It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[mjrhealth]

It matters to GOD and His Word - so it matters to me.

It's a shame His Word doesn't matter to you . . .

Oh you mena it matters to what the bible, the bible does not say Mary was a perptual virgin. not in one sentence anywhwre.

It is Jeus, God word and teh words that God speaks that matters to me, not mens fables and doctrines, I guess that is what upsets you so, that some can actually have a walk with Jesus which some just dont want. You care more for your religion than teh truth, you have proved that to us all over and over.

 

[epostle1]

Here it is again. What's the matter, is it too much reading???


Using Scripture alone, to prove that these “brothers” and “sisters” are NOT the children of Joseph and Mary, and that the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is in no way refuted by the New Testament. So, let us begin in Matthew.
Matthew 13:55 -- Jesus at Nazareth
-- carpenter’s son
-- mother named Mary
-- brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas
-- sisters “with us”

Matthew 27: 55 -- The Crucifixion
“Among them were Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
This “Mary” is obviously the mother of the same James and Joseph mentioned in Matt 13:55.
Matthew 28: 1 -- The Resurrection
“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and THE OTHER MARY came to see the tomb.”
This “other Mary” certainly corresponds to the mother of James and Joseph, the companion of Mary Magdalene in Matt 27:55. However, she is presented as such a minor gospel character that she is apparently NOT the mother of Jesus.
It’s interesting to note that whenever Matthew mentions the Virgin Mary, he always identifies her as “Jesus’ mother.” (See: Matt 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, and 2:21, in which the author all but beats us over the head with the phrase “His mother.”) It’s unlikely, therefore, that Matthew is abandoning this point by later identifying her as merely the mother of James and Joseph: a secondary character, less important than Mary Magdalene. Taking all this into consideration, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Jesus’ mother are apparently two different women. But first, let’s turn to Mark.

Mark 6:3 -- Jesus at Nazareth (possibly the original source)
-- “Is he not the carpenter?” (Jesus had taken over the family business)
-- “The son of Mary” (Very unusual in a Jewish context, in which a son is the son of the father, not the mother)
-- brothers James, JOSE, Judas, and Simon
The same list as in Matt 13:55, with the exception of “Jose” in place of Matthew’s Joseph -- really the same name in Hebrew (Yoshef).
-- “sisters are here with us”
Both in Matthew’s account, and more clearly here in Mark’s, this phrase seems to suggest that these particular “brothers” of Jesus lived elsewhere. (Could they have been traveling with Jesus as His followers?)

Mark 15:40 -- The Crucifixion
“Among them were Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF THE YOUNGER JAMES AND OF JOSE, and Salome.”
Here, Matthew’s “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” reappears as “the mother of ...James and of Jose,” corresponding to Mark’s reference to Jesus’ “brothers” James and Jose at Nazareth in 6:3. If one compares Matthew and Mark’s accounts of Jesus at Nazareth with that of their accounts of the crucifixion, it becomes abundantly clear that they are speaking about the same two relatives of Jesus, whose mother -- like Jesus’ -- happened to be named Mary:

NAZARETH CRUCIFIXION
Matthew: James and Joseph James and Joseph
Mark: James and Jose James and Jose
And so, Mark continues...
Mark 15:47 -- Jesus’ burial
“Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JOSE watched where He was laid.”
Jose corresponds to the one mentioned in Mark 6:3 and 15:40.

Mark 16:1 -- The Resurrection
“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint Him.”
The same three companions appear again. Here, Mary is called “the mother of James” (a variant of “the mother of Jose” in 15:47). However, there is still no mention, or even a vague implication, that this woman is also the mother of Jesus; but merely a background character like Salome.

Luke 24:10 -- The Resurrection
“The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES; the others who accompanied them also ...”
Again, the “mother of James,” but not the mother of Jesus. And, like Matthew and Mark (in 3:35), the author of Luke always refers to the Virgin Mary as Jesus’ mother (See: Luke 1:43, 2:33-34, 2:51, 8:19, Acts 1:14).
“Others” (aka, Salome and Suzanna, etc.)

