Conference yukon::christian_v7

    
    Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness, 
    and our hope.  To thee do we cry, poor banished children
    of Eve.  To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and
    weeping in this valley of tears.......
    
    Yes, sometimes it comes back to me (though in fragments).
    
    I always wondered why that glorious moment in time was not
    considered the Immaculate Conception.
    
    Mike
    
    (Thanks for the pleasant memories, John)
    
    

re.1

	Mike,

> Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness, 
>    and our hope.

	Where in the Bible are we to hail Mary, hail her as a "Holy Queen", hail
her as "Mother of Mercy", call her our life, our sweetness, or our hope?

As .0 indicates she was a handmaid of the Lord, favored *among* women, never
*above* them.

Ace

re .1 - our hope is in the LORD Jesus Christ, our High Priest and sacrifice 
alone.  Not in any fallen mortal, even though they rejoice also in that 
same hope.

cf Luke 1:47 : "...my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour"  (Mary)
                                             ^^ ^^^^^^^

 "We have our hope in the living God, Who is the Saviour of all men, and 
  especially of those who believe."
							1 Timothy 4:10


We are instructed to pray in the name of Jesus.  No other has bought the 
right to intercede:

 "I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in My name"
					 - Jesus speaking, in John 16:23

  "...then the Father will give you whatever you ask in My Name..."
					 - Jesus speaking, in John 15:16

  "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you 
   were slain, and with Your blood You purchased men for God"
					Revelation 4:9, of 'the Lamb'

  "Christ Jesus, Who died - more than that, Who was raised to life - is at 
   the right hand of God and is also interceding for us..."

						Romans 8:34

  "There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
   Jesus, Who gave Himself as a ransom, for all men ....

						1 Timothy 2;6

   If you gave your all for someone, wouldn't you be sad if they would 
   only communicate by passing messages through a third party?

								Andrew

    
    My response in .1 was just a flashing thought that it might be
    appropriate with respect to the base note.  It comes from a prayer
    in Roman Catholic tradition.  I did not intend contention or offense. 
    
    Mike
    
    
    

Found a hot button, did you, Mike?  ;-)

re.4

	Mike,

	No offense taken here. None whatsoever.

	Just thought you might like to get clear on the matter.  8*)  8*) 

	Andrews note is a very good beginning at clarifying the Biblical 
truth on this subject.

Regards,
Ace

>   If you gave your all for someone, wouldn't you be sad if they would 
>   only communicate by passing messages through a third party?

I'm not really sure what this has to do with the topic -- The Annunciation.

But, since you bring it up:

	Are you saying that the "Prayer Request" topic
	in this conference should not be used?

/john

Back to the topic of the Annunciation:

My soul doth magnify the Lord, * and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded * the lowliness of his handmaiden.
For behold, from henceforth * all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath magnified me; * and holy is his Name.
And his mercy is on them that fear him * throughout all generations.
He hath showed strength with his arm; * he hath scattered the proud in the
  imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seat, * and hath exalted the humble
  and meek.
He hath filled the hungry with good things; * and the rich he hath sent empty
  away.
He remembering his mercy hath holpen his servant Israel; * as he promised to
  our forefathers, Abraham and his seed, for ever.
						Luke 1:46-55 Coverdale Bible

Hi John,

I was addressing .1 rather than .0 .  And the basis and authority of our 
prayers rather than where they are physically placed.  In the light of 
that, I just felt a concern that some points needd to be clarified.  Sorry 
it apparently interrupts the topic!

No problem at all with the "Prayer Request" topic - It's right on target, 
and I wish I could be in there more frequently myself.

						God bless
							Andrew

I don't see anything in .1 that says anything about not praying to God
in addition to any request for someone else to pray for us.

What's wrong with letting a fellow Christian, alive or dead, also
hear our cries, and help carry our prayerful requests to God?

After all, the Bible does say that nothing, not even death, shall separate
us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus (see Romans 8:38-39).

As Christians, we believe in the Communion of Saints.  We are still in
close union with those who have gone before us, and that close union
allows us to ask them to pray for us, just like in this conference's
Prayer Request topic.

/john

And now, back to the Annunciation:

	A message came to a maiden young;
	The angel stood beside her
	In shining robes, and with golden tongue
	He told what should betide her:
	The maid was lost in wonder;
	Her world was rent asunder
	Ah! how could she
	Christ's mother be
	By God's most high decree!

	No greater news could a messenger bring
	For 'twas from that young mother
	He came who walked on the earth as a king
	And yet was all men's brother:
	His truth has spread like leaven;
	'Twill marry earth to heaven,
	Till all agree
	In charity
	To dwell from sea to sea.

	He came, God's Word to the world here below;
	And round him there did gather
	A band who found that this teacher to know
	Was e'en to know the Father:
	He healed the sick who sought him,
	Forgave the foes who fought him;
	Beside the sea
	Of Galilee
	He set the nations free.

	And sometimes trumpets from Sion ring out,
	And tramping comes and drumming;
	"Thy kingdom come," so we cry; and they shout,
	"It comes!" and still 'tis coming.
	Far, far ahead, to win us,
	Yet with us, nay within us;
	Till all shall see
	That King is he
	The Love from Galilee!

Sing of Mary pure and lowly,		Sing of Jesus, son of Mary,
  Virgin mother undefiled,		  In the home at Nazareth.
Sing of God's own Son most holy,	Toil and labor cannot weary
  Who became her little child.		  Love enduring unto death
Fairest child of fairest mother,	Constant was the love he gave her,
  God the Lord who came to earth	  Though he went forth from her side,
Word made flesh, our very brother,	Forth to preach, and heal, and suffer,
  Takes our nature by his birth.	  Till on Calvary he died.

			Glory be to God the Father
			  Glory be to God the Son;
			Glory be to God the Spirit
			  Glory to the Three in One.
			From the heart of blessed Mary,
			  From all saints the song ascends,
			And the Church the strain re-echoes
			  Unto earth's remotest ends.

Ye who claim the faith of Jesus,        Therefore let all faithful people
Sing the wonders that were done         Sing the honor of her name;
When the love of God the Father         Let the Church, in her foreshadowed,
Over sin the victory won,               Part in her thanksgiving claim;
When he made the Virgin Mary            What Christ's mother sang in gladness
Mother of his only Son.                 Let Christ's people sing the same.
                                        
Blessed were the chosen people          "Magnify, my soul, God's greatness;
Out of whom the Lord did come;          In my Saviour I rejoice;
Blessed was the land of promise         All the ages call me blessed,
Fashioned for his earthly home;         In his praise I lift my voice;
But more blessed far the mother,        He has cast down all the mighty,
She who bore him in her womb.           and the lowly are his choice."

Ye watchers and ye holy ones,		Respond, ye souls in endless rest,
Bright seraphs, cherubim, and thrones,	Ye patriarchs and prophets blest,
Raise the glad strain,			  Alleluia,
  Alleluia!                               Alleluia!
Cry out, dominions, princedoms, powers,	Ye holy twelve, ye martyrs strong,
Virtues, archangels, angels' choirs,	All saints triumphant raise the song,
  Alleluia, alleluia,			  Alleluia, alleluia,
  Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!		  Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

O higher than the cherubim,		O friends, in gladness let us sing,
More glorious than the seraphim,	Supernal anthems echoing,
Lead their praises,                       Alleluia!
  Alleluia!                               Alleluia!
Thou bearer of the eternal Word,        To God the Father, God the Son,
Most gracious, magnify the Lord,	And God the Spirit, Three in One,
  Alleluia, alleluia,			  Alleluia, alleluia,
  Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!		  Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

    Re: Note 74.10 by COVERT::COVERT
    
>What's wrong with letting a fellow Christian, alive or dead, also
>hear our cries, and help carry our prayerful requests to God?
    
    Well, if they are dead, they are asleep until Christ returns; until the
    day of judgement.  It is pointless asking them to do anything for the
    moment.  Maybe later, but then we'll be in no need to ask anything.
    
    And even if they are not asleep, they surely can't hear us.  They're
    dead.  That's what dead means.  Sure, they have eternal life, but for
    the moment they are dead.  For them, however, they do not experience
    this time.  In a twinkling of an eye (to them) they will be in front of
    God.
    
    I'd love some scriptural references to support these contentions of
    mine...  &rew?  ;-)
    
    James

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Exod. 22:18   Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. 
     
    Lev. 19:31   Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek
    after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God. 
     
