Mary and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin

[ImaginaryDay2]

This is not hard to understand ... you cannot have an "Assumption of the Virgin" if she is not a virgin. You can have the Assumption of Mary, but not the "(formerly virgin) Virgin".
For confessing belief in and joining the Catholic Church, all the stuff about Mary is sort of an interrelated package deal. You believe it or you don't. I said that I didn't join because I couldn't believe it.

I agree with your conclusion here. We may well (or may not) have the Assumption of Mary, but as to her being "Ever Virgin", I would disagree and take the biblical record at face value, that she did, indeed, "know" her husband as well as Christ having true brothers and/or sisters. As I examined the Catholic faith prior to becoming Lutheran (and I did quite seriously) this was a point I was not able or willing to compromise on.

In the OP I appreciate your use of the Catholic Catechism in examining this topic. It helps to clear up misunderstandings or personal opinions about what certain faith groups actually "believe"

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

.

 

[Arsenios]

We may well (or may not) have the Assumption of Mary, but as to her being "Ever Virgin",
I would disagree and take the biblical record at face value, that she did,
indeed, "know" her husband
as well as Christ having true brothers and/or sisters.

Christ's Incarnation was an "undercover operation", where He was camouflaged in the Widower Joseph's prior family, with His mother as the wife of Joseph...

The subterfuge was successful...

Until His Day had come...

To this day, in the Middle-East, cousins are called brothers...

He had brothers and sisters, but not according to the flesh...

He was not born of the PREVIOUSLY-virgin...

That is not in Scripture...

He was simply born of the Blessed Virgin, whom He assigned to His Beloved Disciple John to take care of on the Cross...

Had they been His brothers according to the flesh, she would have been theirs to take care of...

Hence they are NOT His brothers according to her flesh...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Christ's Incarnation was an "undercover operation", where He was camouflaged in the Widower Joseph's prior family, with His mother as the wife of Joseph...

The subterfuge was successful...

Until His Day had come...

To this day, in the Middle-East, cousins are called brothers...

He had brothers and sisters, but not according to the flesh...

He was not born of the PREVIOUSLY-virgin...

That is not in Scripture...

He was simply born of the Blessed Virgin, whom He assigned to His Beloved Disciple John to take care of on the Cross...

Had they been His brothers according to the flesh, she would have been theirs to take care of...

Hence they are NOT His brothers according to her flesh...


Arsenios

What?

 

[atpollard]

Christ's Incarnation was an "undercover operation", where He was camouflaged in the Widower Joseph's prior family, with His mother as the wife of Joseph...

The subterfuge was successful...

Until His Day had come...

To this day, in the Middle-East, cousins are called brothers...

He had brothers and sisters, but not according to the flesh...

He was not born of the PREVIOUSLY-virgin...

That is not in Scripture...

He was simply born of the Blessed Virgin, whom He assigned to His Beloved Disciple John to take care of on the Cross...

Had they been His brothers according to the flesh, she would have been theirs to take care of...

Hence they are NOT His brothers according to her flesh...

Arsenios

It is a pity that all of the Greek Scholars that translated the word of God into English from Tindale up to the most modern translation, lacked your insight and mistranslated “brother” when they really meant “cousin”.

 

[RichWh1]

Perhaps a biblical word study on “husband”, “wife” and “marriage” would give you a better definition of God’s plan for a husband and wife. If your sarcasm was directed at me, I only assume that a godly husband and a godly wife had a godly marriage. I’ll leave it to you to find the scripture for yourself that defines that relationship.

[cough] ... brothers ... [cough]

Perhaps you should focus on the Biblical requirement of marriage as the Law states since both Mary and Joseph were both required to obey the Law and marriage requires that it be consummated, that meaning they had to have known each other (biblically) in order for there to be a biblical marriage.

That alone would disqualify Mary from being perpetual virgin.

Matthew 1:24-25

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Matthew 1:24-25 NASB
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Arsenios]

It is a pity that all of the Greek Scholars that translated the word of God into English from Tindale up to the most modern translation, lacked your insight and mistranslated “brother” when they really meant “cousin”.

They really meant brother...

Because in the Middle-East even to this day...

Your cousin IS your brother...

Let it go...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

They had to have known each other (biblically) in order for there to be a biblical marriage.

That alone would disqualify Mary from being perpetual virgin.

Matthew 1:24-25

They presented as man and wife so as to conceal the Holy Child...

She was taken to wife for the sake of that deception...

But only their betrothal is recorded in Scripture...

Neither Herod nor his son ever found Him...

And even into His Ministry, he fought to keep His identity concealed...

Muzzling demons, asking people to tell no one what He had done to heal them, etc etc...

And asking the Disciples: "Who do people say I am?" etc...

The identity of Jesus needed to be kept secret until His Time had come...