John 19:25 -- The Crucifixion
“Standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother and HIS MOTHER’S SISTER, MARY THE WIFE OF CLOPAS, and Mary Magdala.”
This mysterious “Mary” appears again; this time called “Mary the wife of Clopas.” If this passage is speaking about three women, rather than four (as it almost certainly is), the comma after “his mother’s sister” may be identifying Clopas’ wife as the sister (or tribal-relative’) of Jesus’ mother. This would explain the gospel writers’ use of the Greek word “adelphos” (as a translation of the Hebrew “ah”), which could mean brother (or sister in the feminine), as well as cousin, nephew, relative, etc. If Clopas’ wife was the sister (i.e., close, tribal relative) of Jesus’ mother, then Clopas’ sons, James and Joseph (Jose), could very well be called Jesus’ “brethren” (i.e., part of His extended tribal family).
This seems to fit, since neither James and Joseph/Jose (nor any of the “brothers”) are EVER called the sons of Joseph.
It is also quite possible that, as John’s gospel so often does, this reference to Mary as “wife of Clopas” is a conscious intention to clear up any questions about the “mother of James and Joseph (Jose)” in the Synoptics -- that is, to clearly distinguish her from Jesus’ mother.

CONCLUSION
So, with all this evidence in mind, I hold that:
(1) John’s “Mary the wife of Clopas ” is the same person as the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” (the Mary of the cross/tomb accounts).
(2) This Mary is in turn the “sister” (i.e., close tribal relative) of Jesus’ mother Mary.
(3) This is how Jesus is “brothers” with James and Joseph (Jose).
(4) His other “brothers” (Judas and Simon), as well as his “sisters,” and the “brothers” who don’t believe in Him in John 7:5 are from other branches of His extended tribal family.
But, let’s play devil’s advocate.
If James, Joseph (Jose), Simon, and Judas ARE INDEED Jesus’ fraternal brothers, then the Synoptics’ Mary of the cross/tomb (i.e., the mother of James and Joseph/Jose) MUST be Jesus’ mother as well.
And, after all, there ARE certain seemingly-logical arguments to support this:
-- James and Joseph (Jose) ARE called Jesus’ brothers.
-- And, their mother IS named Mary (the same as Jesus’)
-- And, one must admit, it’s also possible that the comma between “His mother’s sister” and “Mary the wife of Clopas” in John 19:25 may be distinguishing two different women instead of identifying Clopas’ wife as the Virgin Mary’s sister.
So, therefore, Mary the wife of Clopas may NOT be a relative at all NOR is she necessarily the same woman as “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in the Synoptics.
So, can “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” be Jesus’ mother as well?

Well, if this is the case, then
(A) Why is she never called the mother of Jesus in the cross/tomb accounts? (Wouldn’t that be easier than constantly “switching” between James and Jose?)
(B ) Why is she never called the mother of the other brothers, Simon and Judas?
(C.) Why isn’t she simply called the wife of Joseph?
(D) Why is she always listed second (and in Luke, third) after Mary Magdalene?
(E) Why does Matthew refer to her as merely “the other Mary” in 28:1?
(F) Why does John cite a second Mary at the cross: Mary the wife of Clopas? (A character who doesn’t appear in the Synoptics, unless she’s the mother of James and Joseph.)
(G) If John is calling his “Mary the wife of Clopas” the virgin Mary’s sister, how can the word “adelphos” (or “adelphe” in the feminine) be taken literally? Two sisters both named Mary?!