    Lev. 20:6   And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar
    spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set
    my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. 
     
    Lev. 20:27   A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that
    is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with
    stones: their blood shall be upon them. 
     
    Deut. 18:10   There shall not be found among you any one that maketh
    his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth
    divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 
     
    Deut. 18:11   Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a
    wizard, or a necromancer. 
     
    1Sam. 28:3   Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and
    buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those
    that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land. 
     
    1Sam. 28:7   Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that
    hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and inquire of her. And
    his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar
    spirit at Endor. 
     
    1Sam. 28:8   And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and
    he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and
    he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring
    me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. 
     
    1Sam. 28:9   And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what
    Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits,
    and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare
    for my life, to cause me to die? 
     
    2Kgs. 21:6   And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed
    times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and
    wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to
    provoke him to anger. 
     
    2Kgs. 23:24   Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the
    wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that
    were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away,
    that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the
    book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD. 
     
    1Chr. 10:13   So Saul died for his transgression which he committed
    against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not,
    and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to
    inquire of it; 
     
    2Chr. 33:6   And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the
    valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used
    enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit,
    and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to
    provoke him to anger. 
     
    Isa. 8:19   And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have
    familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should
    not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 
     
    Isa. 19:3   And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof;
    and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the
    idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and
    to the wizards. 

    Luk  16:19->31

    Yeah, that was it, thanks Chele.  ;-)

Oh, pish-tosh.

All of those OT quotes have to do with attempting to conjure up spirits
to do things in this world, to imagine that we have powers that God did
not give us, and has nothing to do with asking other Christians, alive or
dead, to pray for us to the Lord our God.

The quote from Matthew doesn't support the "they are asleep" contention.

Time is a creature of God, existing as part of this world.  St. Paul explains
to us in Romans that nothing shall separate us from the love of God.  The
Communion of Saints keeps us inseparate from all Christians, past, present,
and future.  We are in close union (Communion means close union) with them
as members of Christ's Body, and cannot be separated by anything in creation,
even death or time.  The Bible says so.  Even if they are asleep, they are not
separated from us, for when they rise on the last day, their prayers then (and
the Bible tells us that they will be praying and praising throughout all
eternity) will be just as effective for us now, for God works outside of time.

And that's completely biblical.

/john

�    Well, if they are dead, they are asleep until Christ returns; until the
�    day of judgement.

�    And even if they are not asleep, they surely can't hear us.  They're
�    dead.  That's what dead means.  Sure, they have eternal life, but for
�    the moment they are dead.  For them, however, they do not experience
�    this time.  In a twinkling of an eye (to them) they will be in front of
�    God.

The areas of hell, opening of paradise, receiving the new body, etc...  2
Corinthians 5:1-8, Philippians 1:23 are relevant.  Too involved to put in
this topic! 

� After all, the Bible does say that nothing, not even death, shall separate
� us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus (see Romans 8:38-39).

When we die, we're not separated from God, but we are separated from each 
other (eg 2 Samuel 12:23, but especially Luke 16:26-31, as Chele 
mentioned).

I think there's material for a couple of other topics here, and it would be 
nice to get back to Matthew 1 and Luke 1...

							Andrew

� All of those OT quotes have to do with attempting to conjure up spirits

If you look, in particular, at 1 Samuel 28, Saul wanted to contact Samuel
himself, even though Samuel had been dead awhile.  The only way Saul could
do this was by using a medium - a totally forbidden practise, which was
punishable by death. 

� The quote from Matthew doesn't support the "they are asleep" contention.
I didn't think Matthew was mentioned ... maybe you meant Luke 16, which is
the events around the death of the rich man and Lazarus.  I don't hold to
the 'soul sleep' idea myself, but it's another topic.  Enough stacking on
this one aready! 

� The Communion of Saints keeps us inseparate from all Christians, past, 
� present, and future.  We are in close union (Communion means close union) 
� with them as members of Christ's Body, and cannot be separated by anything 
� in creation, even death or time.  The Bible says so.  

Hmmm.  You need to find something pretty convincing in the face of Luke 16 
and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 to convince me that we are in communication 
with those who have gone before.  Sure, dying doesn't separate us from the 
love of Christ (Romans 8:38-39), but when people are finished with this 
world, the rules change radically.  Like, it's no longer the day of grace 
for them.  Hence no more opportunity of salvation.  There is no more sin...
And - there is no more faith!  In eternity, it is all by sight and perfect 
knowledge, as in 1 Corinthians 13:10.  That is why love is the greatest.  
It's the only one of the three to be valid in heaven.

� And that's completely biblical.
I'm afraid all our ideas of 'Biblical' pass through a fallen interpreter.
Including mine.  Hence the need to keep as close as possible to the clear
Word.  Even then... 

� -< P.S.:  I won't be back to this conference until Easter >-
I hope this was 'busy' or 'away' rather than 'offended'?  This did escaate
rather more than I'd hoped, John, but naturally we're both sensitive on
such key issues.  Look forward to seeing you at Easter, anyway... 

							love
								Andrew

� -< P.S.:  I won't be back to this conference until Easter >-

John is on a Lenten fast from participating in most notes conferences.
But he tells me that "Abstinence is dispensed on Feasts of Our Lord -- 
Sundays and the Annunciation" hence his participation now.

While I am of the Protestant persuasion, I would be very slow to liken
praying for saints intecede on our behalf to conjuring up spirits.

I believe in the afterlife, and whether those who die sleep until
Jesus comes, are cognizant in a holding tank until the judgement,
or cognizant in heaven or hell at the moment of departure, I find it
difficult to conceive that asking a departed one to intercede for
us is any more effective than asking my Aunt in Texas to call me on
the phone just now.  I don't think she'd hear me, though I don't 
doubt that some angel could relate my plea for her to call me.

I do find it easy to believe that we can speak directly to God,
going boldly to the throne of grace.  Yes, there are times when 
I need the boost from another's prayers.  I believe God is glorified
through the prayers of his saints (present on earth and accounted for;
not yet deceased in body).

Let's continue to share what we know of the True Word of God to the best
of our limitations in love for one another.

Mark

    Andrew, not meaning to answer for John, but his Lenten resolution
    was to limit himself to notes, which is why he won't be back until
    Easter.

    Jim

      Hi John,
    
        I agree with your joy that Christ would be "born of a woman, 
        born under the law."  (Gal 4:4).
    
        Oh the love of God that He would condescend to take the self-same
        sinful flesh of lost humanity and (in that way) experience the 
        unique and awful temptations of that flesh, and (through the
        Spirit) not once be carnally minded, but rather be completely 
        submitted to the Spirit of God!  "Not Mine will but Thine will
        be done!"
    
        Yes, that Jesus would take the flesh of sinful flesh, be "born of
        a woman" is something to rejoice over.
    
        Oh, the love of God that He would condescend to being MAN as man
        stood after the fall and demonstrate that through the Spirit that
        same man can live a perfectly righteouss life!
    
        Thanks John!
    
                                                      And God Bless!,
    
                                                      Tony
                          

Thanks Jim.  Glad it wasn't the difference...

						God bless
								Andrew

    
    Reading Mary's lovely outpouring of joy and faith (upon greeting
    her cousin Elizabeth) has always touched me deeply. I revere her
    as a model of humility and trust. She must have been an amazing
    young lady and its no wonder to me that God chose her. 
    
    I am not of the Catholic tradition so I do not view her as co-
    redemer, or believe in worshiping her as the queen of heaven,
    however my love and respect for her is emmense.
    
    Just commpare Mary's "magnificat" to the tone of the king in
    Ecclesiastes, another whom God chose elevated status (kingship)
    to serve Israel. How full of disgusting self-pity and hopelessness!    
    I just finished Ecclesiastes before reading this topic so the 
    difference in overall tone hit me forcefully. 
    
    In Christ,
    Rowena
     

re:25
        
>    I am not of the Catholic tradition so I do not view her as co-
 >   redemer, or believe in worshiping her as the queen of heaven,
  >  however my love and respect for her is emmense.
   

      Neither do Catholics veiw her as co-redeemer. Redemption is possible
      ONLY through Jesus Christ. We honor Mary, but do not 
      worship her. We worship God only.     

     Just To Let You Know

     Jim

Mary's paeon of praise is wonderful ... like Hannah's too, only more so. 
The step of faith that Mary was offered must have been the deepest and most 
moving blessing possible.....  I love the match between humility and 
blessing ...