And for the most part it was...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

What?

The Christ Child had to be concealed in an existing family...

Joseph as an aging widower needing a wife for his children...

Took the Blessed Virgin in the guise of a wife...

And fled to Egypt with her to save Him from Herod...

For he murdered ALL male children of that age...


Arsenios

 

[RichWh1]

They really meant brother...

Because in the Middle-East to this day...

Your cousin IS your brother...

Let it go...


Arsenios

Joseph did not know Mary until she gave birth That says that after that birth they had intercourse as Scripture demands

The Catholic Church tries to make Mary somebody she never was and what God meant for her to be! That is the shame of it all!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

They really meant brother...
Because in the Middle-East to this day...
Your cousin IS your brother...
Let it go...

Arsenios

Then why the assumption that a “brother/cousin” would not take care of a “mother/aunt” and the emphasis you placed on Jesus handing that responsibility to a non-relative?

He was simply born of the Blessed Virgin, whom He assigned to His Beloved Disciple John to take care of on the Cross...
Had they been His brothers according to the flesh, she would have been theirs to take care of...
Hence they are NOT His brothers according to her flesh...

 

[MennoSota]

The Christ Child had to be concealed in an existing family...

Joseph as an aging widower needing a wife for his children...

Took the Blessed Virgin in the guise of a wife...

And fled to Egypt with her to save Him from Herod...

For he murdered ALL male children of that age...


Arsenios

God had to be concealed? Why?
Joseph had once been married and his first wife died?
Mary was a disguised wife?

Arsenios, your narrative is odd.

 

[Josiah]

The RCC dogma of the Assumption of Mary - just like the Anabaptist d0ogma of Credobaptism - is NOT taught in the Bible.
This is obvious and undeniable.
Catholics admit this (being more honest, with greater integrity here?)
Bapsts don't.



But of the two, the Assumption of Mary has other things going for it, whereas Credobaptism has NOTHING else going for it, making the Assumption of Mary perhaps more valid.

The Assumption of Mary was widely embraced from the Early Church, the dogma of Credobaptism can't be traced back more than to the late 16th Century and have never been embraced by a majority of Christians, ever.

For over 1000 years, the Assumption of Mary was accepted by all Christians (albeit not as dogma), Credobaptism has never been accepted by every Christian or even a majority of Christians (especially not Calvinists)

The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism actually specifically and directly contradicts the teachings of all Christians since at least the year 100 AD . We find NO direct teaching against it until about 400 years ago.


But yes, I agree with both Baptists and Catholics, neither dogma is taught in Scripture. It's just that the Assumption of Mary has other things going for it while Credobaptism doesn't.




To the issue of the thread...


The opening poster wants to define Baptist Dogmas HIS way and limit discussion to the Baptist dogmas he is willing to discuss. Frankly, I permit that in debate. So I agreed. Especially since he had refused -over and over for months - to give substantiation for any of these Baptist dogmas he presented; nice to FINALLY after months, get a discussion that he flat out said he would NOT discuss. So, I agreed to stick to the ONE he would discuss. I agreed to HIS definition. And what happened? He states he will not discuss HIS topic that he gave HIS definition of. Hum.


It's interesting he started this thread rather than address His baptist dogmas (or even just the ONE he said he'd be willing to discuss IF we accepted HIS definition - which we did). Interesting because it proves my point. The burden of proof lies with the one with the position, not those who don't hold to it. He wants those who do NOT teach a view to present a Scripture that states the view is wrong (a SILLY epistemology) but where is his verse, "Mary was NOT assumed into heaven." Where is his verse, "Mary had lots of sex and did not remain a virgin?" Nope. He wants the Catholics to show that the Assumption of Mary is TRUE (I think confident they don't have a Scripture that confirms it, which they don't CLAIM they do). Evidently forgetting HE doesn't have a verse that says, "Only those who have previously in chronological time have proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior may be baptized." He calls out the Catholics for what he himself does. Ironically. Matthew 7:3 immediately comes to mind.





.

 

[MennoSota]

The RCC dogma of the Assumption of Mary - just like the Anabaptist d0ogma of Credobaptism - is NOT taught in the Bible.
This is obvious and undeniable.
Catholics admit this (being more honest, with greater integrity here?)
Bapsts don't.



But of the two, the Assumption of Mary has other things going for it, whereas Credobaptism has NOTHING else going for it, making the Assumption of Mary perhaps more valid.

The Assumption of Mary was widely embraced from the Early Church, the dogma of Credobaptism can't be traced back more than to the late 16th Century and have never been embraced by a majority of Christians, ever.

For over 1000 years, the Assumption of Mary was accepted by all Christians (albeit not as dogma), Credobaptism has never been accepted by every Christian or even a majority of Christians (especially not Calvinists)

The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism actually specifically and directly contradicts the teachings of all Christians since at least the year 100 AD . We find NO direct teaching against it until about 400 years ago.


