Discussing Mary


I wish I had booked marked the page I read over the winter about the birth and childhood of Mary. I did find it on a Catholic web site. It told of how both her parents were far advanced in years and while her very devote father was out tending to his very large farm, his wife complained to God how people were speaking ill of them for they had no heirs. God told her she would have a daughter that would bring joy to the whole world. When Mary was born it said that her mother would not let her feet touch the ground and when she was weaned from the breast, she was given to God as first born, and served in the temple until she was reaching the age of puberty. I should also state that it said she was feed by the angels with the hosts from heaven. The temple priests had the job of finding her a husband. I wish I could remember all the details, but there were several men and each had to bring forth their staff, I can’t remember what it was that made them chose Josephs’ staff, but Mary was betrothed to him, a widower with a number of sons.



It’s from the Infancy Gospel of James also called the Protoevangelium of James (middle of the 2nd century)

You can read it e.g. HERE




The Assumption is one of my favorate Glorious Mysteries and I’m not sure why. There is something about knowing the new Eve did not have any bodily corruption and that her fully human body is in Heaven right now. Right or wrong, complete or incomplete I have always see the Resurection and Assention of Christ as a part of His Divinity. There is just no way He was staying in the grave. But Mary was not divine and God kept her from sin, made her His mother and raised her body to life. That is very special to me but as I have said I can’t find the words to express why.



No comments on this?

Seems like one should understand scripture, in its original language, if one is going to rely on it solely.



That’s one of the basic principles of exegesis :wink:



zemi;2576081]Not only my ego thinks that:

Everything he wrote was securely based upon Holy Scripture and that was the foundation upon which he built. For as he was convinced that Scripture was entirely and in every particular the true word of God, he carefully submitted the interpretation of it to those very rules which Our recent Predecessors have sanctioned, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus and Benedict XV in his Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus.

Pius XI, STUDIORUM DUCEM (On St. Thomas Aquinas) XXII

I know that from the logical standpoint this doesn’t diminish your argument at all but to me it’s like you saying “Einstein is wrong because though he was really brilliant, his equasions doesn’t match with my interpretations of the reality (i.e. the facts). Nor are important all the scientists that preceded him as we have to compare what they come up with with my interpretations.”

Did Einstein always get it right? Do he ever make any errors?

That would be at least silly, wouldn’t it? But, justasking you have to realize you are not claiming that “facts show that you Catholics are wrong on many issues”. This has nothing to do with the facts. It’s only your interpretation of them. It’s on the basis of your interpretation of the biblical verses you’re claiming the Catholics didn’t get it right.

Not so. There are no facts from scripture that shows Mary was assumed, without sin or queen of heaven. There is nothing in scripture that even comes close to saying these things about her.

I am pretty confident you don’t agre with even things Luther&Co. believed.

I do agree with them on some things.

Is it after all possible that you have found the true interpretation after those long centuries?

Yes but i’m not alone. There are many that are against the catholic view of Mary.

Why this is not only your claim but there are 33,000+ denomination that claim the same?

Most if not all protestants i’m aware don’t have the beliefs of the catholic church on Mary.

They claim they are led by the Holy Spirit and it is THEM that have the truth. So my question is - how come this is possible?!

Why wouldn’t it be possible?

Nicaea taken as a whole - Nicaean creed + its 20 canons. Where did they take their authority from?

I don’t know. Where did they get it?



Einstein - I am aware of his Cosmological constant he introduced into his eqausion and called the greatest mistake of his life. Could it be that if the Einstein alone erred, you could be also introducing some redundant constants into your “theological equasions”? Remember who Einstein was. And moreover - do you reach the same level in your theological education?

Luther - you just pick and choose beliefs to fit your interpretation. i think I saw that clearly in Aquinas, Luther, Calvin etc…

You’re not alone - hmm. So how many of you are there that have found the true interpretation? How many are there that believe in the same interpretation of the Scriptural verses as you do? You see - this is how the new denominations are being created. I told you this we saw here for 33 000+ times.