It therefore must be admitted that, if “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” and Jesus’ mother are one and the same, then
-- The three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are INTENTIONALLY neglecting to call her Jesus’ mother in their cross/tomb accounts (as if she’s not Jesus’ mother anymore.) (DUH)

-- The Synoptics are also INTENTIONALLY depicting her as a minor character, less important than Mary Magdalene. And, in the case of Matthew, she’s reduced to merely “the other Mary” in 28:1.(DUH)

Still playing devil’s advocate, I can imagine only one reason why the Synoptics would “demote” Jesus’ mother like this; since ALL THREE refer to her as “his mother” earlier in their Gospels. Perhaps, as some have argued, the Synoptics are UNDERLINING their accounts in Matt 12:46, Mark 3:35, and Luke 8:19-21, in which Jesus refuses to go out to meet His mother and brothers, but tells His disciples, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Perhaps they’re making a “theological point” by calling her only “the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in their later, cross/tomb accounts.

Well, although quite flimsy to begin with, this possibility is totally shattered, when one considers that in Acts 1:14 she is again called “the mother of Jesus.” Since Acts is the companion volume to Luke (produced by the same author), it doesn’t make much sense for Luke to call her “Mary the mother of James” in 24:10, and then re-bestow the title “mother of Jesus” in Acts 1:14 if he’s trying to make such a “theological point”. (bible twisting)

Therefore, my whole “devil’s advocate” position is undone, and it is proved conclusively that the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” is NOT Jesus’ mother. (get it yet?)

And, since this Mary is certainly the mother of the same James and Joseph/Jose who are also called Jesus’ “brothers,” then it’s equally proven that they COULD NOT have been the Lord’s brothers in a fraternal sense.
So, who are these “brothers” of Jesus? I hold that the term “brothers” refers to His entire tribal group: the boys He grew up with, and with whom He was somehow related.

But if these men were “cousins” or “blood relatives,” some argue, why not simply use the word “kinsman” or “relative” as found in Luke 1:36? e.g. in which Elizabeth is described as Mary’s “relative.”
I answer this quite simply. First of all, I claim that His “brothers” and “sisters” were members of His extended family WITH WHOM JESUS WAS RAISED.

Elizabeth’s son, John the Baptist, on the other hand, would not have been referred to in this sense, because Jesus was not raised with him, although they were of the same blood.

Also, I argue that the term “brother” is used in the Gospels because these particular men were known BY THIS TITLE in the early Church. I give you: 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, in which Paul is defending his right to be called an apostle:
“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?”

Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of “brother” was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant. (but not for modernist Protestants)

Conversely, if we take the term “adelphos” literally, that would mean that Joseph and Mary had a total of five sons and at least two daughters. This would make a total of seven children: in essence, a “Biblical Brady Bunch.” Now considering that Joseph’s profession was that of a carpenter; and not that of a shepherd or farmer, in which large families are encouraged to work the land or tend the flocks, it seems rather ridiculous that he could have supported a family of this size, living in a small, most likely mud brick house in a little place like Nazareth.

Also, even assuming (as the early Church writers Clement and Origen did) that Jesus’ “brothers” were the children of Joseph by a wife previous to Mary, Mark 6:3 clearly refers to Jesus as “the carpenter.” Since the family profession was passed on from father to son, how many carpenters could a little town like Nazareth support? Certainly not five!

However, if the term “brothers” refers instead to Jesus’ extended tribal-family group (as I believe I’ve shown it does), we are left with the image of five young boys (among others) playing in the streets of Nazareth:
JESUS: the son of Joseph and Mary
JAMES: and his sibling JOSEPH (or Jose): the sons of Clopas and Mary.
JUDAS
SIMON
These were the Lord’s childhood friends, with whom He grew to manhood; and given the scope of first century village life, with whom He was almost certainly related. I look forward to any comments or objections you might care to add.
Fat chance.
***************************************
Ezekiel 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus. According to modernist Protestants, Ezekiel is a false prophet.

The "Mary had other children" argument is demolished. It simply is not biblical. Try and refute this on scriptural grounds, not skeptic and atheist philosophies of the 19th century. I say it can't be done without absurd Bible twisting, like that silly "until" argument.

 

[mjrhealth]

You have yet to prove that Mary and Joseph did not sleep with one another, Without an interview with either of them you cannot say they did or did not, Lots of married couples sleep with one another yet dont have children. So the children arguement proves absoluely nothing no matter how much you drag it on.