But yes, I agree with both Baptists and Catholics, neither dogma is taught in Scripture. It's just that the Assumption of Mary has other things going for it while Credobaptism doesn't.




To the issue of the thread...


The opening poster wants to define Baptist Dogmas HIS way and limit discussion to the Baptist dogmas he is willing to discuss. Frankly, I permit that in debate. So I agreed. Especially since he had refused -over and over for months - to give substantiation for any of these Baptist dogmas he presented; nice to FINALLY after months, get a discussion that he flat out said he would NOT discuss. So, I agreed to stick to the ONE he would discuss. I agreed to HIS definition. And what happened? He states he will not discuss HIS topic that he gave HIS definition of. Hum.


It's interesting he started this thread rather than address His baptist dogmas (or even just the ONE he said he'd be willing to discuss IF we accepted HIS definition - which we did). Interesting because it proves my point. The burden of proof lies with the one with the position, not those who don't hold to it. He wants those who do NOT teach a view to present a Scripture that states the view is wrong (a SILLY epistemology) but where is his verse, "Mary was NOT assumed into heaven." Where is his verse, "Mary had lots of sex and did not remain a virgin?" Nope. He wants the Catholics to show that the Assumption of Mary is TRUE (I think confident they don't have a Scripture that confirms it, which they don't CLAIM they do). Evidently forgetting HE doesn't have a verse that says, "Only those who have previously in chronological time have proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior may be baptized." He calls out the Catholics for what he himself does. Ironically. Matthew 7:3 immediately comes to mind.





.

Let us be clear. Paedobaptism is never taught in scripture and never evidenced in scripture. It is a heresy brought in after the Apostles died.

 

[atpollard]

The RCC dogma of the Assumption of Mary - just like the Anabaptist d0ogma of Credobaptism - is NOT taught in the Bible.
This is obvious and undeniable.
Catholics admit this (being more honest, with greater integrity here?)
Bapsts don't.



But of the two, the Assumption of Mary has other things going for it, whereas Credobaptism has NOTHING else going for it, making the Assumption of Mary perhaps more valid.

The Assumption of Mary was widely embraced from the Early Church, the dogma of Credobaptism can't be traced back more than to the late 16th Century and have never been embraced by a majority of Christians, ever.

For over 1000 years, the Assumption of Mary was accepted by all Christians (albeit not as dogma), Credobaptism has never been accepted by every Christian or even a majority of Christians (especially not Calvinists)

The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism actually specifically and directly contradicts the teachings of all Christians since at least the year 100 AD . We find NO direct teaching against it until about 400 years ago.


But yes, I agree with both Baptists and Catholics, neither dogma is taught in Scripture. It's just that the Assumption of Mary has other things going for it while Credobaptism doesn't.




To the issue of the thread...


The opening poster wants to define Baptist Dogmas HIS way and limit discussion to the Baptist dogmas he is willing to discuss. Frankly, I permit that in debate. So I agreed. Especially since he had refused -over and over for months - to give substantiation for any of these Baptist dogmas he presented; nice to FINALLY after months, get a discussion that he flat out said he would NOT discuss. So, I agreed to stick to the ONE he would discuss. I agreed to HIS definition. And what happened? He states he will not discuss HIS topic that he gave HIS definition of. Hum.


It's interesting he started this thread rather than address His baptist dogmas (or even just the ONE he said he'd be willing to discuss IF we accepted HIS definition - which we did). Interesting because it proves my point. The burden of proof lies with the one with the position, not those who don't hold to it. He wants those who do NOT teach a view to present a Scripture that states the view is wrong (a SILLY epistemology) but where is his verse, "Mary was NOT assumed into heaven." Where is his verse, "Mary had lots of sex and did not remain a virgin?" Nope. He wants the Catholics to show that the Assumption of Mary is TRUE (I think confident they don't have a Scripture that confirms it, which they don't CLAIM they do). Evidently forgetting HE doesn't have a verse that says, "Only those who have previously in chronological time have proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior may be baptized." He calls out the Catholics for what he himself does. Ironically. Matthew 7:3 immediately comes to mind.





.

:taz:

 

[Arsenios]

Joseph did not know Mary until she gave birth
That says that after that birth they had intercourse as Scripture demands

Not in the Middle East -

You can say: "Until this present day and hour, I have never married!"
It does not mean: "I am married after this day and hour..."

The Catholic Church tries to make Mary somebody she never was and what God meant for her to be! That is the shame of it all!

Finger pointed shaming is not a good idea...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Then why the assumption
that a “brother/cousin”
would not take care of
a “mother/aunt”
and
the emphasis you placed
on Jesus handing that responsibility
to a non-relative?

