Virgin Mary

katydid · 10-02-2015 07:57PM

Festus wrote: »

Acts 1:18 simply informs us that Judas furnished the means of purchasing the field. One is not forced to conclude that Judas personally bought the potter’s field. As in modern-day writings and speeches, it is very common for the Scriptures to represent a man as doing a thing when, in fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. ...
Whether one says that Judas “purchased a field with the wages of iniquity” (Acts 1:18), or that the chief priests “bought with them the potter’s field” (Matthew 27:7), he has stated the same truth, only in different ways.

That's an INTERPRETATION of the words, a possible reading. Not a literal reading.

Just like suggesting that the world might not have been literally made in six days....or that there just might not have been two individual people called Adam and Eve, who started the entire human race...

Festus · 10-02-2015 08:13PM

katydid wrote: »

That's an INTERPRETATION of the words, a possible reading. Not a literal reading.

Ah, now I understand - you are a literalist. That's why you don't understand it.

katydid · 10-02-2015 09:49PM

Festus wrote: »

Ah, now I understand - you are a literalist. That's why you don't understand it.

Head...wall...

Festus · 10-02-2015 10:12PM

katydid wrote: »

Head...wall...

are you literally banging your head against a wall ?

or should I interpret that cymbollickally...

katydid · 10-02-2015 10:50PM

Festus wrote: »

are you literally banging your head against a wall ?

or should I interpret that cymbollickally...

Take a wild guess

Festus · 10-02-2015 11:33PM

katydid wrote: »

Take a wild guess

need a few aspirins?

Peregrinus · 11-02-2015 01:17AM

silverharp wrote: »

I dont need to show where the belief came from, i suggested one source based on the practice of ideas being imported into a religion from other religions but the source of it doesn't matter once its reasonable to suggest Jesus or the original apostles were unaware of it.

Of course Jesus and the original apostles were unaware of it. A moment’s thought will show that the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity can’t arise while Mary is still alive, and Mary outlived Jesus and probably at least some of the apostles. And I seriously hope that, while he lived, neither Jesus nor his friends and followers were in the habit of speculating about his parents’ sex life.

Take a step back here for a moment; you may think that that Mary’s perpetual virginity is not evidenced in the NT, and of course you’re right. But why would it be? If Mary never did have sex, there would be nothing supernatural about that , and quite possible not many people would know, and those who did know would probably not think it a fit subject for discussion.

The supernatural claim about Mary is the virgin birth - that is hard to accept, based on common experience of where babies come from, but it’s well-documented in the scriptures; the early church clearly held this belief. But if Mary never had any other children, and Jesus only had half-brothers and sisters, why would we expect this to appear in the gospels? There is nothing remarkable, or even unusual, about it. Nobody at the time would have regarded this as a sign or wonder or a matter of huge significance. Likewise if Mary and Joseph had a mariage blanc, there is nothing supernatural there. There is no reason why this would be known to many people, and those who did know it at the time would not appreciate the signficance that later generations might attach to it. They would probably reckon that Joseph didn’t want any more children. Why would this be recorded in the gospels, which say little about Mary and next to nothing about Joseph? It’s only later, with the development of the doctrine of the Incarnation, that people came to reflect on Mary and her role, and developed the notion of perpetual virginity, and invested significance in it.

silverharp wrote: »

You have restated that I can make the argument but not commented on why its not a valid point. Just because most catholics don't question it is not an answer.

It may be a valid point. As I say, you can make the argument. But I won’t know how valid the point is until you do make the argument. All we’ve got so far is “it’s not in the NT”, to which the obvious response is “well, it wouldn’t be, would it?”

silverharp wrote: »

As you are stating it I could cheekly say that catholics are happy to believe "fan fiction". The view of mary is indistinguishable from a man made set of ideas built up over time. If you want to widen and suggest other christian beliefs have developed in a similar manner if they are not a reasonable inference from the ideas in the nt then absolutely, more "fan fiction" .

All ideas are "man made", silverharp, and are "built up over time". Did you think they grew on trees, or descended fully-formed from the heavens?