Why wouldn’t it be possible? - because truth cannot contradict the truth. And since the truth is only one and Holy Spirit cannot lie… who does then*? Every denomination claims it has the truth becasue it is lead by the HS. That’s why.

  • or rather - teach falsely as lie is a deliberate deception


Hmm… Jesus?! :wink:

Read also Acts 15:6-30 and Acts 16:4. Any ideas how the council authority in both cases may be connected?



This question is for everyone. Does this mean that you believe where references to the brothers of Jesus are really cousins?



Either cousins or they may have been Jesus’ step-brothers (from Joseph)



In both cases the apostles and elders are present. It says in Acts that it “seemed good to the Holy Spirit”. How did they know this?



I’ve had to cut this up so i could read and respond

Originally Posted by zemi

  1. So? Is the Messiah refered to as existing in hypostatic unity? Is the Holy Spirit mentioned there as a part of the Trinity? Is the Trinity mentioned in the OT at all? Do these argument negate what was a later Christian developement?

Originally Posted by justasking4
This doesn’t answer my question. Its either yes or no. What do you say?

Originally Posted by zemi
2. I don’t think so. So? Was Yahweh in the OT presented as the Trinity?

In regards to your last question i would say yes.

Originally Posted by justasking4
So we agree there are no refences in scripture that a human is ever referred to as a type of ark?

I am not aware of that. So?

What this shows is that this is a novel way to interpret scripture and has no scriptual basis.

Originally Posted by zemi
3. If God didn’t want it that way, why should it be so? I just see no reason… Want Scripture support? Think of this:

A. Why weren’t the Phillistines also struck dead after stealing the ark?

Originally Posted by justasking4
I forgot about this. When the Phillistines had the ark they got very sick and wanted to get rid of it.

Let me make this clear. Are you saying that Mary couldn’t have been the ark because one of the reasons is that she would have to contaminate people around her/kill them?

The problem with the “type argument” is that there are no boudaries to it. I can just as easily bring up other things in this that will negate this kind of argument. In this case, people that didn’t handle the ark correctly were killed or seriously harmed. There is no reason i can’t apply that to your argument.



I guess your answer would be that what they taught was compatible with the Scriptures :wink:

The Holy Spirit would grant them infallibility of the teaching as Jesus promised to the office of Peter in Mt 16,18-19



Me too. But not explicitly. Have you seen the verses the JWs for instance use to support Yahweh is/was not Trinity? Pretty persuasive at first look. Take a look if you haven’t seen them.

I agree once again with your opinion. Show me your Sola Scriptura in the Bible on which this reasoning of yours rests upon.



Part 2

Originally Posted by zemi
B. Were Adam and Eve in still-sinless state struck dead when they were having their first marital embrace/first touched each other/etc. ?

Originally Posted by justasking4
What does this have to do with Mary being sinless? Can you clarify?

I called this example off in my previous post


Originally Posted by zemi
4.If Mary was God, I agree, that would be very probable.

Originally Posted by justasking4
This is another indicator how off this is in making some of the claims about Mary being sinless. If Mary had to be sinless she also would be in danger of being contaminated by her parents as Jesus would be if Mary was a sinner.

But not if God decided otherwise. Let me clear this a bit - Catholics do not claim Mary MUST(!) have been sinless. God could do it either way. The Catholic position is that is would certainly be most appropriate for Mary to be created without the stain of sin. I think you would claim this also, but you would add that this does not mean it was actually so. Right?

The church makes the strong claim she was without sin. The question is not could God make her sinless but did He? What is the evidence for it?

Originally Posted by zemi
However they do not typologically represent the ark. Her parents did not included the typologically related “contents” of Mary’s womb

A… God’s word on on stone tablets --> Living God’s word in Mary
B. Manna --> The Real Living Bread in Mary
C. Aaron’s rod signifying Levitic priesthood --> The most high priest abiding in Mary

The problem is that the type argument can only take you so far. The next step you must deal with is: Do the scriptures really teach this as a literal fact in some way? Do the NT writers claim in some way she was a type of ark?