"He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant.
 From now on all generations will call me blessed
 for the Mighty One has done great things for me -
   holy is His name..."

 - Her attention was set on Him...

Also reminds me of Jesus' response to the criticism of the woman who 
anointed him, in Mark 14:6-9
 "Leave her alone, ... why are you bothering her?  She has done a beautiful 
  thing to me....  She did what she could.  She poured perfume on my body 
  beforehand to prepare for my burial.  I tell you the truth, wherever the 
  gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be 
  told in memory of her."

Truly a contrast with Ecclesiastes, where Solomon started out with all the 
advantages of God's love and blessing, but lapsed terribly out of 
fellowship...


						God bless
								Andrew

    74.7 -EXCELLENT RESPONSE!!!!!!!!! 
    
    

    74.10 - YES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!
    

    74.25 - Catholics do not believe Mary is a co-redeemer!  She is not
    worshipped.  She is honored and we ask her to pray with us to CHRIST!
    Mary is a creature.  I do not have my book with me today (52 questions
    commonly asked of Catholics), but if you wish, I can answer you even
    more clearly - perhaps tomorrow.  
    
    

    74.25 2nd answer.  I just re-read your note.  You may not realize it,
    but honoring Mary is what you did here.  Beautiful.  Thanks
    

Saint Mary the Virgin     August 15

O God, who hast taken to thyself the blessed Virgin Mary, mother of thy
incarnate Son: Grant that we, who have been redeemed by his blood, may
share with her the glory of thine eternal kingdom; through the same thy
Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the
unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.  Amen.

				Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA 79), p.192

	Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and
	his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and
	Mary Magdalene.  When Jesus therefore saw his mother,
	and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith
	unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!  Then saith he
	to the disciple, Behold thy mother!  And from that hour
	that disciple took her unto his own home.
						John 19:25-27, KJV

As we are very members incorporate in Christ's Body, the holy Church,
Mary is also our mother.  Let us take her into our hearts and homes,
and say with her: "Lord, be it unto me according to thy word."

Sing we of the blessed Mother           Sing again the joys of Mary
 Who received the angel's word,          When she saw the risen Lord,
And obedient to the summons             And in prayer with Christ's apostles,
 Bore in love the infant Lord;           Waited on his promised word;
Sing we of the joys of Mary             From on high the blazing glory
 At whose breast the child was fed       Of the Spirit's presence came,
Who is Son of God eternal               Heavenly breath of God's own being,
 And the everlasting Bread.              Manifest in wind and flame.

Sing we, too, of Mary's sorrows,        Sing the chiefest joy of Mary
 Of the sword that pierced her through,  When on earth her work was done,
When beneath the cross of Jesus         And the Lord of all creation
 She his weight of suffering knew,       Brought her to his heavenly home;
Looked upon her Son and Saviour         Where raised high with saints and angels
 Reigning from the awful tree,           In Jerusalem above,
Saw the price of our redemption         She beholds her Son and Saviour
 Paid to set the sinner free.            Reigning as the Lord of love.

From a letter by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria [444]

That anyone could doubt the right of the holy Virgin to be called the
Mother of God fills me with astonishment.  Surely she must be the Mother
of God if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, and she gave birth to him!  Our
Lord's disciples may not have used those exact words, but they delivered
to us the belief those words enshrine, and this has also been taught us
by the holy fathers.

In the third book of his work on the holy and consubstantial Trinity,
our father Athanasius, of glorious memory, several times refers to the
holy Virgin as "Mother of God."  I cannot resist quoting his own words:
"As I have often told you, the distinctive mark of holy Scripture is
that it was written to make a twofold declaration concerning our Saviour;
namely that he is and has always been God, since he is the Word, Radiance,
and Wisdom of the Father; and that for our sake in these latter days he
took flesh from the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and became human."

And further on he says: "There have been many holy people, free from all
sin.  Jeremiah was sanctified in his mother's womb, and John while still
in the womb leaped for joy at the voice of Mary, the Mother of God."
Athanasius is one we can trust, one who deserves our complete confidence,
for he taught nothing contrary to the sacred books.

The divinely inspired Scriptures affirm that the Word of God was made
flesh, that is to say, was united to a human body endowed with a rational
soul.  He undertook to help the descendants of Abraham, fashioning a body
for himself from a woman and sharing our flesh and blood, to enable us to
see in him not only God, but also, by reason of this union, a human being
like ourselves.

It is held, therefore, that there are in Emmanuel two entities, divinity
and humanity.  Yet our Lord Jesus Christ is nonetheless one, the one true
Son, both God and human; not a deified human on the same footing as those
who share the divine nature by grace, but true God who for our sake
appeared in human form.  We are assured of this by Saint Paul's declaration:
"When the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born
under the law, to redeem those who were under the law and to enable us to
be adopted as children."

Hi John,

�              <<< Note 74.33 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
�From a letter by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria [444]

� That anyone could doubt the right of the holy Virgin to be called the
� Mother of God fills me with astonishment.  

Cyril is right and wrong!  Of course, Mary was the physical mother of our
LORD Jesus after the flesh.  The hesitation in referring to her as the
'mother of God' is because she is not the mother of the eternal nature of
the LORD Jesus - the 'God' part - only of his mortal body.  ie, Mary was a
part of creation, while the 'God' aspect of Jesus existed outside creation,
and was, of course, involved in its genesis (Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:15,
etc) 

So to call Mary the mother of God gives a wrong implication.  Many prefer
to avoid the term, in order not to confuse our perception of the holiness
of God. 

The reference from Athanasius starts off as more accurate, saying :
� "...Wisdom of the Father; and that for our sake in these latter days He
�  took flesh from the Virgin Mary ... and became human."
but he also falls into the trap of calling her "Mother of God"!

� And further on he says: "There have been many holy people,"
Exactly.  In fact in 1 Peter 2:9, the saved are referred to as a 'holy 
nation', reflecting back on our calling in 1 Peter 1:15: 
 "but just as He Who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do,"
  for it is written 'be holy, because I am holy"
But I would take issue with his continuation: " free from all sin."
While we are holy, and being sanctified, the work of sanctification is not 
completed until we are in His presence.  cf 1 John 3:2

�  Jeremiah was sanctified in his mother's womb...

I presume this refers to Jeremiah 1:5, which actually speaks of appointing, 
not annointing.

The quote from Galatians 4:4-5 is an interesting one.  The final phrase :
	"to enable us to be adopted as children."
is, in the Authorised Version:
	"that we might receive the adoption of sons."
and in the New International Version, as:
	"that we might receive the full rights of sons."

We tend to think of the references to 'adoption' as being a child taken
into a family other than its birth family.  However, the sense of the term
here in both Hebrew and Roman law didn't mean that.  After all, if we are
blood-bought - *born* into the family, to refer to it as 'adoption' is rather
an anticlimax. 

The term used meant an affirmation of maturity.  A coming of age ceremony,
in which the son was given full administrative rights of the father's
authority.  In the Roman version, he was publicly given the 'toga virilis'.
He could then sign the cheques; do the deals in the market place, in his
father's name...  The implications on the target God has for our Christian
lives is overwhelming.  The position is not 'automatic', associated with 
age,but earned as an acknowledgement of maturity.

The birth comes first.  As we learn to walk close to the LORD, He grants 
gifts to be used in His service.  He signs our 'blank cheques', when we are 
expressing Him in a way which bears eternal fruit (John 15:16).


						God bless
								Andrew

    
    .34
    
    Mary is not my mother.  She was a blessed woman for sure.
    
    jeff

    Yes Jeff, thank you. Well said.

    John,
    
    Thanks for the entries, I enjoyed them very much.  I'm constantly
    amazed and impressed by the knowledge of the Church Fathers -
    especially those of the third and fourth century.
    
    Andrew,
    
    There is but one Christ - fully divine, fully human.  Try not to
    cut him into to many parts to prove your point. ;*)  Mary was 
    given the title "Mother of God" to simply affirm that Jesus 
    was both human and divine.  To seperate Christ's humanity to prove
    his Divinity is a dangerous game and not sound theology.
    
    Peace,
    
    j 
    

    Hi,
    
    Just a few more thoughts about why I disagreed with your comments,
    Andrew.
    
