Virgin Mary

Festus · 09-02-2015 10:13AM

silverharp wrote: »

Do catholics not suspect that the whole Mary thing was a bit of a made up yarn that enterened into church lore later? There is no mention of in the nt and also contradicts the idea that Jesus was the only one "without sin" .
I'd also imagine that being without "original sin" she wouldn't have died at all or did she munch on an apple at some stage?

Nope.

There is much of interest to discuss but a thread such as this that has been set up to mock and insult Catholic beliefs is not the place for it.

Safehands · 09-02-2015 10:16AM

silverharp wrote: »

Do catholics not suspect that the whole Mary thing was a bit of a made up yarn that enterened into church lore later? There is no mention of in the nt and also contradicts the idea that Jesus was the only one "without sin" .

A huge number do, me included!

Peregrinus · 09-02-2015 10:24AM

silverharp wrote: »

Do catholics not suspect that the whole Mary thing was a bit of a made up yarn that enterened into church lore later? There is no mention of in the nt and also contradicts the idea that Jesus was the only one "without sin" .

Well, it's obviously wrong to say that "the whole Mary thing" is not mentioned in the OT. Mary is repeatedly mentioned in scriptures by different authors.

You'd be on slightly stonger grounds if you narrowed your comment down to Mary's perpetual virginity, which isn't mentioned in as many words. As already noted, this emerges from a theological reading of the scriptures, and obviously it's not a reading that anyone is compelled to share.

But this isn't just a problem for Catholics. You could say exactly the same about the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, neither of which are explicitly spelled out in scripture. And obvlously when you raise those questions, they are relevant to Christians from all traditions.

silverharp wrote: »

I'd also imagine that being without "original sin" she wouldn't have died at all . . .

Well spotted. It is precisely this consideration which brings us to the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (or the Dormition, as it's known in Eastern Christianity).

silverharp · 09-02-2015 10:44AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it's obviously wrong to say that "the whole Mary thing" is not mentioned in the OT. Mary is repeatedly mentioned in scriptures by different authors.

You'd be on slightly stonger grounds if you narrowed your comment down to Mary's perpetual virginity, which isn't mentioned in as many words. As already noted, this emerges from a theological reading of the scriptures, and obviously it's not a reading that anyone is compelled to share

I meant that she was anything more than a normal woman. Any reasonable reading of the nt says that that Jesus had siblings and that she was a normal wife that was "known" to her husband. It appears that anyone putting the nt together wasn't aware of this whole theology which presumably includes Jesus himself

Festus · 09-02-2015 10:44AM

Safehands wrote: »

A huge number do, me included!

You're a Catholic

Your postings suggest otherwise. While you may have been born to a Catholic family your postings suggest you are now atheist.

Can you clarify?

It is a little disingenuous for you to call yourself a Catholic while at the same time attacking the Church, and then on another thread attack posters who believe that God exists and that the Bible is true.

Safehands · 09-02-2015 11:06AM

Festus wrote: »

You're a Catholic

Your postings suggest otherwise. While you may have been born to a Catholic family your postings suggest you are now atheist.

Can you clarify?

Glad to. Once baptised a Catholic always a Catholic. Doesn't mean I have to agree with all of the nonsense they go on with. I was asleep when I formally entered the RC community. Maybe they should change that too, would you agree?

Peregrinus · 09-02-2015 11:15AM

silverharp wrote: »

I meant that she was anything more than a normal woman. Any reasonable reading of the nt says that that Jesus had siblings and that she was a normal wife that was "known" to her husband.

The NT is explicit and detailed on the subject of the virgin birth, surely? A reading which ignores this is hardly "reasonable". However else the NT presents Mary, it does not present her as "normal"

silverharp wrote: »

It appears that anyone putting the nt together wasn't aware of this whole theology which presumably includes Jesus himself

Sorry, am I misunderstanding you or are you suggesting that Jesus had a hand in putting together the NT?

silverharp · 09-02-2015 11:32AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The NT is explicit and detailed on the subject of the virgin birth, surely? A reading which ignores this is hardly "reasonable". However else the NT presents Mary, it does not present her as "normal"

Sorry, am I misunderstanding you or are you suggesting that Jesus had a hand in putting together the NT?

