.

[The Cuban]

Yes because a protestant interpretation 1500 years after the fact is an eyewitness account. Right. Can I go live in your reality?

[ealgeone]

My question is not a gotcha question...unless you cannot answer it. You made an absolute statement on a subject.

I asked you for proof to substantiate your claim.

It is clear you cannot prove that so your claim is invalidated.

In reality the dissident group is the roman catholic church as it's teaching is in opposition to the Word.

The Greek proves she was a virgin until Christ was born. After that, the text notes Joseph and Mary had children....if one reads it in context. The catholic, or anyone else, has the burden to disprove the original language.

If you don't want to believe that I cannot help that.

[The Cuban]

Want list? Armenian Copic Chalcedan oriental Assyrian Ethiopian Malabar Russian Orthodox Greek, Ukranian, Bulgarian etc. Name one that existed in 1500 that agreed with you you cant so you avoid the question.