>>Cyril is right and wrong!  Of course, Mary was the physical mother of our
>>LORD Jesus after the flesh.  The hesitation in referring to her as the
>>'mother of God' is because she is not the mother of the eternal nature of
>>the LORD Jesus - the 'God' part - only of his mortal body.  ie, Mary was a
>>part of creation, while the 'God' aspect of Jesus existed outside creation,
>>and was, of course, involved in its genesis (Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:15,

    But, don't you think your cutting Christ's divinity away from his
    humanity with such a statement?  The idea of a "God part" doesn't
    make very much sense.  When Christ came into the world, he was a 
    PERSON - fully human; fully divine.  He wasn't PART human, PART divine.
    When he rose from the dead, he rose BODY and SOUL - and sits on his
    throne now BODY and SOUL.  It isn't the "God part" that makes Jesus
    who he is, its the person - the whole person of Jesus. 
    
    Writing this, I'm reminded of how, before Vatican II, people would
    recite "Lord my SOUL is not worthy to receive you, but only say the
    word and my SOUL will be healed." before receiving communion.  At 
    Vatican II theologians (great scholars like Gilson and Maritian) told
    the Bishops that if you want to interpret the Bible and Thomas Aquinas
    correctly you should stress the fact that God is not interested in
    just a person's soul - God's interested in the PERSON - the WHOLE 
    PERSON. Hence, the reason why we say before communion now, "Lord, I AM
    not worthy...." God's just not interested in your soul, Andrew, he's 
    interested in you - BODY and SOUL. The soul does take precedent over 
    the body (hey, it gives the body life), but there is a good reason why 
    we'll receive our bodies back the end of time - because our matter
    plays a role in WHO we are. 
    
    Now, how does this relate to Christ?  If you seperate the divinity
    of Christ from His humanity, Christ can no longer be who we claim 
    him to be.  We understand Christ came down from heaven to die for 
    our sins that we may attain eternal life.  In order to do this 
    Christ must be God because only God could be the perfect sacrifice;
    but Christ MUST also be human.  If Christ is not human he cannot die
    for mankind. Christ didn't come down from earth as a bird to offer 
    himself to mankind, me must be human being (an eye for an eye, a tooth
    for a tooth, a man for mankind you could say).
    
    The argument you used in your reply is almost identical to the argument
    used by others 1700 years ago that made the Church proclaim Mary the
    Mother of God.  When you start saying that Mary is only "part" mother
    of Jesus your open a can of worms as to:
    
       1. How much is Jesus Divine or human?
       2. Was Christ even Human?
       3. Was divinity given all at once, or was given over time
    
    etc...etc...and a host of other difficulties. That's why the Church
    proclaimed Mary the Mother of God - no so much to honor her but to 
    glorify God.  If you deny that Mary is the mother of God, you are
    denying that Christ is who we believe him to be - our Lord and Savior.
    No matter how you cut it, Andrew, when Christ was born Mary gave birth
    to God.  
    
    Peace,
    
    Jeff

Some people who are squeamish about using the Western Church term "Mother of
God" may prefer to use the Eastern Church term "Theotokos" which means
"God bearer".  -tok is bear as a Mother does.

The definition is a result of the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD:

	Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord
	teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus
	Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
	truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul
	and body; of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as
	regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance
	with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart
	from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before
	the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men
	and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer
	(Theotokos); one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,
	recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change,
	without division, without separation; the distinction of
	natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the
	characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming
	together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or
	separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-
	begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets
	from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ
	himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed
	down to us.

Hello Jeff!


Welcome to CHRISTIAN notes!  Haven't seen you for a while - I hope we get
the opportunity to get to know you better. 

Sorry if I confused you over my entry.  Of course, by 'parts', I meant 
'aspects'.  Jesus is both fully human and fully God.  Otherwise He could 
not have met the requirements for our salvation!

If you were familiar with my contributions here, you wouldn't have fallen
into the trap of thinking I was excluding God's care and involvement in our
physical state!!! 

I have considerable difficulty with giving a fallen human an apparently 
divine title.  I did not think that the nature of the LORD Jesus was under 
any misapprehension there!

						God bless
								Andrew

    Catching up slowly...
    
    The following may be found offensive by those offended by such
    things...  I got the dreaded silence from my Roman Catholic friend a
    few weeks ago for presenting this line of argument... but I'm pretty
    sure I've been forgiven by now.
    
    Jesus' mother and brothers were outside at one stage, according to the
    gospels.  This means that Mary bore more than once, right?
    
    The name "Virgin Mary" is therefore of incorrect tense, and use of it
    implies something that is probably not so; that Mary remained a virgin
    and should be addressed with that title.
    
    After the event associated with the manger, she would have been
    technically not a virgin anymore.  Presumably Jesus' brothers (of Mary)
    were created in the normal way; there's no further mention of specific
    Holy Spirit intervention.
    
    So I think that the term Theotokos (74.41) is much more appropriate. I
    like it. The important fact remains that Mary was a virgin when Jesus
    was incarnated.
    
    James

>    Jesus' mother and brothers were outside at one stage, according to the
>    gospels.  This means that Mary bore more than once, right?

No, Brother James.

/john    

    John,
    
    Jesus had a brother for sure...  

>Why do you not think so?

There is no specific brother identified in the Bible.

There is biblical evidence that there were no brothers.  Specifically,
when Jesus, dying on the cross, commended Mary to John, who took her
from that point on into his home.  If he had any younger brothers,
this responsibility would have been theirs.

The term brother is commonly used to identify cousins.

/john

>The term brother is commonly used to identify cousins.

No wonder cousins marrying was considered a no-no!

re ,46:
� There is no specific brother identified in the Bible.
� The term brother is commonly used to identify cousins.

Hi John,

That may be the Roman Catholic belief, but generally Mark 3:33 referring to
"Jesus' mother and brothers" is understood to mean his half-brothers;
having the same mother. 

In Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, the crowd wish to reduce Jesus to be only a
local product, and thus point Him out as "the carpenter's son ... Isn't his
mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
Aren't all his sisters here with us? ..." 
					- identifying His immediate family.

In Galatians 1:19, Paul is refering to the early days of his conversion, 
when the only apostle he met was Peter, and also one he refers to as 
"James, the LORD's brother", as something significant enough to identify 
who he meant.

The apostle James, brother of John, is put to death in Acts 12:2, and
later, another James reaches prominence in the church leadership (cf Acts
15:13..., 21:18, Galatians 2:9, 12). 

In that this 'James' is well known enough not to need further
identification, he is generally (outside the Roman Catholic church) thought
to be the half-brother of the LORD, as referred to in Galatians 1:19, also
the author of the epistle. 

The author of Jude is thought to be the half-brother also called Judas in
Matthew 13 and Mark 6, identifying himself modetly as a brother of James
(Jude 1:1). 

� The term brother is commonly used to identify cousins.
I hadn't heard this one before - I'll have to look it up. However, the word
'cousin' is separately identified in the Bible (eg in Colossians 4:10). 

Interesting that John the Baptist was also Jesus' cousin (or is it second 
cousin?) - Luke 1:36

								Andrew

>There is no specific brother identified in the Bible.

	Mark 15:40 "And there were women looking on from a distance, among whom
were both Mary the Magdalene and Mary the *mother* of James the little and of
Joses, and Salome"

	MAtthew 13:55-56a "Is not this the carpenters's son? Is not his mother,
called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his
sisters, are they not all with us?

	Mary was the mother of the men mentioned in Mark, and they were
mentioned among Jesus' flesh brothers in Matthew 13. Mary also bore daughters
as mentioned in Matthew. 

	The plain meaning here is often substituted by a roundabout 
interpretation to support the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine. 

	BTW, the James in MAtthew 13:55 is the same James who was a leading one
in Jerusalem and wrote the epistle of JAmes (Gal 1:19). Mary fulfilled her
purpose in providing the Lord his humanity, and then went on to live a normal
human life bearing children to Joseph, and becoming a member of God's church
being present at the Pentecost outpouring. Acts 1:14 .." and Mary the mother 
of Jesus, and with His brothers". After this however, we do not hear anymore of
Mary in the New Testament. 

Ace

Can you explain, then, why Jesus commended Mary to John rather than to one
of his so-called brothers?

The doctrine of perpetual virginity is not exclusive to the Roman Catholic
Church.  I'm Anglican, not Roman Catholic.  The Eastern Orthodox also hold
to the apostolic tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity.

/john

    Regardless of whether or not Mary bore other children, (personally I
    believe she did), she was a married woman. Matthew 1:25 (NIV) states
    "But he [Joseph] had no union with her *until* she gave birth to a
    son." That "until" would indicate that Mary and Joseph had a sexual
    relationship after Jesus was born. Do people really maintain a
    perpetual virginity theory for Mary?! What do they do with poor
    Joseph?! It would be awfully hard on him, don't you think?
                               