I meant post birth, as for Jesus what I'm saying is that he wouldn't have recognised all the mary theology as he clearly isn't recorded talking about it .

Peregrinus · 09-02-2015 11:39AM

silverharp wrote: »

I meant post birth, as for Jesus what I'm saying is that he wouldn't have recognised all the mary theology as he clearly isn't recorded talking about it .

He doesn't talk about the Trinity or the Incarnation either. In fact he doiesn't talk about himself very much, and when he does he is very guarded and elliptical in what he says (and the disciples have great difficulty understanding him).

And he doesn't talk about his mother at all, as far as I know, beyond (a) indicating that he will repudiate her if she will repudiate her if she does not support his mission, and (b) asking the beloved disciple to look after her when he is crucified. The fact that he doesn't mention her virginity is very much of a piece with the fact that he barely mentions her at all.

Look, it's accepted on all sides that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not plainly attested in the NT scriptures. While that may mean the case is in one sense weak, it also means you can't attack the case by pointing out that the scriptures mention Jesus' brothers, fail to mention Mary's virginity, etc.

Festus · 09-02-2015 11:49AM

Safehands wrote: »

Glad to. Once baptised a Catholic always a Catholic. Doesn't mean I have to agree with all of the nonsense they go on with. I was asleep when I formally entered the RC community. Maybe they should change that too, would you agree?

No I wouldn't

For the purposes of clarity would it not be more prudent for you to call yourself a former Catholic or lapsed Catholic or even a Catholic atheist?

katydid · 09-02-2015 11:56AM

Safehands wrote: »

That is correct, but really it is nonsense. How could the church possibly know such a fact, if indeed such a fact ever existed. To think a pure baby could have sin on its soul is so wrong. Men in the Church come up with some ridiculous notions. The virginity of Mary is one such irrelevant notion.

They "know" such a fact because they read the Bible and came up with the doctrine of original sin based on the story of humanity's expulsion from Paradise. Basically we are all tained by the fall of Adam and Eve.

Safehands · 09-02-2015 11:58AM

katydid wrote: »

They "know" such a fact because they read the Bible and came up with the doctrine of original sin based on the story of humanity's expulsion from Paradise. Basically we are all tained by the fall of Adam and Eve.

If Adam and Eve were real people, which they were not.

Festus · 09-02-2015 12:02PM

Safehands wrote: »

If Adam and Eve were real people, which they were not.

Can you prove that?

Peregrinus · 09-02-2015 12:03PM

Safehands wrote: »

If Adam and Eve were real people, which they were not.

Safehands, Christian belief about the significance of the story of the Fall and about original sin does not depend on Adam and Eve having been real people.

You may be a biblical literalist, unable to understand the story in any other terms, and of course you're quite entitled to be. I wouildn't dream of telling you what to believe or how to form your beliefs.

But Christians generally are not biblical literalists, and if you think they are it just shows that you have misunderstood them.

katydid · 09-02-2015 12:06PM

Safehands wrote: »

If Adam and Eve were real people, which they were not.

I know that. I'm just explaining the source of the doctrine.

You don't have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve to know that humans have a basic fault, which prevents them from being totally good. It's that "devil" inside us that can be used for great good when it drives us to go out and discover things but can be used for great evil too, if used for perverted purposes. The Genesis story is an attempt to explain that flaw in our make up, our "original sin".

silverharp · 09-02-2015 12:09PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

He doesn't talk about the Trinity or the Incarnation either. In fact he doiesn't talk about himself very much, and when he does he is very guarded and elliptical in what he says (and the disciples have great difficulty understanding him).