 

[FHII]

Mary's name is "chanted" 14 times in the Rosary??
What planet are you from?? You started out discussing this rationally and charitably - unlike Stranger and his minion mrhealth - but now you
re just being dishonest. Mary's name is never "chanted" in the Rosary. She is asked to Pray for us.

Secondly - your statement "I abosulety do not think Joseph brought James, Joses, Simon and . . ." just shows your lack of faith in what God can do. What do you base this on besides your own opinion??

As for calling Mary a "Co-Redeemer" - we are ALL supposed to be "Co-Redeemers" in a sense.
This is what Paul talks about in Col 1:24, when he says:
"Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."
He talks about uas being "CO-WORKERS" (sunergos) with God.

Finally - not ONE of you has been able to address Mary's God-given title of "Kecharitomene" in Luke 1:28.
The Greek word is Kecharitomene that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with permanent result. It translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”

The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” or, "Hail, favored one."
He said, "Hail, Kecharitomene."

Please have a look at this web site:

http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm#loaded

I gave an abbreviated version, but I don't know how anyone can deny the over emphasis on Mary.

In regards to Jesus's brothers being step brothers. .. I have no problem believing with God all things are possible. But there is a problem: the Bible doesn't state they are his step brothers. All the verses we are discussing point to them being half brothers.

No, we aren't coredeemers. Col 1:24 says nothing like that. Hebrews 10 says for by one offering HE hathe perfected...

Finally I haven't addressed Luke 1:28 because I fail to see any reason to. It offers nothing in terms of whether Mary had chilren other than Jesus.

 

[Stranger]

NO discussion aboiut mary's sinlessness??

Ummmm, in post #140 - YOU made the following statement:
"So, we have a sinless Mary. Which is never stated in Scripture."
You have a very bad memory..

As for Luke 1:28 - I already pointed out where it talks about her sinlessness.
Your ignorance of the linguistic implications of her God-given title of "Kecharitomene" is where we find it.

Actually - it's not ignorance anymore because I've explained this to you more than once.
Now, it's just rejection of God's word . . .

Well, that is part of our discussion now. You indicated we discussed it many times before.

Note your phrase, "linguistic implications". There is absolutely nothing in "Kecharitomene" that says Mary was without sin. It doesn't matter if you translate it 'full of grace' or 'highly favoured' or what. It doesn't say Mary was without sin. The grace she was favoured with or full of, was from God. He bestowed it upon her. It wasn't in herself. She received it. From this, the Roman church wants to imply that Mary must have been sinless.

So you have made Mary sinless through a 'linguistic implication'. And if it doesn't say Mary was sinless, then why would anyone want to make Mary sinless, by implication. Only to elevate Mary to a level of adoration and worship.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

The mother in Psalm 69:8 is also Israel.

As for James - Psalm 69:8 says the following:
"I am a foreigner to my own family, a stranger to my own mother's children;"

This is talking about Israel, who rejected Him.
If it was talking about the supposed children of Mary, it wouldn't make sense because - James became the Bishop of Jerusalem.

Really - you can't be this dense . . .

When you say (Ps.69:8) also is Israel, are you saying the woman in (Rev.12) is Israel?

In (Rev.12) Israel is represented through sign or symbol by the woman in heaven. Just as Satan is represented as the dragon and angels are represented as stars. This is Israel through sign and symbol.

(Ps. 69:8) is not speaking of 'mother's children' through sign or symbol. It is a Messianic Psalm from David. Meaning that first of all it has meaning to David. David is describing what he is experiencing. But it also has meaning towards the coming Messiah because the Messiah Jesus Christ will experience this also. Thus, David is speaking about His mother's children, his own brothers. And likewise Jesus the Messiah will be speaking of His own 'mother's children'.

Mary's other children.

Christ's brothers did believe on Him after the resurrection. Makes perfect sense.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

If Mary was born sinless, which she was not, and lived a sinless life, whch she did not, than Jesus wasted His time being born, Funny how He always finds second place in these discussions.

