The 'blessed virgin Mary'

[Illuminator]

"So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic."

1. The use of the term 'Scripture' here dishonors Scripture of God, because it uses the name of 'Scripture' falsely.

Scripture of truth by God is what is written by God through man. 'Scripture' was never tested against apostolic tradition. Different writings were tested to confirm that which was indeed Scripture of God by the apostles vs other writings and oral traditions of man, whether by Thomas or pseudo-apostles.

2. The Scripture we have today in the Bible is that which the inheritors of the apostolic faith of Jesus determined to be indeed written by the prophets and the apostles, as well as some such as Mark and Luke, as opposed to all other writings and oral traditions.

"The canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected."

However, at no time were the writings of the prophets of the Old, or those of the acknowledged apostles of the New ever tested against other traditional writings and oral traditions. What was 'tested' was whether in fact such writings handed down were indeed that of the prophets and the apostles, or not.

3. There is today an already confirmed final and distinct difference between oral tradition of man written by man, and oral tradition of God written by prophets and apostles, called: The Word of prophecy. (Ezek 20 & 21) (2 Peter 1)

The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always
been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.

The Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah's Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the "tradition of Arianism" was
non-existent.

We claim that apostolic Tradition is necessary along with Sacred Scripture. This was the patristic principle, and how they invariably fought the heretics. The biblical arguments provided the "meat" of their arguments, but in the end they would appeal to the Tradition of "what had always been believed everywhere by everyone" (St. Vincent of Lerin's dictum -- the Commonitorium where this comes from is also the most explicit exposition of development of doctrine in the Fathers, and Newman's starting-point).

Edwin Tait, an Anglican, wrote (in substantial agreement with the Catholic view):

Of course the Fathers thought that they could prove their view from Scripture. They also thought that the historic communion of bishops in succession from the Apostles, gathered in Councils (with Rome playing some role, which I don't want to debate here), could be counted on to interpret Scripture correctly. The whole sola scriptura debate only became possible when a sizeable number of influential Christians began proclaiming that the bishops gathered in Council, in communion with Rome, had seriously erred in interpreting Scripture over a period of several centuries. Of course both sides can appeal to the Fathers, because the Fathers never thought of Scriptural sufficiency and the authority of the Church/Tradition as being at odds.​

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/sola-scriptura/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-by-mark-shea/

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching? | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)

 

[robert derrick]

"Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition."

1. False. Both Paul and Peter, as Jesus, made distinct difference between Scripture and all other traditions of men, whether oral or written. (Col 2)(1 Peter 1)

If there were ever any 'traditions' whether oral or written that were surely from God, then they would have been included by God in Scripture, and confirmed as such by the inheritors of the apostles' doctrine. All 'traditions' to come after that are false, except they simply agree with what is already written and confirmed as Scripture.

"He uses qualifying phrases like “your tradition,” “commandments of men,” “tradition of men,” as opposed to “the commandment of God.”

Any tradition not so confirmed by current Bible Scripture is thus 'your' and 'their' tradition and commandments of men, whether they were spoken of before or after the final confirmation of the Bible.

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture": There is no 'sacred' tradition nor 'sacred' writing other than the Scripture of the Bible already written and confirmed as such long ago.

"So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic."

1. As already noted, Scripture is never itself tested by man with other writings of man. 'The Bible is not judged by other books, but all other books are judged by the Bible.' It wasn't 'Scripture being tested against tradition, but rather rather confirmation of what was in fact Scripture from the prophets and apostles as separate and distinct from other 'tradition' put forth as from them inspired by God.

2. While there is no 'quantitative difference' between written and oral tradition of man, there certainly is a quantitatively distinct difference between written and oral tradition of man and that of Scripture from God. And the difference between the two has already been concluded.

3. To believe otherwise for today, is to reject the very 'fathers' that have already made the distinction once for all. It is saying that there is still an ongoing and proper dispute between existing oral traditions and writings of man vs Scripture.

All Scripture for the Old and New Testaments have been finalized. There is no more Scripture to come. Rev 22:21 ends all Scripture from God in the world. Whether someone comes up with or 'finds' more Scripture to add, or someone wants to equalize some word of tradition as Scripture today, they are all false prophecy and teaching, except of course they agree with the Bible already written.