And he doesn't talk about his mother at all, as far as I know, beyond (a) indicating that he will repudiate her if she will repudiate her if she does not support his mission, and (b) asking the beloved disciple to look after her when he is crucified. The fact that he doesn't mention her virginity is very much of a piece with the fact that he barely mentions her at all.

Look, it's accepted on all sides that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not plainly attested in the NT scriptures. While that may mean the case is in one sense weak, it also means you can't attack the case by pointing out that the scriptures mention Jesus' brothers, fail to mention Mary's virginity, etc.

But does not suggest that the whole view of Mary has all the appearance of being a later import from other religions ?

Safehands · 09-02-2015 12:11PM

Festus wrote: »

Can you prove that?

Can you offer any proof at all, even the tiniest bit of proof, that they were? Remember, the onus is on the one making the claim for their existence. Show me any evidence and I will believe.

silverharp · 09-02-2015 12:12PM

Festus wrote: »

Can you prove that?

Dinosaurs.

Safehands · 09-02-2015 12:13PM

katydid wrote: »

I know that. I'm just explaining the source of the doctrine.

You don't have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve to know that humans have a basic fault, which prevents them from being totally good. It's that "devil" inside us that can be used for great good when it drives us to go out and discover things but can be used for great evil too, if used for perverted purposes. The Genesis story is an attempt to explain that flaw in our make up, our "original sin".

And baptism gets rid if that fault?

Peregrinus · 09-02-2015 12:23PM

silverharp wrote: »

But does not suggest that the whole view of Mary has all the appearance of being a later import from other religions ?

The fact that Jesus doesn't talk about her suggests that much of the beliefs about her are imports from other religions? No, not at all. There's a huge gap between "Jesus said it" and "we got this from the Zoroastrians". The world contains more possiblities than this.

First things first; the belief in a virgin birth is very ancient. It' indpendentlyh recorded in Matthew and Luke, and their nativity accounts are completely different so there is no question of one of them having got it from the other, or either of them having made it up. The likelihood is that they are both recording an existing virgin birth tradition which predates both their gospels, and was widespread before they were written.

Second: It follows that the virgin birth tradition was circulating during the lifetime of many people who had known Jesus, or his Mothers, brothers and sister. So it was circulating at a time when there were plenty of people around in a position to refute it, if it needed refuting.

That doesn't prove it is true, of course. You could speculate that the surviving family and friends of Jesus entered into a cynical conspiracy not to deny this story but to milk it for all it was worth. It's a wild speculation - there's no evidence at all of this, and it's unlikely that a conspiracy with so many necessary parties (who we know were at odds on other issues) could hold together for very long. But it's possible.

But even so, we have to accept that a belief in the virgin birth, true or not, was current from a very early time in the church's history. It's one of the earliest Christian beliefs we know of. Once you accept that, you don't need to look to influences from "other religions" to account for theological reflection on the reason for, significance of and implications from Mary's virginity, and for extrapolations of that belief.

And, att least in the early stages of this process of reflection, the community would have been unbothered by the fact that Mary's perpetual virginity was unmentioned in the NT scriptures; none of the NT scriptures had been written at the time. The community was working off its own knowledge, memories and experience of Jesus.

Harika · 09-02-2015 12:24PM

Festus wrote: »

Can you prove that?

Glad that you asked. Yes it can be proven that Adam and Eve were not the first two humans as the bible portrays them. Oh I hear you spin it already ... :cool:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/adam-and-eve-the-ultimate-standoff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/

Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.

Festus · 09-02-2015 12:25PM

Safehands wrote: »

Can you offer any proof at all, even the tiniest bit of proof, that they were? Remember, the onus is on the one making the claim for their existence. Show me any evidence and I will believe.

I accept what the Bible says. The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve and I accept that. There is no requirement on me to prove the Bible is true.