 

[tabletalk]

Trying to divert from your very serious accusation (against forum rules imo).

You claimed "Mary's perpetual virginity is for the Romanist to be able to worship Mary as we worship Christ."
You made no attempt even to provide evidence for this disgraceful attack on Catholics.

I have reported it and I hope the mods take some note.

"You made no attempt even to provide evidence for this disgraceful attack on Catholics."

I hope the Moderators also note that the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church have an ongoing "attack" on the Protestant churches. We are under more than one Anathema(Council of Trent and the Second Council of Niceae) and both of those church groups exclude Protestants from their Communion table.

 

[Mungo]

No, you presented no evidence for the Mary's perpetual virginity. All you have done is try and change what the Scripture says, as you admitted, when it shows that Mary had other children. In other words there are no Scriptures that indicate in any way, that Mary remained a virgin. And, I have engaged in your discussions. It is you that said you won't engage in the discussion. Not me.

It is all about Mary. Thus I have laid no rabbit trail. It is just a trail you don't want to go down because it proves what the Romanists have done with Mary. Elevated her to a place of worship. Born without sin. Gives virgin birth. Remains a perpetual virgin. Does not die. And that is just the beginning. These things are not the teaching of the Bible. It is the teaching of the 'mother and child cult' that has infected the Roman church.

Stranger

Ample evidence has been presented but you just ignore it. You prefer to try and sidestep into irrelevant diversions.

 

[Mungo]

If Mary was born sinless, which she was not, and lived a sinless life, whch she did not, than Jesus wasted His time being born, Funny how He always finds second place in these discussions.

If Jesus finds second place it's because Protestants are obsessed with criticizing Catholics (and Orthodox) over their Marian beliefs.

 

[Mungo]

Please have a look at this web site:

http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm#loaded

I gave an abbreviated version, but I don't know how anyone can deny the over emphasis on Mary.

Overemphasis on Mary! The website page you linked to starts with: "The purpose of the Rosary is to help keep in memory certain principal events or mysteries in the history of our salvation, and to thank and praise God for them".

It's Protestants who try and make out Catholics put an overemphasis on Mary. You are obsessed about Catholics and Mary in a way the Catholic Church is not.

 

[FHII]

Mary's name is "chanted" 14 times in the Rosary??
What planet are you from?? You started out discussing this rationally and charitably - unlike Stranger and his minion mrhealth - but now you
re just being dishonest. Mary's name is never "chanted" in the Rosary. She is asked to Pray for us.

Secondly - your statement "I abosulety do not think Joseph brought James, Joses, Simon and . . ." just shows your lack of faith in what God can do. What do you base this on besides your own opinion??

As for calling Mary a "Co-Redeemer" - we are ALL supposed to be "Co-Redeemers" in a sense.
This is what Paul talks about in Col 1:24, when he says:
"Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."
He talks about uas being "CO-WORKERS" (sunergos) with God.

Finally - not ONE of you has been able to address Mary's God-given title of "Kecharitomene" in Luke 1:28.
The Greek word is Kecharitomene that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with permanent result. It translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”

The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” or, "Hail, favored one."
He said, "Hail, Kecharitomene."

By the way... You missed the point I was making. Again, with so much emphasis placed on Mary you shouldn't be surprised when people believe you worship Mary.

 

[epostle1]

Overemphasis on Mary! The website page you linked to starts with: "The purpose of the Rosary is to help keep in memory certain principal events or mysteries in the history of our salvation, and to thank and praise God for them".

It's Protestants who try and make out Catholics put an overemphasis on Mary. You are obsessed about Catholics and Mary in a way the Catholic Church is not.

"You made no attempt even to provide evidence for this disgraceful attack on Catholics."

I hope the Moderators also note that the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church have an ongoing "attack" on the Protestant churches. We are under more than one Anathema(Council of Trent and the Second Council of Niceae) and both of those church groups exclude Protestants from their Communion table.