    Rebecca

>    What do they do with poor
>    Joseph?! It would be awfully hard on him, don't you think?

Unfortunately, I know of couples who merely cohabitate, so it is not
unthinkable that these two didn't have relations.  However, the
word "until" is compelling, moreso than the argument that Jesus 
*should* have left his mother to one of his half-brothers.

However, that Jesus left his mother's care to one of his disciples
only underscores the text where the Truth is more important than family
and that it will drive a sword between family members.  At the time, 
Jesus family didn't believe in him (ref. Luke 8:19).

One of the notes I have in the study Bible says that the greek word used
for "firstborn" is prototokos meaning the first of many others.  The 
commentator goes on to say that "had he been her only son, the word
would have been monogenes, which occurs in Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38):
none of which are referring to Jesus (check 'em out).  However, it
is used in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 in reference to Jesus
being *God's* only Son.

But, I too,like Rebecca, fail to see the importance of the "perpetual virginity"
of Mary, as opposed to the initial virginity throughout her first pregnancy
and birth of her firstborn child, Jesus, during which "[Joseph] had no union 
with her *until* she gave birth to a son."

Mark

re .50

did not believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour until after Jesus's resurection.

It is my understanding that is why Jesus gave charge of his mother to John.
After Jesus's birth, Mary and Joseph had a normal relationship.

Mark 6:3 States it ever so clearly and it was a slam against Jesus as to weather
or not he was the illegitimate son of Mary.

Mark 6:3 Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary (stating that he was not the 
son Joseph), the brother James, and Joses, and of Judah, and Simon? and are not
his sisters here with us?

I fully believe in the Vergin Birth of Mary, However to acknowledge Mary's
perpetual virginity would require one to accept that:

	1. Jesus was not the only child born of a virgin or
	2. Joseph had more than one wife of no recording was made.

Does perpetual virginity take away from the work done on the cross? 
Can we list it like we do speaking in tongues and leave it up to the
individual believer.

If no When we as believers decide to lay down our differences and pick up
on the fact that in Heaven there will only be people who accepted and followed
Jesus Christ, no Baptist, Catholics, Vineyardites, Pentecostal or any other
denomination on Judgment Day. Satan would like nothing better than to continue
this denominational maddness to drive us farther and farther apart. 

In Christ and Christ alone.

David

>Can you explain, then, why Jesus commended Mary to John rather than to one
>of his so-called brothers?

	The Lord said to His mother, "Behold your son", and to His
loved disciple, "Behold your mother". These words indicate the union of life,
because John's Gospel testifies that the Lord is life imparted into His
believers. It is by this life that His loved disciple could be one with Him
and become the son of His mother, and she could become the mother of His loved
disciple. In the same way that fellow believers become brothers and sisters
in God's family. 

	It is the life relationship with the Son that makes us one.

Ace

    Yes, the issue is relatively unimportant.  But I treat this as a
    sort of chit-chat argument; worth doing only once.
    
    Re: Note 74.51 by SAHQ::SINATRA
    
>   "But he [Joseph] had no union with her *until* she gave birth to a
>   son." That "until" would indicate that Mary and Joseph had a sexual
>   relationship after Jesus was born. Do people really maintain a
>   perpetual virginity theory for Mary?! What do they do with poor
>   Joseph?! It would be awfully hard on him, don't you think?
    
    I'm sure he could have coped.  I managed for years before getting
    married... nothing is impossible for God!
    
    Thanks for the replies people, especially the ones that highlighted
    bible verses.
    
    It also depends on our definition of virgin.  Think of the alternative
    definitions;
    
    	- whether Joseph was united with her
    	- the evidence as seen by a midwife prior to birth
    
    If we take the latter definition, then for Mary to remain a virgin
    Jesus must have been born by ceasarian section... ;-) ;-)
    Or if we continue into wild speculation without scriptural reference;
    maybe Jesus teleported out of the womb into the manger...  ;-) ;-)
    
    James

Hi John,

Sorry - the Anglicans I know must be a different variety (at least, low
Anglican, rather than Anglo-Catholic).  And I thought Eastern Orthodox were
a branch of Catholic.  I need to brush up some there. 

� Can you explain, then, why Jesus commended Mary to John rather than to one
� of his so-called brothers?

David mentioned how I understand it earlier, but to expand a little:

It was only after the resurrection that Jesus' brothers came to believe in
Him as Saviour (from their reaction before, as well as their later
support).  I believe that Mary's faith was stronger, from having stored up
the revelations from around His birth.  As such, to leave her to the care
of the then unbelieving brothers would be to ignore the deepest - spiritual
- need of that traumatic time.  John could offer emotional, material and
practical support, but also be a spiritual strength, particularly over the
dawning realisation of the resurrection.  His place with respect to the
LORD Jesus was unique - witness his awareness of himself as one 'who Jesus
loved'.  Doesn't this point to the preparation of one to stand in Jesus
place of family and worldly provision when Jesus left the earth? 

Incidentally, if family relationship were to be thought to take any 
precedence here (which could legitimately be the case, as with Boaz and 
Ruth / Naomi, for instance), it would even have extended to a cousin's 
responsibility.  However, the features of this case override the legal 
domestic safeguard.

The omission of Joseph from any personal mention is generally taken to
indicate that he died early on (sometimes taken as a possible indication
that he was an older man).  Also, that would be why the responsibility
rests on the LORD Jesus to find someone to care for Mary. 

							Andrew

    Two things:
    
    One, to provide clarity about my thoughts on the relationship of Mary
    and Joseph: yes, they could have simply cohabitated, or yes, Joseph
    could have coped. But nowhere in the Bible is there an endorsement of
    celibacy, * within marriage *. As far as Joseph dying early relates to
    this issue, we do know that Mary and Joseph were married at least twelve 
    years before Joseph died, because they were together when they became 
    separated from  Jesus and later found him in the temple.
    
    Secondly, and more importantly, to further strengthen the point that 
    Jesus' regarded his disciples as his family - that belief was more 
    important than blood - there is Matthew 12:47 - 50 (NIV)  "Someone told 
    him [Jesus], 'Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to 
    speak to you.'  He replied to him, 'Who is my mother, and who are my 
    brothers?'  Pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and 
    my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my 
    brother and sister and mother.'"
    