You on the other hand are presenting an unsubstantiated assertion that you either cannot prove or are unwilling to prove.

Festus · 09-02-2015 12:32PM

Harika wrote: »

Glad that you asked. Yes it can be proven that Adam and Eve were not the first two humans as the bible portrays them. Oh I hear you spin it already ... :cool:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/adam-and-eve-the-ultimate-standoff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/

No need to spin

I'll just throw a link back at you that debunks your link

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/07/no_virginia_science_has_not_de.html

Harika · 09-02-2015 12:54PM

Festus wrote: »

No need to spin

I'll just throw a link back at you that debunks your link

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/07/no_virginia_science_has_not_de.html

I just lol'ed at the conclusion

This is not true. Given the Scriptural evidence for the existence of an historical Adam and Eve, the first and only parents of mankind, Christians are fully justified in asking for strong counterevidence. It doesn't seem to have been forthcoming, despite all the fanfare. Even from the perspective of common sense, it should take a lot to convince us scientifically that there could not have been a first human couple as long ago as 600,000 to two million years. I have real doubts that any such negative can be proven, even within the weaker sense of "prove" that is appropriate to empirical endeavor.

So basically the bible said so, she has no proof beside the bible and ofc cannot use scientific methods to prove Adam and Eve. Edit: The Study says honestly, that it cannot verify if the pool of humans consisted of 8000 or 12000 humans, while ruling out two humans, so the conclusion of the housewife with a PhD in English is that science did not debunked Adam. lol

katydid · 09-02-2015 01:02PM

Festus wrote: »

I accept what the Bible says. The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve and I accept that. There is no requirement on me to prove the Bible is true.

You on the other hand are presenting an unsubstantiated assertion that you either cannot prove or are unwilling to prove.

So do you accept that the world is six thousand years old, despite scientific evidence?

katydid · 09-02-2015 01:04PM

Safehands wrote: »

And baptism gets rid if that fault?

That's the theory

silverharp · 09-02-2015 01:17PM

This is not true. Given the Scriptural evidence for the existence of an historical Adam and Eve, the first and only parents of mankind, Christians are fully justified in asking for strong counterevidence. It doesn't seem to have been forthcoming, despite all the fanfare. Even from the perspective of common sense, it should take a lot to convince us scientifically that there could not have been a first human couple as long ago as 600,000 to two million years. I have real doubts that any such negative can be proven, even within the weaker sense of "prove" that is appropriate to empirical endeavor.

that is a lol , Im going to sound a bit like Groot here but Dinosaurs...

Also I assume the Noah story resets the clock again to 3 or 4 thousand years so would fly in the face of genetic evidence

Peregrinus · 09-02-2015 01:33PM

Boys and girls, we're getting sidetracked here. This thread relates to Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary and, whatever else that beliefs is grounded on, it is not grounded on a literalist reading of the scriptures. Festus is possibly a highly unusual Christian if he asserts both a literalist hermeneutic to justify young-earth creationist reading of Genesis and a theological hermenuetic to assert the perpetual virginity of Mary. But it would be a shame if this discussion got diverted into a stale argument, already well-rehearsed in other threads, over young-earth creationism. Can we stick with Mary?

Festus · 09-02-2015 01:43PM

katydid wrote: »

So do you accept that the world is six thousand years old, despite scientific evidence?

If the Bible had anything to say about the age of the earth I would accept it but it doesn't, does it.

I'm more interested in finding out why SafeHands hates God, Mary the Mother of God, and the Catholic Church so much.

silverharp · 09-02-2015 02:59PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

..... The community was working off its own knowledge, memories and experience of Jesus.

My focus is what's not in the bible. Leave the birth aside as it's part of the nt . I just put it to you that based on the nt alone that the first followers would not have worshiped Mary as a god like person and if it crept in a couple of hundred years later then its just later Christians making stuff up or pulling in beliefs from other religions

Virgin Mary

Comments