I think the problem here is that you’re treating the NT scriptures as the starting point of Christian belief, and dismissing any belief which is not either explicitly stated in, or a necessary inference from, those texts.

If you think about it, though, this is a mistake. Christianity doesn’t come from the New Testament scriptures. It's the other way around; the New Testament scriptures emerge from Christianity. The only reason we have the NT at all is because there was a pre-existing Christian community (a) to produce the texts, and (b) in time, to regard them as canonical. Before the NT texts were written, the Christian community already had collective experience and memories of Christ, with shared knowledge and understanding, and was engaged in a process of reflection and development of their understanding. Some of what the first generation understood or came to understand - particularly about Jesus - is captured in the New Testament texts , but of course the process of reflection didn’t stop when those texts were written; why would it? And much that we think of as characteristically Christian was articulate after the NT texts were written - most obviously, the claim that Jesus is the incarnation of God. You can obviously argue about whether that idea is true or not, but I don't think you can dispute that it's an authentic Christian belief, and that it arose of the the Christian community's experiences, memories and reflections. The fact that it didn't arise in its fully-stated form until after the NT texts were written doesn't seem to be to undermine that.

It seems to me that you are arbitrarily labelling any understanding not captured in the NT texts as “fan fiction”; I don’t see any justification for that. Why is the point where things get written down also the point where Christians have to stop thinking, or the point beyond which any further thoughts get categorised as “fan fiction”?

Peregrinus · 11-02-2015 01:26AM

hinault wrote: »

I'm well aware of what the Bible lists and how Usher used what is listed to try to derive a timespan.

You're still refusing to think.

Like Bishop Usher you're assuming that the biblical reference in Genesis, for example, refers to a day = 24 hours.

Genesis says Methusalah lived to be 969 "years" old.

What was a day according to the Bible? What was a year according to the Bible?

Actually, there isn't much doubt that in the Hebrew scriptures a "day" is the cycle from sunset to the next sunset, and a "year" is the cycle from midwinter to the next midwinter. "Day" and "year" are not cultural constructs but universal human experiences that arise out of the arrangement of the solar system, and they are common to all cultures.

That's not to say that the terms are not sometimes used figuratively or for literary effect in the Hebrew scriptures - they obviously are in the creation narrative, for example. But when Methusaleh is said to have lived to 969 years, this can either mean that he actually lived for 969 years as we understand years (the fundamentalist reading) or that the writer attributes an implausibly long life to him in order to emphasise how high he stood in God's favour (long life being treated as a sign of God's favour). It does not mean that he lived for 969 "years" of, say, 30 days each (which would make him 79 by the conventional measurement). The Israelites practiced agriculture; they knew what a year was.

silverharp · 12-02-2015 08:41AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course Jesus and the original apostles were unaware of it. A moment’s thought will show that the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity can’t arise while Mary is still alive, and Mary outlived Jesus and probably at least some of the apostles. And I seriously hope that, while he lived, neither Jesus nor his friends and followers were in the habit of speculating about his parents’ sex life.

Take a step back here for a moment; you may think that that Mary’s perpetual virginity is not evidenced in the NT, and of course you’re right. But why would it be? If Mary never did have sex, there would be nothing supernatural about that , and quite possible not many people would know, and those who did know would probably not think it a fit subject for discussion.

The supernatural claim about Mary is the virgin birth - that is hard to accept, based on common experience of where babies come from, but it’s well-documented in the scriptures; the early church clearly held this belief. But if Mary never had any other children, and Jesus only had half-brothers and sisters, why would we expect this to appear in the gospels? There is nothing remarkable, or even unusual, about it. Nobody at the time would have regarded this as a sign or wonder or a matter of huge significance. Likewise if Mary and Joseph had a mariage blanc, there is nothing supernatural there. There is no reason why this would be known to many people, and those who did know it at the time would not appreciate the signficance that later generations might attach to it. They would probably reckon that Joseph didn’t want any more children. Why would this be recorded in the gospels, which say little about Mary and next to nothing about Joseph? It’s only later, with the development of the doctrine of the Incarnation, that people came to reflect on Mary and her role, and developed the notion of perpetual virginity, and invested significance in it.