Because Jesus is God and has no earthly relatives...
He did not want anyone other than John to attend to the Blessed Virgin...
It is included as a part of that Gospel...
Because there is a deeper teaching in it as well...
He did not give Her to Peter, for instance...
Nor to Thomas or any of the other disciples...
But ONLY to John...
John was the ONLY disciple at the foot of the Cross...
One disciple betrayed Christ...
One Disciple stood by Christ...
The rest were scattered...
Though Peter tried to stay...
And he failed...
John did not fail...
"Behold THY Mother!"
She is OUR Mother too, you see...
More so than James and the rest of the Elder Joseph's children...
Had they been Her children, He could not have given Her to John...
John who is not Her son, IS Her son...
She who is not his mother, IS his mother...
Spiritual reality is in many ways the inverse of material reality...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

Not in the Middle East -

You can say: "Until this present day and hour, I have never married!"
It does not mean: "I am married after this day and hour..."

True, but neither does the Scriptural account suggest any reason why Joseph and Mary would not have lived as a normal couple afterwards.

To conclude that they did not, and worse, to make a dogma out of the speculation, is troubling.

 

[Arsenios]

God had to be concealed? Why?
Joseph had once been married and his first wife died?
Mary was a disguised wife?

Arsenios, your narrative is odd.

We are a peculiar people, as you may be figuring out...

Christ was concealed in Egypt...

Then in His Family that was not His Family...

Even though it was His family...

He broke out once as an early teen, remember?

Disappeared and his parents had to go back and find Him...

Talking in the Temple, astonishing everyone, remember...?

On His Father's Instruction...

Then back under Mary's wing...

They are not Biblically recorded as marrying...

Betrothed, and perhaps married, but perhaps not actually married...

But they presented themselves as man and wife...

Concealing thereby the Child of the Virgin from prying eyes...

Protecting Him from evil forces that wanted Him dead...

Protected by concealment in plain sight...

Christians to this day are concealed in plain sight...

Hidden in Christ...

1Co 2:7
But we speak the Wisdom of God in a Mystery,
even the hidden Wisdom,
which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

And:

1Pe 3:4
But let it be the hidden man of the heart,
in that which is not corruptible,
even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit,
which is in the sight of God of great price.

The Church has been looking at these matters for 2000 years...

We are not speculating from Scripture...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The RCC dogma of the Assumption of Mary - just like the Anabaptist d0ogma of Credobaptism - is NOT taught in the Bible.
This is obvious and undeniable.
Catholics admit this (being more honest, with greater integrity here?)
Bapsts don't.



But of the two, the Assumption of Mary has other things going for it, whereas Credobaptism has NOTHING else going for it, making the Assumption of Mary perhaps more valid.

The Assumption of Mary was widely embraced from the Early Church, the dogma of Credobaptism can't be traced back more than to the late 16th Century and have never been embraced by a majority of Christians, ever.

For over 1000 years, the Assumption of Mary was accepted by all Christians (albeit not as dogma), Credobaptism has never been accepted by every Christian or even a majority of Christians (especially not Calvinists)

The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism actually specifically and directly contradicts the teachings of all Christians since at least the year 100 AD . We find NO direct teaching against it until about 400 years ago.


But yes, I agree with both Baptists and Catholics, neither dogma is taught in Scripture. It's just that the Assumption of Mary has other things going for it while Credobaptism doesn't.




To the issue of the thread...


The opening poster wants to define Baptist Dogmas HIS way and limit discussion to the Baptist dogmas he is willing to discuss. Frankly, I permit that in debate. So I agreed. Especially since he had refused -over and over for months - to give substantiation for any of these Baptist dogmas he presented; nice to FINALLY after months, get a discussion that he flat out said he would NOT discuss. So, I agreed to stick to the ONE he would discuss. I agreed to HIS definition. And what happened? He states he will not discuss HIS topic that he gave HIS definition of. Hum.


It's interesting he started this thread rather than address His baptist dogmas (or even just the ONE he said he'd be willing to discuss IF we accepted HIS definition - which we did). Interesting because it proves my point. The burden of proof lies with the one with the position, not those who don't hold to it. He wants those who do NOT teach a view to present a Scripture that states the view is wrong (a SILLY epistemology) but where is his verse, "Mary was NOT assumed into heaven." Where is his verse, "Mary had lots of sex and did not remain a virgin?" Nope. He wants the Catholics to show that the Assumption of Mary is TRUE (I think confident they don't have a Scripture that confirms it, which they don't CLAIM they do). Evidently forgetting HE doesn't have a verse that says, "Only those who have previously in chronological time have proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior may be baptized." He calls out the Catholics for what he himself does. Ironically. Matthew 7:3 immediately comes to mind.





.

Another important post, Josiah - Thank-you...






.

Arsenios