    Rebecca
    

                      Brethren of the Lord

     When Catholics call Mary the Virgin, they mean she remained 
a virgin throughout her life.  When Protestants use the term, 
they mean she was a virgin only until the birth of Jesus; they 
believe that she and Joseph later had children, all those called 
"the brethren of the Lord."  What gives rise to the disagreement 
are biblical verses that use the terms "brethren," "brother," or 
"sister." 
     These are representative verses: "While he was still 
speaking to the multitude, it chanced that his mother and his 
brethren were standing without, desiring speech with him" (Matt. 
12:46).  "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother 
of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon?  Do not his sisters live 
here near us?" (Mark 6:3).  "For even his brethren were without 
faith in him" (John 7:5).  "All these, with one mind, gave 
themselves up to prayer, together with Mary the mother of Jesus, 
and the rest of the women and his brethren" (Acts 1:14).  "Have 
we not the right to travel about with a woman who is a sister, as 
the other apostles do, as the Lord's brethren do, and Cephas?" (1 
Cor. 9:5). 
     The first thing to note, when trying to understand such 
verses, is that the term "brother" has a wide meaning in the 
Bible.  It is not restricted to brothers german or half-brothers.  
(The same goes for "sister," of course, and the plural 
"brethren.")  Lot is described as Abraham's "brother" (Gen. 
14:14), but Lot was the son of Aran, Abraham's deceased brother 
(Gen. 11:26-28), which means Lot was really Abraham's nephew.  
Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).  
Cis and Eleazar were the sons of Moholi.  Cis had sons of his 
own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their 
"brethren," the sons of Cis.  These "brethren" were really their 
cousins (1 Chron. 23:21-22).  
     The terms "brethren," "brother," and "sister" did not refer 
only to close relatives, as in the above examples.  Sometimes 
they meant only a kinsman (Deut. 23:7, 2 Esd. 5:7, Jer. 34:9), as 
in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of king Ochozias (4 
Kgs. 10:13-14).  The words could mean even people apparently 
unrelated, such as a friend (2 Sam. 1:26, 3 Kgs. 9:13, 3 Kgs. 
20:32) or just an ally (Amos 1:9). 
     Why this ambiguous usage?  Because neither Hebrew nor 
Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a 
special word meaning "cousin."  Speakers of those languages used 
either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the 
son of the sister of my father."  But using a circumlocution was 
a clumsy way to speak, so they naturally enough fell to using the 
word "brother."  
     The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the 
Aramaic equivalent of "brethren" to mean both cousins and sons of 
the same father--plus other relatives and even non-relatives.  
When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators 
of the Septuagint did.  (The Septuagint was the Greek version of 
the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century 
or two before Christ's birth and was the version of the Bible 
from which most Old Testament quotations are taken in the New 
Testament.)  
     In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both true 
brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek 
has the (usually) narrow meaning that the English "brother" has.  
Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, 
anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, 
even for true cousins.  
     You might say they transliterated instead of translated.  
They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" 
and did not use adelphos here (for sons of the same parents), 
anepsios there (for cousins).  This same usage was employed by 
the writers of the New Testament and passed into English 
translations of the Bible.  To determine just what "brethren" or 
"brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at 
the context.  When we do that, we see that inseparable problems 
arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus. 
     At the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel appeared to 
Mary, she asked, "How can that be, since I have no knowledge of 
man?" (Luke 1:34).  From the earliest interpretations of the 
Bible we see that this was taken to mean that she had made a vow 
of life-long virginity, even in marriage.  If she had taken no 
such vow, the question would make no sense at all.  
     There is no reason to assume Mary was wholly ignorant of the 
rudiments of biology.  She presumably knew the normal way in 
which children are conceived.  If she anticipated having children 
and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would 
hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since having a 
child the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed.  No, her 
question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a 
real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to 
the angel's request.  A careful look at the New Testament shows 
Mary kept her vow and never had any children other than Jesus.      
In the story of his being found in the Temple, Jesus, at age 
twelve, is mentioned as, evidently, the only son of Mary (Luke 
2:41-51); there is no hint of other children in the family.  The 
people of Nazareth, where he grew up, refer to him as "the son of 
Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary."  The Greek expression 
implies he is her only son.  In fact, others in the Gospels are 
never referred to as Mary's sons, not even when they are called 
Jesus' "brethren."  If they were in fact her sons, this would be 
strange usage. 
     There is another point, perhaps a little harder for moderns, 
or at least Westerners, to grasp.  It is that the attitude taken 

by the "brethren of the Lord" implies they are his elders.  In 
ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, 
Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but 
younger never gave advice to older--it was considered 
disrespectful to do so.  But we find Jesus' "brethren" saying to 
him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to 
Judaea so his disciples could see his doings, so he could make a 
name for himself (John 7:3-4).  
     Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own 
benefit, saying "He must be mad" (Mark 3:21).  This kind of 
behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the "brethren" 
were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his 
brothers german, since Jesus, we know, was Mary's "first-born." 
     Consider what happened at the foot of the Cross.  When he 
was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John: 
"Jesus, seeing his mother there, and the disciple, too, whom he 
loved, standing by, said to his mother, Woman, this is thy son.  
Then he said to the disciple, This is thy mother.  And from that 
hour the disciple took her into his own keeping" (John 19:26-27).  
Now the Gospels mention four of his "brethren," James, Joseph, 
Simon, and Jude.  It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have 
disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if 
these four were also her sons. 
     Fundamentalists are insistent nevertheless that "brethren of 
the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense.  They most 
commonly make two arguments based on this verse: "And he knew her 
not till she brought forth her first-born son" (Matt. 1:25).  
They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that 
Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in 
the usual sense, and had several children.  Otherwise, they ask, 
bringing up their second point, why would Jesus be called "first-
born"?  Doesn't that mean there must have been at least a 
"second-born," perhaps a "third-born" and "fourth-born," and so 
on?  
     The problem for them is that they are trying to use the 
modern meaning of "till" (or "until") instead of the meaning it 
had when the Bible was written.  In the Bible, it means only that 
some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not 
imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense 
of the term.  In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the 
Bible, some ridiculous meanings result. 
     Consider this line: "Michol the daughter of Saul had no 
children until the day of her death" (2 Kgs. 7:23).  Are we then 
to assume she had children after her death?  Or how about the 
raven that Noah released from the ark?  The bird "went forth and 
did not return till the waters were dried up upon the earth" 
(Gen. 8:7).  In fact, we know the raven never returned at all.  
     And then there was the burial of Moses.  About the location 
of his grave it was said that no man knows "until this present 
day" (Deut. 34:6)--but we know that no one has known since that 
day either.  Or how about this: "And they went up to mount Sion 
with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of 
them was slain till they had returned in peace" (1 Macc. 5:54).  
Does this mean the soldiers were slain after they returned from 
battle?  
     The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea--
which is that nothing at all can be proved from the use of the 
word "till" in Matt. 1:25.  Recent translations give a better 
sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time 
before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "he had not known 
her when she bore a son" (Knox translation). 
     The other argument used by fundamentalists concerns the term 
"first-born."  They say Jesus could not be called Mary's "first-
born" unless there were other children that followed him.  But 
this is a misunderstanding of the way the ancient Jews used the 
term.  For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 
13:2, Num. 3:12).  Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" 
son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20).  Did this mean the 
parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could 
call their first the "first-born"?  Hardly.  The first male child 
of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out 
to be the only child of the marriage.  This usage is illustrated 
by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt.  The inscription 
refers to a woman who died during the birth of her "first-born."  
     Fundamentalists also say it would have been repugnant for 
Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and yet remain virgins.  They 
call married virginity an "unnatural" arrangement.  Certainly it 
is unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one's 
family, not as unusual as having a true virgin give birth to a 
child.  The Holy Family was neither an average family nor even 
one suited to be chosen as "family of the year" from among a 
large number of similarly-situated families.  We should not 
expect its members to act as we would.  
     The Holy Family is the ideal family, but not because it is 
like "regular" families in all major respects, only better.  In 
some major respects it is totally unlike any other family.  The 
circumstances demanded that, just as they demanded the utmost in 
sacrifice on the part of Mary and Joseph.  This was a special 
family, set aside for the nurture of the Son of God.  No greater 
dignity could be given to marriage than that. 
     Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary's 
perpetual virginity is the testimony of early Christian writings.  
Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius.  It was 
Helvidius, writing around 380, who first brought up the notion 
that the "brethren of the Lord" were children born to Mary and 
Joseph after Jesus' birth.  Jerome first declined to comment on 
Helvidius' remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a 
daring affront to the faith of the whole world."  This was an 
entirely new interpretation, one nobody had pushed before, and it 
was beneath contempt.  