technically they would be step brothers as Jesus would not be connected at all to his siblings. ;-) . Based on my half remembered knowledge of the bible if one had asked jesus if his mother was a sinner, I suspect his answer would have been yes as he claimed that everyone was a sinner. Clearly catholics have built up layers of arguments over the years to justify every position but I still put it too you that Mary is written about in the bible as being a mother and wife after Jesus was born so I dont accept she died a virgin (or not having sinned in her life) unless the first followers saw this as being hugely important in their faith. as its not documented the best answer is that its all very clever latter "fan fiction" because thats what groups of religious people do based on whatever motivates them at the time. Need I mention things like indulgences etc can be trumped up if money is an issue

hinault · 12-02-2015 09:01AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, there isn't much doubt that in the Hebrew scriptures a "day" is the cycle from sunset to the next sunset, and a "year" is the cycle from midwinter to the next midwinter. "Day" and "year" are not cultural constructs but universal human experiences that arise out of the arrangement of the solar system, and they are common to all cultures.

That's not to say that the terms are not sometimes used figuratively or for literary effect in the Hebrew scriptures - they obviously are in the creation narrative, for example. But when Methusaleh is said to have lived to 969 years, this can either mean that he actually lived for 969 years as we understand years (the fundamentalist reading) or that the writer attributes an implausibly long life to him in order to emphasise how high he stood in God's favour (long life being treated as a sign of God's favour). It does not mean that he lived for 969 "years" of, say, 30 days each (which would make him 79 by the conventional measurement). The Israelites practiced agriculture; they knew what a year was.

I disagree.

The Bible doesn't define what a day, or what a year, consists of. The Bible doesn't make any claim to be a scientific tome either therefore it is not realistic to expect the Bible to define how much time is defined by a "day" or a "year" in it's texts. Particularly throughout the early part of the OT.

What the Bible does is to try to put a (time) measurement upon when events accounted for in the Bible happened. It makes sense that the Bible would use measurements such as years and days to explain time measurement to our limited human intelligence.

Put simply we don't know if it took 24 hours x 6 (24 hour) days for Creation as accounted for in the Bible, in the Book of Genesis.
We assume that the day referred to in the Bible consisted of 24 hours or 86,400 seconds. But we have no way of knowing so.

Peregrinus · 12-02-2015 09:06AM

silverharp wrote: »

Based on my half remembered knowledge of the bible if one had asked jesus if his mother was a sinner, I suspect his answer would have been yes as he claimed that everyone was a sinner. Clearly catholics have built up layers of arguments over the years to justify every position but I still put it too you that Mary is written about in the bible as being a mother and wife after Jesus was born so I dont accept she died a virgin (or not having sinned in her life) unless the first followers saw this as being hugely important in their faith. as its not documented the best answer is that its all very clever latter "fan fiction" because thats what groups of religious people do based on whatever motivates them at the time.

Well, no offence, silverharp, but if your knowledge of the bible is "half-remembered", shouldn't you hesitate to commit too strongly to any position based on what you think is in the bible?

Your half-memories are not reliable. For the record, there is only one reference to Mary as a wife after Jesus is born - the story of Jesus being lost in the Temple makes it clear that Joseph was still around then, and they were still married. But that story seems to present Jesus, then aged about 12, as an only child. Which would suggest that if he had brothers and sisters they were likely to be older brothers, and sisters, no longer at home.

And there are no references at all in the bible to Mary as the mother of anyone other than Jesus.

And, as I said before, I don't accept your simple binary in which everything is either documented in the New Testament or is "fan fiction"; there are obviously other possibilities. I've previously asked you why you are using this binary, but I've had no answer. I won't ask again.

silverharp wrote: »

Need I mention things like indulgences etc can be trumped up if money is an issue

No, you needn't. It's completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to m make here, and when people offer irrelevant arguments in support of their position it tends to create the impression that they have no relevant arguments. So you're probably better off not mentioning this.