The Greek word for owershadow (episkiasei) is in the Septuagint found only with reference to God’s Shekinah overshadowing the ark. This is only mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels with the reference to Mary. I could use your argument and say “Does the Bible mention Mary’s parents being overshadowed, having the typologically parallel contents as the ark? Were they called “kecharitomene” and will every generation call them blessed?” No. THere’s nothing like that in the Scripture.

This is a good example. Just because God overshadows an object or human in these 2 examples it does not follow that in and of themselves there is any special about them. For example we don’t really know what happened to the ark itself.

Originally Posted by justasking4
I agree. However, the scriptures saying she is blessed because the Father used her as a channel to bring the Son into the world is a truly blessed thing. No doubt because of this she is blessed. What does not follow from this nor do the scriptures teach it, is that she is sinless, assumed into heaven, or queen of heaven.

Sharing your interpretations of the Scripture, I would also agree

Originally Posted by justasking4
Since the NT are the only records we have on the life of Mary, where do they refer to her in any way like this?

Those are the only canonical things we have. Then we have (count is as a historical evidence) the Protoevangelium of James, Assumption of Isaiah, Papyrus 470 (the Theotokos prayer) and Transitus accounts. This is for the early accounts.

Are you aware of a couple of things in these works? if i’m not mistaken these are apocphra works that were rejected. The other is that these works are centuries after the fact.

Of the last we even texts in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic (Egyptian), and Arabic, there would seem to be little doubt that the belief in Assumption and veneration towards Mary was a “late” developementwas. It shows it was a catholic (i.e. universal) belief among early Christians.

Do you know the dates of this? Just because its mentioned does not make it true. Do you put in weight in the claims that Mary’s image can be seen in a pancake or freeway off ramp? Would a person 1000 years from now who may read limited accounts of these things be able to state with any confidence that this was what roman catholics believed?

And yes…almost forgot… most importantly we have the Sacred Tradition which is complety scriptural but you deny it.

Haven’t you already presented some above? If not, what are these Sacred Traditions, the dates of them and who first mentioned them? These are questions that need to be explored so we can assess their value,



You’re contradicting yourself… you’re mentioning late developements and not mentioning of the NT authors of certain teachings (e.g. Mary being the ark)…

Can you then tell me, please (!) - which NT author taught the canon of the Bible? Which one? Tell me one…

Which one taught Sola Scriptura…? just give me one.

I would be very interested in your answers.



See post # 6. The word kecharitomene implies without doubt.



Just asking will not respond to this since he is not able to refute it even though he will claim that scripture never claims she was without sin.




My input about Mary, sorry for the interruption.

There is an article:
Jesus Lived in India- Holger Kersten, a German Scholar.

This article is a summary of Kersten’s exhaustive research into Christ’s travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir.

“The historian Mullah Nadini (1413) also recounts a story of Yuz Asaf who was a contemporary to King Gopadatta, and confirms that he also used the name Issar, ie. Jesus. There is also much historical truth in the towns and villages of Northern India to prove that Jesus and his mother Mary spent time in the area. For instance, at the border of a small town called Mari, there is nearby a mountain called Pindi Point, upon which is an old tomb called Mai Mari da Asthan or “The final resting place of Mary”. The tomb is said to be very old and local Muslims venerate it as the grave of Issa’s (ie Christ’s) Mother. The tomb itself is oriented East-West consistent with the Jewish tradition, despite the fact it is within a Muslim area. Assuming its antiquity, such a tomb could not be Hindu either since the Hindus contemporary to Christ cremated their dead and scattered their ashes as do Hindus today.”

This is a new information on Mary, must be looked into.




So the point is that Jesus and Mary lived in India or…?! :confused:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.