     At length, though, Jerome's friends convinced him to write a 
reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the 
Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary.  He used not only the 
scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian 
writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr.  
Helvidius claimed the support of two writers, Tertullian and 
Victorinus, but Jerome showed this was no support at all, since 
Tertullian was a heretic (a Montanist) and the passage from 
Victorinus had been misinterpreted.  Helvidius was unable to come 
up with a reply, and his theory was unheard of until modern 
times. 
     So, if it is established that the "brethren of the Lord" 
were not Jesus' brothers german or half-brothers, who were they?  
That they were Jesus' cousins has been the accepted view at least 
from the time of Jerome until recent centuries.  (Before Jerome 
the consensus was that they definitely weren't Mary's sons, but 
but not necessarily that they were her nephews.)  
     Of the four "brethren" who are named in the Gospels, 
consider, for the sake of argument, only James.  Similar 
reasoning can be used for the other three.  We know that James' 
mother was named Mary.  Look at the descriptions of the women 
standing beneath the Cross: "Among them were Mary Magdalen, and 
Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons 
of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "Among them were Mary Magdalen, and 
Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome" 
(Mark 15:40).  
     Then look at what John says: "And meanwhile his [Jesus'] 
mother, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen had taken 
their stand beside the cross of Jesus" (John 19:25).  If we 
compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the Crucifixion, 
we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of 
Cleophas.  So far so good. 
     An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere 
(Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean 
this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Cleophas and 
Alphaeus.  One solution is that she was widowed once, then 
remarried.  More probably, though, Alphaeus and Cleophas (Clopas 
in Greek) are the same person, since the Aramaic name for 
Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek in different ways, either as 
Alphaeus or Clopas.  Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a 
Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the 
name Paul.  
     So it is probable, anyway, that James is the son of Mary and 
Cleophas.  If the testimony of Hegesippus, a second-century 
historian, is believed, Cleophas was the brother of Joseph, the 
foster-father of Jesus.  James would thus be Joseph's nephew and 
a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph's putative son.  This 
identification of the "brethren of the Lord" as Jesus' cousins is 
open to legitimate question--they might even be relatives more 
distantly removed--and our inability to know certainly their 
status says nothing about the main point, which is that the Bible 
demonstrates that they were not, anyway, the Virgin Mary's 
children. 
     Why are fundamentalists, particularly those most opposed to 
Catholicism, so insistent that Mary was not perpetually a virgin?  
There seem to be two reasons.  
     One is dislike of celibacy for priests and nuns.  They are 
aware that it is Catholic teaching that celibacy is to be highly 
prized, that there is much virtue (and much common sense) in 
priests and nuns giving up the privilege of marriage in order to 
serve Christ better.  And they know that Catholics refer to the 
example of Mary when praising consecrated virginity.  So, by 
undermining her status, they hope to undermine that of priests 
and nuns.  By claiming Mary did not live her life as a virgin, 
they hope to make religious celibacy seem contrary to the Gospel. 
     The other reason concerns Mary herself.  In the Catholic 
scheme of things, she is certainly different from other women, so 
much so that she is considered worthy of special devotion (not of 
course of worship, latria, but of a level of honor, hyperdulia, 
higher than other saints receive).  Her status accounts for the 
attention paid her.  Fundamentalists think that what she gets, by 
way of devotion, is necessarily taken from Christ.  
     This is neither true nor logical, but they nevertheless 
think devotion to Mary must be discouraged if proper devotion to 
our Lord is to be maintained.  One way to diminish her status is 
to show she was just like other women, more or less, and that can 
be done in part by showing she had other children.  Their desire 
to do this tends to make impossible fundamentalists' accurate 
weighing of the facts.  Their presuppositions do not allow them 
to see what the Bible really implies about the "brethren of the 
Lord." 

                                        --Karl Keating
                                          Catholic Answers
                                          P.O. Box 17181
                                          San Diego, CA 92117

    Mark,
    
    Your study Bible's analysis of prototokos is pretty shoddy.  See the
    previous discourse.  I suppose that the only children who died in Egypt
    when the Angel of Death struck down "all the firstborn" were those who
    had brothers and sisters? (Exodus 11)
    
    On the sanctification of the firstborn, see also Exodus 13:1.  I rather
    doubt that parents had to wait until they had a second child to
    consecrate their first, believing that they only had a "firstborn" when
    they had more than one child.

.56
> It was only after the resurrection that Jesus' brothers came to believe in
> Him as Saviour (from their reaction before, as well as their later
> support).  I believe that Mary's faith was stronger, from having stored up
> the revelations from around His birth.  As such, to leave her to the care
> of the then unbelieving brothers would be to ignore the deepest - spiritual
> - need of that traumatic time. 

.52
> However, that Jesus left his mother's care to one of his disciples
> only underscores the text where the Truth is more important than family
> and that it will drive a sword between family members.  At the time,
> Jesus family didn't believe in him (ref. Luke 8:19).

I don't think you can conclude from Luke 8:19, Matthew 12:46-50, or Mark 3:
31-35 that Jesus's mother and brothers were total unbelievers until the
Resurrection.

His mother obviously believed in him -- she was visited by the Angel person-
ally.  She obviously did the will of the Father, as exemplified by her
willingness to bear the Savior.   Christ's emphasis here is not on proclaiming
that his family was filled with unbelievers, but focusing people's attention
on the importance of doing the will of the Father.  What's more important is
not family relationship but faith and obedience.  Christ said that whoever
did not hate his father and mother and spouse was not worthy of following him.
Obviously he did not thereby mean that we should hate our mother or we should
hate his mother.  This is a figure of speech -- he is emphasizing the 
importance of devotion first to Christ.  First we love God -- and then we
love our family.

Again, Jesus uses this form of speed when a woman cries out, "Blessed is the
womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!" (Luke 11:27) Jesus
replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
Yet Jesus is clearly not denying that his mother is blessed: for inspired
Scripture says elsewhere in Luke she says, "For now on all generations will 
call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me -- holy is
his name" (1:49).  She is blessed because she was the first to believe,
and she is blessed because of the grace of God.

Eric

>    Your study Bible's analysis of prototokos is pretty shoddy.  See the
>    previous discourse.  I suppose that the only children who died in Egypt
>    when the Angel of Death struck down "all the firstborn" were those who
>    had brothers and sisters? (Exodus 11)

This is the shoddy work, Eric.  Consider whether you would distinguish
between those firstborn of many and those only firstborns when referring
to the judgment on the Egyptians, knowing that one word expresses
them all.  Further, the gospel account refer to *specific* persons and
not a group as in the Exodus account, so the verb becomes more weighted.

>    On the sanctification of the firstborn, see also Exodus 13:1.  I rather
>    doubt that parents had to wait until they had a second child to
>    consecrate their first, believing that they only had a "firstborn" when
>    they had more than one child.

This is reaching more. Certainly, people expected to have more than one
child so the sanctification of the firstborn (of many to come) would have
used the verb.

But I ask again: why is it so important to see Mary as a "perpetual virgin?"

There are a number of reasons why Catholics and Orthodox believe that Mary was
perpetually a virgin, besides the fact that it's always been a Christian
belief (even Luther and many of the Reformers believed in Mary's perpetual
virginity).

First of all, Mary is a type of the Ark of the Covenant.  In the Old Testament,
the Ark bore God Himself.  The ark was created without blemish and set apart
for the Lord.  The Israelites carried the ark in their midst, and God "met them
there" (Exodus 25:22).  The Ark was a sacred place: in fact, when the
Israelites were carrying the ark and they stumbled, Uzzah touched it to
stabilize it and God struck him dead (2 Sam 6:7).

Mark is the Ark of the New Covenant, because within her womb she bore God
Himself.  Because of this role she was to have of bearing God to the world,
she, too, was created holy and without blemish, set apart for the Lord alone.
God prepared her as a pure vessel, since God Himself would take up his dwelling
there for nine months.

Now you can see that if Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, holy and set
apart as the Ark of the Covenant was for carrying Yahweh, it is inconceivable
that this same Ark would carry anyone other than God Himself.  Mary's womb
was set apart for God.  She could not profane it by bearing other children!
That would be like desecrating the Ark of the Covenant!

There is another reason.  Mary is called the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, for
she conceived by the Holy Spirit.  We do not know the details of how she
conceived, other than that it was through the Holy Spirit which came upon
her and overshadowed her.  But given the sacred character of conception
and sexual union in the Scriptures, would it not seem inappropriate -- if not
adulterous -- for Joseph to then have intercourse with Mary, who had been
joined in this way with the Holy Spirit? 

Here you have a woman -- whom Scripture says will be called blessed for all
generations -- who not only bore God in her womb (thus sanctifying her womb)
but upon whom the Holy Spirit came such that she conceived, and hence her
body was sanctified in that way.  Can one then continue to wonder why she
and Joseph might decide to live without having sexual union?

There is a prophesy concering Mary's virginity in Ezekiel.  In chapters 40-44,
the construction of a new temple is described.  Mary is a type of this, too,
for this temple was the Lord's dwellingplace.  Much of the construction of the
temple prophetically points to Mary in its symbolism; but I don't have the time
now to go into it in detail.  But, in Chapter 44 it says, "Then the man brought
me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was
shut.  The Lord said to me, 'This gate is to remain shut.  It must not be
opened; no one may enter through it.  It is to remain shut because the Lord,
the God of Israel, has entered through it."

East has always been in Christian symbolism symbolic of Christ, because it is
from the East that Christ returns: it is also the direction where the sun
rises, and Christ is the Sun of Righteousness (that's somewhere in Scripture).
The gate of the temple represents Mary's birth canal.  The Lord has entered
through it.  For this reason the gate is to remain shut and no one else may
enter through it.

>"How can that be, since I have no knowledge of 
>man?" (Luke 1:34).  From the earliest interpretations of the 
>Bible we see that this was taken to mean that she had made a vow 
>of life-long virginity, even in marriage.  If she had taken no 
>such vow, the question would make no sense at all.  