Use the quote feature instead of making things up. There are no attacks on Protestant churches. Every Protestant misrepresents the Council of Trent, so if you have a beef with it, quote it in context, not the stupid snippets you find on anti-Catholic web sites. There were no Protestants in existence at the Second Council of Niceae, which defended the Trinity against the heresiarch Arius. Sorry that disturbs you. Protestants are not excluded from the Communion table, they have excluded themselves. "Communion" also means being in communion with the Church and Protestants are welcome if they follow the rules. Many ignore the rules and receive anyway, but it's bad manners.
99% of the time we are on the defensive. Sola scriptura is not attacked, it gets exposed for the farce that it is, using scripture alone to refute scripture alone. Threads get closed and you bellyache about fictitious attacks on Protestant churches?

 

[bbyrd009]

Mary as Tabernacle & Ark

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. (Lk 1:35)
The Greek word for overshadow (the power of the Most High will overshadow you) is episkiazein, which is the same word used in ancient Greek translations of the OT to describe the cloud of God overshadowing the tabernacle at Mount Sinai (e.g. Ex 40:35 ). So Gabriel is indicating that Mary will be a new tabernacle, a new vessel of God’s holy presence

Her womb is made a sacred vessel, a new Ark of the (new) Covenant.

The Shenikah cloud only rested above the Ark. How much more holy was the womb of Mary where God himself was present for nine months.

Her being ever-virgin speaks about the uniqueness of Christ.

The original Ark was made of wood plated with pure gold, representing the holiness of God. It was kept in the Holy of Holies. The high priest could only enter the Holy of Holies once a year.

Sacred vessels are not to be profaned (put to ordinary use). Daniel 5 describes what happens to those who profane sacred vessels – the king, Belshazzar, was slain that very night and his kingdom overthrown by the Medes and Persians.

When Uzzah touched the Ark he was struck dead (1Sam 6:6)

Denying the ever-virginity of Mary subtly denies the divinity of Christ in the womb.

It would not be fitting that the womb that was made so holy by the actual presence of God could be used to bring sinners into the world as other children would have been. What has been consecrated to God should not be profaned. The old Ark of the Covenant was sacred and could not be used for anything else. So too Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant would have been defiled by bearing another child in her womb.

[SIZE=11pt]Mary as [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Temple[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]In a typological sense Mary is also a [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Temple[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] of [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]God[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] since she bore Christ who is the sacrifice.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. The LORD said to me: This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it;[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] (Ez 44:1,2). [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Whilst Ezekial’s vision was for him a vision of the restoration of the [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Temple[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] in [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Jerusalem[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt], it was also a prophecy applicable here. Mary’s womb is the gate by which God incarnate entered into our world and the entrance to her womb (the gate) must remain shut for the Lord, the God of Israel, had entered by it.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The early Fathers made these connections as they pondered on scripture and the revelation that had been passed on to them.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity."
([/SIZE]St. Ambrose of [SIZE=11pt]Milan[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt], The Consecration of a Virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary 391 AD)

Jesus, as God does not break the virginal seals: in such wise he exits the womb as He entered through the ear; thus He was born, as He was conceived: without passion He entered, without corruption He exited, according to the prophet Ezekiel who says: ’This gate will remain closed.’
(St. Proclus, Homily 1 on the Mother of God, 431 AD)


"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...’ 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." [/SIZE]
([SIZE=11pt]St. Augustine[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] of Hippo, De Annunt. Dom. Iii circa 430 AD)