Instead you could usefully read the NT texts so that you don't have to rely on what you "half remember". Better still, you could usefully read accounts of those who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary as to why they believe it. If you have no idea of what the case for Mary's perpetual virginity is, it's very difficult to offer a persuasive critique of it. And simply denouncing it as "fan fiction because thats what groups of religious people do" looks like a weak ad hominem excuse for not bothering to understand the position you are trying to refute.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there's a good critique to be made of the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity. I just don't think you're making it.

Peregrinus · 12-02-2015 09:13AM

hinault wrote: »

I disagree.

The Bible doesn't define what a day, or what a year, consists of. The Bible doesn't make any claim to be a scientific tome either therefore it is not realistic to expect the Bible to define how much time is defined by a "day" or a "year" in it's texts. Particularly throughout the early part of the OT.

What the Bible does is to try to put a (time) measurement upon when events accounted for in the Bible happened. It makes sense that the Bible would use measurements such as years and days to explain time measurement to our limited human intelligence.

Put simply we don't know if it took 24 hours x 6 (24 hour) days for Creation as accounted for in the Bible, in the Book of Genesis.
We assume that the day referred to in the Bible consisted of 24 hours or 86,400 seconds. But we have no way of knowing so.

The Hebrew scriptures use Hebrew words which have the same meaning as the English words "day" and "year". If you know of a Hebrew scholar who thinks otherwise, now would be a good time to name him.

Think about it. It would be astonishing if it were otherwise. Hours, months, seasons etc are culturally-determined concepts, and they do vary from culture to culture. But the rising and setting of the sun, and the annual progression of the solar azimuth, are universal human experiences, and we do not know of any culture which does not have the concepts of, and words for, "day" and "year". The may not divide the day into 24 hours or 86,400 seconds, but that's because they don't have our concept of hours or seconds, not because they don't have our concept of days.

That's not to say that the words concerned aren't sometimes employed figuratively or metaphorically in the Hebrew scriptures; they often are.

hinault · 12-02-2015 10:25AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Hebrew scriptures use Hebrew words which have the same meaning as the English words "day" and "year". If you know of a Hebrew scholar who thinks otherwise, now would be a good time to name him.

Think about it. It would be astonishing if it were otherwise. Hours, months, seasons etc are culturally-determined concepts, and they do vary from culture to culture. But the rising and setting of the sun, and the annual progression of the solar azimuth, are universal human experiences, and we do not know of any culture which does not have the concepts of, and words for, "day" and "year". The may not divide the day into 24 hours or 86,400 seconds, but that's because they don't have our concept of hours or seconds, not because they don't have our concept of days.

That's not to say that the words concerned aren't sometimes employed figuratively or metaphorically in the Hebrew scriptures; they often are.

There is no basis to say that the "day" as stated in Genesis consists of 24 hours, 28 hours, 40 hours.
Put simply we don't know what timespan a "day" in Genesis refer to.

I'm not saying that a day wasn't 24 hours.
All I'm saying is that as far as Genesis is concerned, we simply don't know one way or the other what a day consists of.

I don't consider that the length of what defines a day, per Genesis, is a dealbreaker in terms of ones belief.

silverharp · 12-02-2015 10:49AM

P.be raising the point about indulgences I am saying that the catholic religion has form for inventing doctrine ie. dictating how heaven and god works in a way that Jesus is not documented as understanding, and treating your own original scriptures like they are some obscure legal document on patent law that can be ridden inside out to derive new meanings.

Let me put it back to you, Mary would not have lived more than 30 or 40 years after Jesus right? Plenty of time to document if Mary had anything other than a normal old age and death at the time? The lack of at least a chapter on any kind "divine" ending implies that its a later belief . at that time a hundred or two hundred years is huge in terms transmitting facts. One certainly wouldn't convict a man on such a diluted chain of evidence.

