quote:

---

Luther taught that Mary was "ever virgin". Calvin called Mary the "treasurer of grace". The Gutenberg bible was published in the century before Luther, with all 73 books in it.

---

Luther was wrong:

quote:

---

I have become an outcast to my kin, a stranger to my mother's children. - Psalm 69:9

---

The above is an old testement messianic prophecy, literally fulfilled in the life of Jesus. Clearly, his mother had other children.

Also, the original Jewish canon does not contain the Apocrypha. Only at the council of Trent in 1546 was it established that the apocrypha was to be part of the OT canon. This was to give extrabiblical catholic doctrines backing in reaction to the reformation.

And yes, while the gutenberg bible DID contain those books, it was not because they canonized at the time. In fact, there was great debate about them being included without mention of their uncanonized nature. It was due to the fact that the gutenberg bible was originally printed according to saint jerome's translation from a 1,000 years earlier because this was the most easily understood translation available. Pope Clement VIII later ordered them moved into the appendix and noted as non-canonized. Only in the face of reformation were they officially recognized by the church as canon.

quote:

---

I've studied what other religions teach over the years, and I'm hoping that BMED will actually study Catholicism to prove it wrong. Both John Neumann and Scott Hahn, former bigtime protestants, actually did that. After looking at it all, they decided they were wrong and the Church was right.

---

For every protestant turned catholic I can name you a catholic turned protestant

primrose -I guess I missed all of that in the Bible that you claim the apostles taught about Mary and Joseph. It may be your "tradition" but it is not in the scriptures. Joseph was her lover not her caretaker. There was a reason Joseph was upset that she was with child before he had been with her.

We have to agree to disagree, Diamond4.

And it's Holy Tradition, from which the Bible came,not tradition, like, "We open our presents on Christmas Eve", "Well, we open our's on Christmas morning."

Primrose -i know we can disagree but where are the scriptures that support this view? Who are the apostolic fathers that wrote supporting this and what did they say? Thanks for answering.

By the way, we open our gifts on Christmas morning also.

diamond4:

I'm sure you must have not have seen Seamaster's numerous questions to you asking "Are you the poster who formally participated under the name 'GenesisAg?' and that you're not merely ignoring his question.

Would you mind answering his question for him, I'm sure he would like to get a response.

Bracy -I am sure he would, but this may help him in his maturation process to have to wait for a while. I believe it is called patience. As I am sure there is for you, there are many things that I would like to know immediately but I have to wait awhile for the answer.

Oh, Diamond , I can't get into a theological debate with you because i am outclassed from the beginning.I can't give you authors and chapters and exactly which synod dealt with this and that.

That is the Chatechism I was taught. It's teachings have come down from the undivided Church. That's a long time to weed out things tht were not taught by the Apostles, things that didn't fit their teachings.

They never hesitated to do that.

Apatê ellena?

I am very sorry primrose, but they weeded out so much more. I assure you there is no bible verse nor apostolic father's writing to support such a statement that you made.

Others who are more adept than I will argue that with you on your own ground.

opk, then se katalava. Epita.

BMED - The Canon of the New Testament was settled at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. The Council of Trent merely reaffirmed it after Luther threw out the 7 books in 1517.

Please start studying Church history, because every time you post a cliche, you just come across as ignorant.

Have you even heard of the the Council of Rome, Pope Damasus I, and Jerome?

quote:

---

I assure you there is no bible verse nor apostolic father's writing to support such a statement that you made.

---

ibmagg/genesisag/diamond4/Bob another reason to take any of your assurances you give with a grain of salt. The Protoevangelium of James [A.D. 120] recounts the the Tradition by given primrose.

Never in the history of religion, has so much thought been put into partially digested unleavened bread.

jkag -No grain of salt needed here. I am sorry jkag but this was not an apostolic father as it was written in the middle of the 2nd Century and about a 180 years after the birth of Christ. Here is some more information that you might find enlightening that takes away from the creditability of this account. We will ignore for the moment that the scriptures themselves give no hint of such an account!

Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James


From Wiki: The document presents itself as written by James: "I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem." Thus the purported author is James the Just, whom the text claims is a son of Joseph from a prior marriage, and thus a stepbrother of Jesus.
Scholars have established that, based on the style of the language, and the fact that the author is apparently not aware of contemporary Jewish customs while James the Just certainly was, the work is pseudepigraphical (written by someone other than the person it claims to be written by). The echoes and parallels of the Old Testament appear to derive from its Greek translation, the Septuagint, as opposed to the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which is noticeable due to several peculiarities and variations present in the Septuagint. It apparently embellishes on what is told of events surrounding Mary, prior to and at the moment of, Jesus' birth, in the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke.
As for its estimated date, the consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen in the early third century, who says the text, like that of a "Gospel of Peter", was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.

[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 7/13/2008 1:23p).]

Bob - I'm well aware of the history of The Protoevangelium of James. The account is written in the time frame of the era of the Apostolic Fathers (second half of the 1st century to about the first half of the 2nd century), you are correct however, it does not strictly fall under the authorship of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Ignatius, etc).

quote:

---

We will ignore for the moment that the scriptures themselves give no hint of such an account!

---

Catholics and Orthodox Christians also hold to Apostolic Tradition and the magisterium of the Church, which the New Testament is a product.

Do you realy think that Mary could have forgotten a visit by the angel Gabriel? Of course by the time this was written the ongoing church sadly was travelling full tilt on the freeway of apostasy.

quote:

---

Do you really think that Mary could have forgotten a visit by the angel Gabriel?

---

I'm not sure what you are trying to convey here Bob?

In the account you cited, it states that Mary forgot this visit by Gabriel. I feel it is a great example of the falsity of this account because visits by angel were not common and I guarantee that if you had had one, under no circumstances would you ever have forgotten it.

The biggest problem the ongoing church had (and it indirectly leads to Mary) concerned knowledge of God for God was not a mystery to the Apostles or the early Apostolic fathers. But God did become a mystery to those who followed and there were many bitter controversies that occurred that can be traced to a lack of divine authority and the absence of revelation. As you know these ensuing doctrinal debates over the natures of God and Jesus resulted in the historic gathering at Nicaea. I think it is important for you and primrose to understand that following the Nicene and succeeding councils, many doctrines were altered or eliminated and new credos introduced. The Apostles and Athanasian Creeds were statements of evolving theology developed over a period of centuries - the Apostles Creed not being fully defined in its present form until the 6th century. These creeds chose precise language in affirming that God was an incomprehensible and therefore an unknowable being, notwithstanding the verbiage to the contrary used in Jesus' intercessory prayer.

A big controversy took place in the 3rd Ecumenical Council in 431 AD between Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople and Cyril, the patriarch of Alexander that involved Mary. Cyril's doctrine of a perfect union of the divine and human in Christ differed with Nestorius who contended that these natures were separate and that the divine will had been superimposed on the human. Thus if Nestorius's view prevailed, it followed that Mary could not be the mother of God, only the mother of the man Jesus. This position offended many Christians in both the east and the west. But then you had Eutyches who claimed that Christ had only one divine nature and no human nature. Again these were all based on man's reasoning with no revelation whatsoever. However, from Mary, Jesus inherited mortality, or the capacity to sin and experience humanity in every material respect. But Jesus exercised His agency to reject sin and set for us an example of what we should strive to emulate (Heb. 4:15)

In 431 AD, the Ephesian Council Condemned Nestorianism and proclaimed that Mary was to be called theotokos, a title that has been used since that time in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. But, an unhealthy and unscriptural devotion began to be attached to Mary as the mother of God after the fourth century. False doctrines already in place, bred more false doctrines such as the Augustine theology of original sin, which redefined the real sin in the Garden as not partaking of the forbidden fruit but sexual intercourse. Since this mistaken view that Adam's sin was sexual misconduct this became the justification for infant baptism, because it was imagined that infants were tainted from birth as a result of this "original sin". Sadly, from this errant ideology came the concept of celibacy, which made the unmarried more holy than those entering the covenant of matrimony. Logic then dictated that Mary must have been perfect in order to give birth to the Son of God, and for her to be perfect she could not have been conceived in original sin. Thus the rationalization developed that she was conceived through the intervention of the Holy Ghost and being thus perfect, not subject to death as the unavoidable result of sin. Accordingly, rather than suffering an ordinary human death she fell into a deep sleep and was taken instantly to heaven where she came into direct contact with her son, Jesus, making her the ideal intermediary for prayer. Of course none of these doctrines can be found in scripture! Your doctrine of the immaculate conceptionwas introduced in the 13th century. No wonder it can not be abided in your church that Mary could have had children by Joseph and been intimate as any wife would be with her husband.