To say otherwise today was heresy to Paul, and would be heresy to them that 'canonized' the Scriptures once and for all, long ago.

 

[robert derrick]

"Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus."

If this woman is ministerial or mystical 'Mary', then what 'wilderness' is this she has fled to? And when?

If she is in deed the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin in heaven, sitting in the throne room with Her Son and God, being sub-contracted out for mediation with men, then what 'wilderness' is she in? Or when did she flee there? Or has she done so yet?

Are her Catholic children now in this wilderness, called Vatican City? Or is this wilderness ministerial, in that Christians have kicked her out of 'mainstream' Christianity?

Has she fled to the 'wilderness' with her children due to posts in this forum, as is suggested above?

If so, I would say she is a very weak and easily intimidated 'Queen'.

And how exactly does the dragon wages war with her and causes her to run away, by quoting Scripture completely, plainly, and simply as written, and not by misquotation nor misrepresentation thereof?

 

[Curtis]

I have no objection to referring to Mary as the blessed virgin Mary, because every saint in Christ Jesus presented to the Lord, shall be a blessed and chaste virgin (2 Cor 11:2).

All that abide in Christ therefore can be fairly addressed as the blessed virgin 'so and so'.

The only One in heaven that is and ever shall be noticeably and visibly distinct from all others is Jesus, who stands as a slain Lamb in the midst of the throne(Rev 5), i.e. the prints and marks of His crucifixion shall remain in His resurrected body for all to see, as a perpetual reminder of His cross.

Other than Himself, the 12 Apostles of the Lamb, aside from Judas and including Paul, shall be specially remembered in the foundation stones of heavenly New Jerusalem, having their names written in them. Likewise the names of the 12 tribes of Israel shall be remembered by being written on the gates of the that City.

Other than these examples, I see no other blessed saint with Jesus in heaven that is recognized by God as 'special' to Himself and His ministry. None shall be better or worse, higher or lower, honored more or less, nor specially named than any other...

Does anyone know why believers in Jesus are so intent on falsely making Mary a 'perpetual' virgin on earth after she gave birth to Jesus? I know it is a false teaching and woefully vain worshipping, but my question is why?

Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest mortal person on earth, meaning greater that Mary.

But let’s not build shrines or pray to John, please.

 

[Curtis]

"Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus."

If this woman is ministerial or mystical 'Mary', then what 'wilderness' is this she has fled to? And when?

If she is in deed the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin in heaven, sitting in the throne room with Her Son and God, being sub-contracted out for mediation with men, then what 'wilderness' is she in? Or when did she flee there? Or has she done so yet?

Are her Catholic children now in this wilderness, called Vatican City? Or is this wilderness ministerial, in that Christians have kicked her out of 'mainstream' Christianity?

Has she fled to the 'wilderness' with her children due to posts in this forum, as is suggested above?

If so, I would say she is a very weak and easily intimidated 'Queen'.

And how exactly does the dragon wages war with her and causes her to run away, by quoting Scripture completely, plainly, and simply as written, and not by misquotation nor misrepresentation thereof?

We know the woman that flees into the desert for exactly 3.5 years in Revelation 12, is Israel fleeing Judea in the middle of the 7 years in Daniel (when the son of perdition steps into the temple and claims to be God, per Matthew 24), because of the symbology used for her, which is from the Old Testament, of the sun, moon, and stars - Genesis 37:9.

That is symbolic of Israel - the Jewish Messiah Jesus came out of Israel.

 

[robert derrick]

If 'Mary' is indeed Mother of God, Blessed Virgin above all others in heaven, clothed with the sun, and womb of the New Jerusalem of God...where is her body? The one that bore the Lord Jesus in the first place?

I mean, what she did in that body is supposed to be the sole basis for all such titles and manifestations above, so that body would be very important to God her Son and her most-Catholic children. Or at least one would think so. Therefore, it is a legitimate question.

Has she, like Jesus, already been resurrected into that body? If so, did she ascend as He, but no one saw it to record it? (I mean, even Mohamet has his 'eyewitnesses' in history)

Is she therefore the only one to ever be resurrected along with Jesus before the First Resurrection?