Safehands · 12-02-2015 11:21AM

silverharp wrote: »

Let me put it back to you, Mary would not have lived more than 30 or 40 years after Jesus right? Plenty of time to document if Mary had anything other than a normal old age and death at the time? The lack of at least a chapter on any kind "divine" ending implies that its a later belief . at that time a hundred or two hundred years is huge in terms transmitting facts. One certainly wouldn't convict a man on such a diluted chain of evidence.

Great answer but doesn't the church teach that she was assumed into Heaven. That, I think, means that not only was she ever virgin but she never died and was a human in a spirit world. (I know some staunch Catholics who believe all this nonsense, but would never watch Star Wars because they consider it too far fetched).

Festus · 12-02-2015 11:37AM

Safehands wrote: »

Great answer but doesn't the church teach that she was assumed into Heaven. That, I think, means that not only was she ever virgin but she never died and was a human in a spirit world. (I know some staunch Catholics who believe all this nonsense, but would never watch Star Wars because they consider it too far fetched).

I found this for you on a Catholic answers website. It should provide some enlightenment for you and is a good start for Catholics with poor catechesis:

The Assumption

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.
The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."
The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

No Remains

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.
It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

source (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption)

silverharp · 12-02-2015 11:56AM

Safehands wrote: »

Great answer but doesn't the church teach that she was assumed into Heaven. That, I think, means that not only was she ever virgin but she never died and was a human in a spirit world. (I know some staunch Catholics who believe all this nonsense, but would never watch Star Wars because they consider it too far fetched).

Ill go further , It also appears that st. Paul or Jesus for that matter never did not know about the virgin birth. I'm of the view that the whole Mary story is a later belief by non jewish converts who were used to hearing about such stories in their old religions. The writers of the nt had the motivation to big up the original story so its a human thing to do make the birth of Jesus more interesting than it was.

Safehands · 12-02-2015 12:02PM

Festus wrote: »

I found this for you on a Catholic answers website. It should provide some enlightenment for you and is a good start for Catholics with poor catechesis:

The Assumption

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.
The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."
The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

No Remains

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.
It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere. source (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption)

This is all Goobledygook Festus. Pure nonsense!

Peregrinus · 12-02-2015 12:18PM

hinault wrote: »

There is no basis to say that the "day" as stated in Genesis consists of 24 hours, 28 hours, 40 hours.
Put simply we don't know what timespan a "day" in Genesis refer to.

I'm not saying that a day wasn't 24 hours.
All I'm saying is that as far as Genesis is concerned, we simply don't know one way or the other what a day consists of.

We know that the word translated as "day" in the English version of Genesis is a Hebrew word denoting a day. There is no possibility that the authors of the text iintended, by that word, to evoke for their readers a period of 28 or 40 hours. "Day" in Genesis refers to a period of 24 hours; we know this just as surely as we know that "tree" refers to a tree and not, for instance, grass, or "stone" refers to stone and not, for instance, wood.

hinault wrote: »

I don't consider that the length of what defines a day, per Genesis, is a dealbreaker in terms of ones belief.

I agree. My only tiny caveat would be if somebody was arguing that
"day" could refer to a definite period, but not a period of a day, in order to avoid accepting that in some contexts "day" must be understood metaphorically or figuratively.

Festus · 12-02-2015 12:20PM

also from Catholic Apologetics

For Roman Catholic Christians, the belief in the Assumption of Mary flows immediately from the belief in her Immaculate Conception. Catholic Christians believe that if Mary was preserved from sin by the free gift of God, she would not be bound to experience the consequences of sin--death--in the same way we do. Mary's assumption shows the result of this freedom from sin--the immediate union of her whole being with her Son Jesus Christ with God at the end of her life.
Catholic Christians believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the end of her earthly life, was assumed both body and soul into heavenly glory.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned ...

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 Cor 15:21-26 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being. For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life, but each one in proper order: Christ the first fruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ; then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has destroyed every sovereignty and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Since sin and death are the fruits of Satan, the freedom of Mary from the original sin of Adam also frees her from the consequences of sin also. Then Mary best fulfills the scripture of Genesis.

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you (the serpent, Satan) and the woman (Mary), and between your offspring (the minions of Satan) and hers (Christ); He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

The constant faith (paradosis) of the Church affirms the belief in the Assumption of Mary.