jkag, you should understand that Mary is the earthly mother of Jesus Christ's corruptible body but not His eternal Spirit; She is not the mother of God in the sense attributed to Mary by the Chalcedonian Council. That being said, Mary should be accorded every honor due her celebrated status as the earthly mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Only one woman in the history of the world filled such a role. But, it is due to apostasy and error the allegiance developed that would have us worship Mary or believe she stands as an intercessor between Christ and mankind. I cannot emphasize enough that there is absolutely no scriptural evidence to support such a belief.

[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 7/13/2008 4:02p).]

First I would appreciate a link and/or the source of the history lesson you presented in your last post.

quote:

---

In the account you cited, it states that Mary forgot this visit by Gabriel.

---

Where?

quote:

---

[Y]ou should understand that Mary is the earthly mother of Jesus Christ's corruptible body but not His eternal Spirit.

---

This statement shows you have little (no) understanding of the traditional/orthodox Christian view of the Incarnation.

quote:

---

...developed that would have us worship Mary...

---

I don't nor would any properly catechized Catholic.

quote:

---

...believe she stands as an intercessor between Christ and mankind.

---

Shows you have little (no) clue of the Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints or Intercessory Prayer.

jkag -I will get the info for you later as I just have a couple of minutes. The reason though that Mary can not be the mother of Christ's spirit is very simple. Jesus was already God the Son from before the foundations of the world, being the first born of every creature under heaven, thus existing before Mary's spiritual or physical conception. I respectfully submit to you that one must consider the fact that the traditional doctrine of the incarnation is false. Back with you later.

PS -Here is the quote: "And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood before her, saying: Fear not, Mary; for you have found grace before the Lord of all, and you shall conceive, according to His word. And she hearing, reasoned with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? And shall I bring forth as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow you: wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of the Most High. And you shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold, the servant of the Lord before His face: let it be unto me according to your word.
.........But Mary had forgotten the mysteries of which the archangel Gabriel had spoken, and gazed up into heaven, and said: Who am I, O Lord, that all the generations of the earth should bless me? Luke 1:48"

I submit to you no one of 12 years forgets an encounter with an angel or what he says.

[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 7/13/2008 8:48p).]

quote:

---

The reason though that Mary can not be the mother of Christ's spirit is very simple.

---

You can leave it to the Mormons to re-hash 1st century heresies that have been repudiated 2 millenia ago....

quote:

---

The reason though that Mary can not be the mother of Christ's spirit is very simple. Jesus was already God the Son from before the foundations of the world, being the first born of every creature under heaven, thus existing before Mary's spiritual or physical conception.

---

Once again you are choosing to ignore or do not understand the Catholic/Orthodox meaning of the title Theotokos (God-bearer) and placing your own understanding upon it.

Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human, the hypostatic union of the Incarnation.

quote:

---

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

---

Source of quoted material

quote:

---

You can leave it to the Mormons to re-hash 1st century heresies that have been repudiated 2 millenia ago...

---

I have been reading along with the thread, and it has been fascinating to watch the exchanges (basically everyone talking past one another, using the same terms but meaning different things etc.). Now I am no expert in the Catholic faith, but even from my basic understanding, it seems there is a lot of misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine going on here. I am sorry for that.

I have never heard any Catholic claim to worship Mary or any of the Saints. I have never heard any Catholic claim that Mary was the fount of Christ's divinity, and to my knowledge, Catholics do not make the distinction between a premortal existence as pure spirt that we do.

Given these things, it would seem prudent to speak about Catholic doctrine using their own terms and trying to understand their doctrine on its own terms. It seems nonsensical to try and shoehorn LDS concepts of a premortal existence into Catholic concepts of Theotokos. By the same token, it would seem wise to acknowledge that LDS prinicples of premortal spirit/body dichotomy are very different from Nestorian dualism which separates Christ's divinity from his humanity.