And if not, and she is at this time in her spiritual and ministerial body as the Woman clothed with the sun, and the New Jerusalem of God (or at least the womb thereof), what happens when her earthly body is actually resurrected upon the earth, along with the rest of the dead in Christ?

Will she then 'join her most-Catholic and resurrected children' at that time to embrace them in her womb, and then take her leave of them, when she has borne them to the Lord in the air, that she may return, or actually ascended in her resurrected body, to perpetual Woman Being clothed with the sun and being decked with the bejeweled great and high wall of New Jerusalem.

(But of course, she wouldn't do that, since the current reigning and oral 'word of prophecy' pope has determined that God does not build walls, but only bridges...)

Complicated I know, but I'm not the one that made up this Mary myth. I'm only trying to make what practical sense of it I can in light of Scripture.

And no, I would not equate this entirely Catholisized oral stuff with the hard things to be understood written by Paul in Scripture. (2 Peter 3)

 

[robert derrick]

Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest mortal person on earth, meaning greater that Mary.

But let’s not build shrines or pray to John, please.

OMG first the Catholics with Mary and now you with John Baptist!

What will you call your new oral tradition and religion? 'Baptist' is already taken.

How about Blessed Virgin John, as nephew of Blessed Virgin Mary?? He was her sister's son, and he was in fact more virgin upon death than Mary...

What about Blessed Virgin and Lord Jesus? He was just as much a virgin at death as John, and likewise more so than Mary.

 

[robert derrick]

We know the woman that flees into the desert for exactly 3.5 years in Revelation 12, is Israel fleeing Judea in the middle of the 7 years in Daniel (when the son of perdition steps into the temple and claims to be God, per Matthew 24), because of the symbology used for her, which is from the Old Testament, of the sun, moon, and stars - Genesis 37:9.

That is symbolic of Israel - the Jewish Messiah Jesus came out of Israel.

Look. If you are going to bring in traditional 'sola scriptural' reasoning, then you have no place here at all.

Remember, Mother Nature and Mary is watching!

 

[Curtis]

I have no objection to referring to Mary as the blessed virgin Mary, because every saint in Christ Jesus presented to the Lord, shall be a blessed and chaste virgin (2 Cor 11:2).

All that abide in Christ therefore can be fairly addressed as the blessed virgin 'so and so'.

The only One in heaven that is and ever shall be noticeably and visibly distinct from all others is Jesus, who stands as a slain Lamb in the midst of the throne(Rev 5), i.e. the prints and marks of His crucifixion shall remain in His resurrected body for all to see, as a perpetual reminder of His cross.

Other than Himself, the 12 Apostles of the Lamb, aside from Judas and including Paul, shall be specially remembered in the foundation stones of heavenly New Jerusalem, having their names written in them. Likewise the names of the 12 tribes of Israel shall be remembered by being written on the gates of the that City.

Other than these examples, I see no other blessed saint with Jesus in heaven that is recognized by God as 'special' to Himself and His ministry. None shall be better or worse, higher or lower, honored more or less, nor specially named than any other...

Does anyone know why believers in Jesus are so intent on falsely making Mary a 'perpetual' virgin on earth after she gave birth to Jesus? I know it is a false teaching and woefully vain worshipping, but my question is why?

Because Constantine made church attendance mandatory, bringing in pagans to the churc

First of all - where Scripture is concerned, Mary's Perpetual virginity is based on:

1. The fact that Mary, herself, gave her intention to the Angel to remain a virgin in Luke 1:34.
2. The comparison of Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, which was also not to be handled or defiled by the hands of man.
2. The complete and total absence of the mention of her having other children.

As for your charges of "worship" - this is a blatant lie that you were taught and has NO basis in fact.

Now - if you would like to have a charitable discussion on the subject - then let's have one.
Otherwise, I smell another anti-Catholic thread brewing . . .

An this would be your typical idiotic response based solely in ignorance . . .

Except scripture makes clear they had little faith in Jesus in His own hometown, because they knew His family of mother. sisters and brothers, and didn’t believe the Messiah could come from an earthy family.

And scripture clearly says Joseph had sex with Mary after Jesus was born.