From the 5th Century: The Feast of the Assumption of Mary was celebrated in Syria.

5th and 6th Century: The Apocryphal Books were testimony of a certain christian sense of the abhorrence felt that the body of the Mother of God should lie in a sepulcher.

6th Century: The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in Jerusalem (and perhaps even in Alexandria).

From the 7th Century: Clear and explicit testimony was given on the Assumption of Mary in the Eastern Church; The same testimony is clear also in the Western Church (Gregory, Tours, 538-594).

9th Century: The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in Spain.

From the 10th - 12th Century: No dispute whatsoever in the Western Church; there was dispute over the false epistles of Jerome on the subject.

12th Century: The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in the city of Rome, and in France.

13th Century to the present: Certain and undisputed faith in the Assumption of Mary in the universal Church.

1950 Pope Pius XII, declared infallibly, ex cathedra: "Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory." (The Magisterium has stayed cospicuously silent regarding whether this process entailed Mary's physical death. The teaching merely states that Mary's body and soul were assumed at the completion of the course of Mary's life.)

homer911 · 12-02-2015 12:39PM

Safehands wrote: »

This is all Goobledygook Festus. Pure nonsense!

I would not go quite so far as to describe it as nonsense, but the question has to be "Why?".

This doctrine/dogma adds nothing to the saving grace of the gospel, has no basis in the scriptures and fulfills no prophecy, but seems to have been created to fill a "gap" in our knowledge of Mary that doesn't need to be filled. In some places, such as the references to Jesus brothers, it even seems to contradict scripture. So why? Why did the early church come up with this and when? Was there 1st century eye-witness knowledge (if so why was it not written down, or referenced in some way), or was it created much later?

I'd love to know how this doctrine came about and what the reasoning behind it was.

lazybones32 · 12-02-2015 02:57PM

Safehands wrote: »

This is all Goobledygook Festus. Pure nonsense!

What sort of troll are you? You begin a thread on the Virgin Mary and then try insult those who answer your questions.

Festus · 12-02-2015 04:03PM

homer911 wrote: »

I would not go quite so far as to describe it as nonsense, but the question has to be "Why?".

This doctrine/dogma adds nothing to the saving grace of the gospel, has no basis in the scriptures and fulfills no prophecy, but seems to have been created to fill a "gap" in our knowledge of Mary that doesn't need to be filled. In some places, such as the references to Jesus brothers, it even seems to contradict scripture. So why? Why did the early church come up with this and when? Was there 1st century eye-witness knowledge (if so why was it not written down, or referenced in some way), or was it created much later?

I'd love to know how this doctrine came about and what the reasoning behind it was.

Which why do you want to explore?

The simple answer is because Jesus is God, Jesus is Divine, Jesus is our Saviour.

Why was she conceived immaculately? Obviously God could not become incarnate in a woman tainted with original sin so her conception has to have been immaculate to prepare her for her later role.

Why Virgin Birth? Obviously God could only become incarnate in an innocent and perfect woman.

Why no loss to her virginity during the birth? Because she was conceived without original sin the consequences of original sin do not apply.

Why Perpetual Virginity? Obviously Mary is no ordinary woman for she is the Mother of God and as the perfect woman who bore Jesus she is Sacred.

Why bodily assumption into Heaven? It all follows from all of the above and the fact that her perfect body would be incorruptible, as the first human saved by Jesus, free from sin, and an example of what lies before us at the resurrection of our bodies at the end of the world.

Festus · 12-02-2015 04:04PM

sits back and awaits mockery from the trolls...

.
.
.

corrections, clarifications and additions from faithful Catholics are more than welcome

silverharp · 12-02-2015 04:31PM

Festus wrote: »

Which why do you want to explore?

The simple answer is because Jesus is God, Jesus is Divine, Jesus is our Saviour.

Why was she conceived immaculately? Clearly God could not become incarnate in a woman tainted with original sin so her conception has to have been immaculate to prepare her for her later role.