If we look at what both doctrines really say, we find that the LDS and Catholics are much more in harmony than we would expect from the bickering. Both faiths believe that Christ posessed a pre-existing divine nature and, through Mary, he took upon himself a human nature as well. Both faiths believe Christ was both fully divine and fully human. Neither believes that Christ was an ordinary human "posessed" by some "other" divine entity, but that his human and divine natures were part and parcel of the same entity. These concepts find much harmony in LDS scriptures such as 1 Nephi 11:18, Mosiah 3:8, Alma 7:10, Alma 11:45 etc.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 7/13/2008 11:56p).]

For additional information I would like to point out that history records that just before the Reformation period, in the 14th and 15th centuries, reverence for Mary increased remarkably. The cause of this devotion seemed due to the Christian proselyting of tribal communities such as the Goths and others in central and northern Europe. However these peoples were strongly influenced by Arianism, the doctrine that denied Christ was also God. But if Christ was not God, who would represent man to God the Father? Mary was the logical candidate to fill that void and intercede for sinners, actually becoming the "co-redeemer".(1) Historians writing about this era suggest that Mary's prayers and petitions were construed to appease the severe justice of Christ. The rosary was first introduced during this period as a devotion employed to count prayers and litanies (invocations of Mary), later to include hymns and psalms. Such human innovations had been common since the demise of the Apostles. Thus, special interest groups often dictated the Church's direction, folk lore, and its subsequent acceptance into the mainstream, including devotional practices, the introduction of new religious orders, and certain doctrinal innovations, all of which were "demand-led, by the spirituality and desires of the laity".(2)

I find it interesting to learn that in the 13th century, the doctrine of the immaculate conception (you remember, where Mary was conceived without original sin) was introduced which was also opposed by many. Why? They contended that it diminished Christ's role as our Redeemer. But, Pope Sixtus IV endorsed it and established the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in 1477 to be celebrated on December 8. Formalization of this doctrine came much later on the anniversary under Pope Pius IX, when he issued his Ineffablis Deus on Dec. 8, 1854. Finally, Pope Pius XII in 1950 added to Mary's acclaim when he designated the doctrine of the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven an article of faith for all Roman Catholics. My friends, it is important to remember that none of these decrees stemmed from traditions of antiquity, and none can be attributed to the primitive Christian Church or to scripture!

*1 - Nicolas Cheetham, Keepers of the Keys. 266

*2 -Euan Cameron, "The Power of the Word: Renaissance and Reformation," in Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History, ed. Euan Cameron (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 86.

Bob do you own the works cited or are you drawing from another source which cites them? As stated before it is intellectually dishonest to try and pass off a secondary citation as a primary one.

History of the Rosary from Wiki

A more complete history of the understanding of the Immaculate Conception then that presented by Bob; Her saving grace - the origins of the Immaculate Conception by David Scott

The fact that there are absolutely no claims of Marian relics now or in ancient times (and Bob you know how us Catholics love relics and how we venerate Mary) speaks volumes that Assumption of Mary is a Tradition of the Church far older then little history lesson you gave.

What was the earliest explicit adoption of the Assumption of Mary doctrine?

"Furthermore, the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea' does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption." (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary in the New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266). Even the “pious” forgery Protevangelium does not reference such a belief.

Ante-Nicene fathers (Clement of Rome, Tertullian,, Methodius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Irenaeus and Jerome) wrote of the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah and Paul and Moses, but notably did not include Mary in such discussions. Paul and Moses have better contemporary claims to assumption than Mary!

Both Ephesus and Jerusalem claim to be the site of her death. (Oxford Dictionary of Saints [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 336)

So we have early traditions of her death, but no early traditions of her assumption. So much for "this truth which is based on the Sacred Writings, which is thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful, which has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times".

Groove - I must applaud your very reasonable and well spoken post.

That's definately the method we need to use when exchanging with people.

We must use the correct language (in terms of the faith we are discussing - and not interject our own interpretations to theology behind them).

We Catholics do this just as much as the rest of the posters on here.

Somehow, over the course of time, Christianity has become one of those "Build your own adventure" books - and we try to discuss the story where we're at now, withouth going back, and really understanding what happened when our stories separated.

We should attempt to discuss/debate as you've suggested, within the bounds (and terminology) of the theology that we are discussing.

http://www.wftv.com/news/16872192/detail.html?taf=orlc