Of course he did, because they were married, and if a marriage isn’t consummated by sex, it’s null and void.

There’s zero reason or need for her to remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth.

 

[robert derrick]

"Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring."

'Sola Scripture' cannot stop any heresy from occurring. That was already occurring in the time of the Apostles.

But Scripture alone can certainly disprove and reject all heresy, including Arianism and Unitarianism, which I can even do.

And so if these great defenders of the faith needed to go after other traditions and reasonings than Scripture, they were incompetent children, ignorant of the Scriptures to contest and defeat them that wrest Scripture to their own liking. (2 Peter 3)

"Scripture proves Scripture, and Scripture defends Scripture." (Anonymous)

And, just as it so happens, those very same ones that claim Scripture needs 'extra help' to defend itself, are the very same ones bringing in damnable heresies that they say Scripture can't refute. (Go figure that one)

(Footnote: Arianism is still going on as Unitarianism, and the only ones ever in crises about it, were those not relying on Scripture only, but were and are looking for some great artisans of extra-biblical reasoning and thinking to come up with a man-made tradition-binding answer against it.)

 

[robert derrick]

"Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring."

So says the one who needs 'additional' texts to establish a 'Mary' Mediation as Mother of God.

Followers of the Lamb don't need Mary's help at all, and Scripture doesn't need man's traditions to help at all. (Anonymous)

 

[Curtis]

So to sum up, why do you suppose that none of the New Testament writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to include any of those doctrines regarding Mary if she is intended to be such a vital part of the Roman/Latin Rite Catholic religion?

Not just about Mary, but no Roman Catholic doctrine is mentioned by Peter, the supposed pope.

And the book of Romans in chapter 10, tells specifically what the apostles teach on how to be saved, has no mention of catechism, Eucharist, sacraments, baptism, or confirmation, having any part of our salvation.

Romans 10:8-13 says, this is what we the apostles teach - that if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU SHALL BE SAVED - for with the heart, you BELIEVE unto righteousness, and with the mouth, confession is made UNTO SALVATION, for whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord, SHALL BE SAVED.

That’s a completely different way of being saved than the Roman sect teaches.

 

[Curtis]

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7)

Trolling is a purposed effort to illicit emotional shock and outrage. Disputation of Scripture is a purposed effort to illicit sound argument from Scripture.

I believe your photo says it all. You will not be missed.

I read your comment, but then lost where the page was, where you seemed to say the city New Jerusalem was symbology.

That city is a literal city, it’s the place Jesus went to prepare for us.

It’s literal because we are told it’s specific length, width, height, given the thickness of the wall, the composition of the wall material, etc. that’s too specific for metaphor.

And told that God and Jesus will dwell in that city with us, forever.

Cross reference Zechariah 14:16 to end of chapter.

Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Rev 21:11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

Rev 21:12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

Rev 21:13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Rev 21:15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.

Rev 21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.

Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

Rev 21:18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.

Rev 21:19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;

Rev 21:20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.

Rev 21:21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Rev 21:26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Because Constantine made church attendance mandatory, bringing in pagans to the churc

That's absolutely FALSE claim for which you have ZERO historical substantiation.
Constantine simply made Christianity legal in his Edict of Milan. Nobody was coerced to attend mass.

Except scripture makes clear they had little faith in Jesus in His own hometown, because they knew His family of mother. sisters and brothers, and didn’t believe the Messiah could come from an earthy family.

WRONG again.

Jesus didn't have siblings.
If you believe He DID - ten the onus is on YOU to provide proof of this.

And scripture clearly says Joseph had sex with Mary after Jesus was born.

Of course he did, because they were married, and if a marriage isn’t consummated by sex, it’s null and void.
There’s zero reason or need for her to remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth.

Scripture says NO such thing.

Look - if you're going to TRY to be an anti-Catholic - at LEAST do your homework.-
DON'T be like your friend @GracePeace, who has turned me in to the Mods repeatedly for publicly defeating him that I'm almost not allowed to converse with him here for fear of being banned.

 

[GracePeace]

DON'T be like your friend @GracePeace, who has turned me in to the Mods repeatedly for publicly defeating him that I'm almost not allowed to converse with him here for fear of being banned.