Why Virgin Birth? Clearly God could only become incarnate in an innocent.

Why no loss to her virginity during the birth? Because she was conceived without original sin the consequences of original sin do not apply.

Why Perpetual Virginity? Clearly Mary is no ordinary woman for she is the Mother of God and as the woman who bore Jesus she is Sacred.

Why bodily assumption into Heaven? If all follows from all of the above and the fact that her body would be incorruptible, as the first human saved by Jesus, free from sin, and an example of what lies before us at the resurrection of our bodies at the end of the world.

But there is no history there its just ideas built on ideas. Where did Jesus explain this was how virgin births work? If it didn't come out of the mouth of Jesus then it was made up later based on nothing but presumptions and must be so's. Its perfectly logical in religious terms to say a deity made man was born of a normal woman.

Safehands · 12-02-2015 05:53PM

Festus wrote: »

Which why do you want to explore?

The simple answer is because Jesus is God, Jesus is Divine, Jesus is our Saviour.

Why was she conceived immaculately? Clearly God could not become incarnate in a woman tainted with original sin so her conception has to have been immaculate to prepare her for her later role.

Why Virgin Birth? Clearly God could only become incarnate in an innocent.

Why no loss to her virginity during the birth? Because she was conceived without original sin the consequences of original sin do not apply.

Why Perpetual Virginity? Clearly Mary is no ordinary woman for she is the Mother of God and as the woman who bore Jesus she is Sacred.

Why bodily assumption into Heaven? If all follows from all of the above and the fact that her body would be incorruptible, as the first human saved by Jesus, free from sin, and an example of what lies before us at the resurrection of our bodies at the end of the world.

One of the most overused words, uttered by politicians daily, is the word "Clear". 'I've made my position clear' or 'my party is very clear on this issue,' when in fact they are anything but clear. You are using it in the same "unclear" context. You also say "If" all follows. What happens if all does not follow from the above? Then it is all untrue!

Festus · 12-02-2015 05:57PM

silverharp wrote: »

Its perfectly logical in religious terms to say a deity made man was born of a normal woman.

It is also perfectlly logical in religious terms to say that God so set it that He should be made man and born of a women, a perfect woman made perfect due to His intervention in her conception, and who would remain perfect and never be corrupted.

Safehands · 12-02-2015 05:58PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

What sort of troll are you? You begin a thread on the Virgin Mary and then try insult those who answer your questions.

I'm not insulting anyone. But sometimes, certain statements insult my intelligence. So I called it as I saw it. I hate Gobbledygook! (it's a very descriptive word, Isn't it?)

Festus · 12-02-2015 06:00PM

Safehands wrote: »

One of the most overused words, uttered by politicians daily, is the word "Clear". 'I've made my position clear' or 'my party is very clear on this issue,' when in fact they are anything but clear. You are using it in the same "unclear" context. You also say "If" all follows. What happens if all does not follow from the above? Then it is all untrue!

Thanks for pointing that out. I have corrected my earlier post.

silverharp · 12-02-2015 06:33PM

Festus wrote: »

It is also perfectlly logical in religious terms to say that God so set it that He should be made man and born of a women, a perfect woman made perfect due to His intervention in her conception, and who would remain perfect and never be corrupted.

its logical but also ties into local greek and Egyptian and other local myths that preceded christianity, it was fashionable...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christmas

Virgin Birth
One of the central themes of Christmas is that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. Many other mythologies of the time had stories of virgin births:
Egyptian mythology:
The story of Horus, son of the virgin Isis, most well known. He too was visited by three kings.
If Isis was a virgin, she definitely wasn't by the time of Horus's birth, considering she reanimated Osiris, her brother and husband, specifically to conceive with him.
The story of the birth of Amenkept III, a similar story that predates the Christian era by 2000 years, seems to be even closer to the Christmas story. In the story, Mut-em-ua, a virgin queen of Egypt, experienced the following events:[6]
Annunciation: The god Taht appeared to the queen and told her that she would soon give birth to a son (Pharaoh Amenkept III);

Virgin Mary

Comments