“One calls her the closed Gate set at the East, that lets in the King with the doors shut tight at the East because the true light that enlightens every man coming into the world, went forth from the womb, as from a royal bride-chamber.”
(Hesychius, Sermon 5, 5th century)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Mary as Bride and Church[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]When Mary said “yes” to God she entered into full communion with God, body and soul. In that sense she represents to Church as the bride of God. She becomes “one flesh” with God because she bears God in her womb, just as man and wife become “one flesh”. Therefore to give herself to another would be a form of adultery. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Isaiah prophesied (Is 62:4-5)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]No more shall men call you “Forsaken,”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]or your land “Desolate,”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]But you shall be called “My Delight,”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]and your land “Espoused.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]For the Lord delights in you,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]and makes your land his spouse.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]As a young man marries a virgin,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]your Builder shall marry you;[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]And as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]so shall your God rejoice in you[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt].[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Here we can see references to Mary’s virginal motherhood, her mystical marriage to God who is at the same time her Father, her Son and her Spouse.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]One Son[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]An important argument from a theological perspective is that always, when a birth is announced by an angel of a son, it is a matter of an only son.[/SIZE]

• [SIZE=11pt]Isaac (Gen [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]18:10[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt])[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=11pt]Samson (Judges 13:4)[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=11pt]John the Baptist (Lk [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]1:13[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt])[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]If these were figures of the Messiah, it would be illogical that they would be only sons, and the one represented by them were not like them.[/SIZE]

ah, now these i am finding compelling, ty.

 

[Born_Again]

It is important the Mary not be a perpetual virgin because Scripture doesn't say she was. And the Roman church has created a false doctrine concerning it.

That is what debates are for. To prove and disprove is all part of it. It affects what people will believe.

Stranger

Whether or not Mary remained a virgin has zero bearing on what my relationship with Christ is. I hadnt even considered it until someone brought it up on here. In the end, its really just a fun fact to know whether or not. The important thing is that she was a virgin upon conception with Christ. I will still sleep just as soundly. tonight as any other night.

 

[BreadOfLife]

By the way... You missed the point I was making. Again, with so much emphasis placed on Mary you shouldn't be surprised when people believe you worship Mary.

I think all of the emphasis on Mary comes from anti-Catholics.
We don't put "too much" emphasis on her. We acknowledge her as Scripture does. She was exalted by God over most - but never above her Son.

What we don't do is denigrate her like anti-Catholics do. They feel that by doing this - they are doing a service to Christ.
On the contrary - MANY anti-Catholics will have to answer to Him for the maltreatment of and disrespect toward His mother.

 

[Mungo]

ah, now these i am finding compelling, ty.

Thank you for reading and considering them.

 

[bbyrd009]

Thank you for reading and considering them.

well, of course the "open and shut" parables are generally ascribed to a different concept--that i have just been reviewing--and i can't help but feel that applying them to Mary is reducing them to a flesh interpretation, but then i am biased, so i will have to come up with an experiment that negates my bias. But it at least provides a framework for understanding why Catholics might believe this.

 

[FHII]

I think all of the emphasis on Mary comes from anti-Catholics.
We don't put "too much" emphasis on her. We acknowledge her as Scripture does. She was exalted by God over most - but never above her Son.

What we don't do is denigrate her like anti-Catholics do. They feel that by doing this - they are doing a service to Christ.
On the contrary - MANY anti-Catholics will have to answer to Him for the maltreatment of and disrespect toward His mother.

I am not looking at this as a catholic vs anti catholic conversation. I understand others are and I understand that such doctrines have their roots in Catholicism. I am more interested in addressing the doctrine.

My last point was about the combined doctrines about Mary and whether or not tou ahould be surprised when the conclusion is made about her being worshipped.

For the record, if you say you don't worship Mary, I will take your word for it. But that doesnt mean I am going to approve of the doctrines or even the practice of the rosary.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am not looking at this as a catholic vs anti catholic conversation. I understand others are and I understand that such doctrines have their roots in Catholicism. I am more interested in addressing the doctrine.

My last point was about the combined doctrines about Mary and whether or not tou ahould be surprised when the conclusion is made about her being worshipped.

For the record, if you say you don't worship Mary, I will take your word for it. But that doesnt mean I am going to approve of the doctrines or even the practice of the rosary.

And as far as I'm concerned - if you simply disagree, then I have no problem with you.
I only have a problem with the other 98% of Protestants who make up lies and fairy tales about what they THINK the Catholic Church teaches.