Actually, I won't be reporting your evil behavior anymore--it was apparently on account of those reports (according to a Mod) that they shut the previous thread, where you and your ridiculous religion were being shredded, down.
I invite you to join me on my new related thread.

 

[GracePeace]

DON'T be like your friend @GracePeace, who has turned me in to the Mods repeatedly for publicly defeating him that I'm almost not allowed to converse with him here for fear of being banned.

You realize you don't need to be talking to me in order for me to be able to report you right? I could report you for things you say to anyone else on this forum. The fact that I haven't should show I don't intend to report you for your misbehavior. Now, then, you have no reason not to come discuss with me at the "Infallible" thread.

 

[robert derrick]

I read your comment, but then lost where the page was, where you seemed to say the city New Jerusalem was symbology.

That city is a literal city, it’s the place Jesus went to prepare for us.

It’s literal because we are told it’s specific length, width, height, given the thickness of the wall, the composition of the wall material, etc. that’s too specific for metaphor.

I really don't know where you got that. I don't speak about trolling, because I don't care about trolling. I 'troll' all the time myself.

The only time I have spoken of New Jerusalem being 'symbolic' is in connection with 'Mary' worshippers making her the mystic New Jerusalem, which of course is ridiculous. Especially since their current mediating-for-the-Mediator pope has recently declared that God does not build walls but bridges.

And New Jerusalem is built with a great and high wallt as you quote: specifically o keep out those who would illegally enter. (Rev 21:27)

 

[robert derrick]

"Scripture says NO such thing."

"Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." (Matthew 12)

"Jesus didn't have siblings. If you believe He DID - then the onus is on YOU to provide proof of this."

And this is another fundamental reversal of dispute.

It is obviously understood from Scripture that Jesus had brothers, because the Scripture plainly says so.

It is therefore up those who object to plainly written Scripture to prove by Scripture that what is plainly written isn't really so.

But since we now know that such Catholic followers don't care what Scripture says in the first place, because they go by not-scriptural tradition anyway, that it is a waste of time to bother with them at all.

Scripture speaks of Jesus' mother and brothers. Simple. Their no-scriptural tradition says otherwise. We go by Scripture, they go by their own traditions.

It is foolish and fruitless to argue Scripture with such Catholic followers as much as it would be with an unbelieving Jews and Islamists.

It really is that simple. The only so-called 'complication' in all this is that Catholics persist in giving lip-service to Jesus, whereas unbelieving Jews and Islamists do not even bother.

"I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Rev 3)

The Lord Himself has more respect to unbelieving Jews and Islamists than He does for Catholic posers, as do I.

 

[Philip James]

: specifically o keep out those who would illegally enter.

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force.

 

[robert derrick]

Not just about Mary, but no Roman Catholic doctrine is mentioned by Peter, the supposed pope.
That’s a completely different way of being saved than the Roman sect teaches.

The 'Roman sect' implies some form of legitimacy in Christ. Cult is far more accurate.

At the beginning of this thread I was all to willing to confess traditional Catholics as brothers and sisters in the Lord, with just some mystical 'Mary' mother stuff to dispute. But having witnessed their deep dive into non-Scripture and adherence to ungodly traditions of false 'fathers', every bit as much as the corrupt 'fathers' of the Jews who slew Jesus, I no longer afford them that much credibility.

The tradition-bound Catholic following 'church' of today is every bit as much cultish as the rabbinical-bound synagogue following Jews of Jesus' day.

And I guarantee you, If Jesus were once again to come as a man with miracles of God, rebuking their false oral traditions added to Scriptural authority, they would have Him killed likewise.

That is a fact. Even as they did His members in the days where they had such governmental authority to do so. They have not changed their zealous anti-christ adherence to their own traditions from that of yesteryear. They just don't (at this time) have the gvt clout to exercise it.

The Catholic papacy and ecumenical eucharistic body of today is a dormant beast, just waiting to be unleashed upon all the Scripture and Jesus only followers of the Lamb, that call their traditional pseudo-scholastic garbage what it is: pseudo-scholastic garbage.

Sola Scriptura is Sola Jesus. No mystical Mary and certainly no pompously marxist pope.