I find this to be preposterous reasoning.  The question certainly makes sense,
even if you don't agree with it, in the context of being a virgin before
marriage.   My daughter can say at 13 that she has "no knowlegde of man"
without meaning in any way, shape or form that she's taken a vow of
life-long virginity.

>     Fundamentalists are insistent nevertheless that "brethren of 
>the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense.  They most 

Not only fundamentalists, by the way.  I agree with the fundamentalists on
this one.

>     The problem for them is that they are trying to use the 
>modern meaning of "till" (or "until") instead of the meaning it 
>had when the Bible was written.  In the Bible, it means only that 
>some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not 
>imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense 
>of the term.  In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the 
>Bible, some ridiculous meanings result. 
>     Consider this line: "Michol the daughter of Saul had no 
>children until the day of her death" (2 Kgs. 7:23).  Are we then 
>to assume she had children after her death?  Or how about the 
>raven that Noah released from the ark?  The bird "went forth and 
>did not return till the waters were dried up upon the earth" 
>(Gen. 8:7).  In fact, we know the raven never returned at all.  

This is what I would call "shoddy" scholarship (as long as we're using 
disparaging and descriptive terms, Eric) that reaches to fit 
reason into [unfounded] doctrine.  

(a) the correct reference to Genesis 8:7 is thus:

Genesis 8
  7  And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters
were dried up from off the earth.

This says nothing about returning.  the implication here is that the raven
no longer had to go "to and fro" after the waters were dried up from off
the earth.  Are you suggesting that you don't believe what Scripture says
about the raven?  What do you know about ravens?  What do you know about
the events.  Your rationale on the word "until" here is "shoddy."

(b) the correct reference to Saul's daughter is thus:

  2Samuel 6:23  Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day
  of her death.

Unto and Until have different meanings.  "Up until" as a phrase means something
different also.

(c) There is clear meaning in the following verse:

Matthew 1:25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:
and he called his name JESUS.

What "doesn't make sense" is how anyone can say that this verse means
Joseph NEVER knew Mary.

Now, for more [shoddy] scholarship, the greek word (from Strong's) for Till 
is thus:

2193 heh'-oce; of uncert. affin.; a conj., prep. and adv. of continuance,
_until_ (of time and place): -even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long,
(un-)til(-l), (hither,un-, up) to, while (-s).

This is the "modern" meaning applied to the ancient meaning for translation
and lo and behold, it means the SAME THING!

Now, please satisfy my curiosity:  why is it important to see Mary as
a "perpetual vigin?"

Mark

>     Why are fundamentalists, particularly those most opposed to 
>Catholicism, so insistent that Mary was not perpetually a virgin?  
>There seem to be two reasons.  
>      One is dislike of celibacy for priests and nuns. ...  So, by 
>undermining her status, they hope to undermine that of priests 
>and nuns. 

I'm not a fundamentalist, nor "opposed" to Catholicism but I think
Karl Keating of Catholic answers provides preposterous "answers" such 
as is evidenced by this dribble.  The idea that this is a conspiracy to
undermine the priesthood is unthinkably weird to my mind.  It certainly
couldn't be that people see the Truth of the matter and it isn't the
way some Catholic church tradition has protrayed it for some time, could
it?

>     The other reason concerns Mary herself....   Fundamentalists think 
>that what she gets, by way of devotion, is necessarily taken from Christ. 
>     This is neither true nor logical, but they nevertheless 
>think devotion to Mary must be discouraged if proper devotion to 
>our Lord is to be maintained.  One way to diminish her status is 
>to show she was just like other women, more or less, and that can 
>be done in part by showing she had other children. 

Devotion to Mary is another subject altogether, but this is another
conspiracy charge against "fundamentalists."

On the flip side of the argument:  "If devotion to Mary is encouraged
beyond the reverence any obedient servant of god to as to elevate
her status beyond that of other obedient servants of God, ..."
Yes, Mary had a unique calling; so did Moses; so did Abraham, Enoch,
and others.  They weren't "just like other" people; they were obedient
to God.

Whoever Karl Keating is, he knows the party line.

MM

.64 Eric

>First of all, Mary is a type of the Ark of the Covenant.  In the Old Testament,
>the Ark bore God Himself.  The ark was created without blemish and set apart
>for the Lord.  The Israelites carried the ark in their midst, and God "met them
>there" (Exodus 25:22).  The Ark was a sacred place: in fact, when the
>Israelites were carrying the ark and they stumbled, Uzzah touched it to
>stabilize it and God struck him dead (2 Sam 6:7).

I can accept the symolism, Eric.  But also see that the Ark was captured
by heathen; the Philistines once, and then the babylonians.  Presumably,
when all the gold was taken from the temple, the ark was also taken
(giving rise to Indiana Jones stories, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark).
How far should we take this symbolism?

>Now you can see that if Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, holy and set
>apart as the Ark of the Covenant was for carrying Yahweh, it is inconceivable
>that this same Ark would carry anyone other than God Himself.  Mary's womb
>was set apart for God.  She could not profane it by bearing other children!
>That would be like desecrating the Ark of the Covenant!

I disagree wholeheartedly!  Let's assume that Mary was sinless throughout
her virginity, making her a vessel suitable to carry a holy God.  The Bible
says that "all have sinned" and Mary is a part of our race, therefore she
must have sinned (at least) after her chosen task.  

But I understand better why Catholics feel the need for Mary to be a perpetual
virgin, thank you.  I certainly do not agree that Mary was descrated by having
other children, considered a blessing in Jewish culture.  Further, as someone
stated, sexual union for married couples is condoned by scripture and commanded.

It is interesting that Jesus "mother and brothers" had come to take him away.
Was his mother not his mother, even though the Catholic view is that his
brothers were not his brothers?  And also interesting that his "mother"
viewed him with "hiding things in her heart" to ponder them.  Was there
doubt on her part even after these miracles?

I know that the Catholics are guilty of adoring Mary and the Protestants are
guilty of ignoring Mary; and the debate rages as to which is worse.  Certainly
one who takes the middle ground is chastised by both as either having not
enough respect for the person who uniquely bore Immanuel, or ascribing
attributes beyond her worthiness.  I'm not interested in frothing up about
it, either, but I react to such terms as "shoddy" (as you can see) and 
"this is the what it means" when it can be easily disputed with other
legitimate (subjective) interpretations.

---------------------------------------------------------
But moving on:

>There is another reason.  Mary is called the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, for
>she conceived by the Holy Spirit.  We do not know the details of how she
>conceived, other than that it was through the Holy Spirit which came upon
>her and overshadowed her.  But given the sacred character of conception
>and sexual union in the Scriptures, would it not seem inappropriate -- if not
>adulterous -- for Joseph to then have intercourse with Mary, who had been
>joined in this way with the Holy Spirit? 

Intercourse is not the only arbitor of marriage.  They were legally married
after the conception, no?  Are *you* saying that Mary committed bigamy?
No!  It would be just as sacriligious to suggest such a thing!  Yet, 
Mary and Joseph were married.  They spent at least 12 years together
as husband and wife.  The immaculate conception is truly a mystery of
God in which many of the "natural" rules that we know were "suspended"
for this event to take place.  if you are to segment this mystery thus, 
you give Christians a choice between adultery and bigamy, which is henious
to think about.

>The gate of the temple represents Mary's birth canal.  The Lord has entered
>through it.  For this reason the gate is to remain shut and no one else may
>enter through it.

I hadn't heard this one before.  It is an interesting point of view,
though an inconclusive interpretation.

Mark

 re.64

The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament was a type of Christ not Mary.

ace

    Q?  Is it true only Catholics worship Mary?  Does any other God fearing
        religion praise Mary before God?
    
    C. Rightly Mary gave birth to Christ, but that does not make her a
       "better" saint than anyone else. I mean, she too had freedom of
       choice (throughout her life). She could have rejected the Word at
       any time. Had she, would the we find some reasoning to explain away
       her unfaithfulness? I find it offensive to put Mary above other
       saints. I find it more offensive that people that call themselves
       Bible believing christians pay so much homage to her above and
       beyond the other saints. I like Moses far better than Mary, and
       there was much more written by and about Moses over Mary. If some
       church wishes to worship someone else besides God, why not Moses?
    
       It is my current understanding that the Catholic church is the only
       church within christianity that worships Mary. If this is not true,
       would somebody please straighten me out.
    
       Oh, ... about her virginity, the comments about the Ark being
       compared to Mary are amusing at best, blashemous at worse, IMHO.
    
      -PDM

>       It is my current understanding that the Catholic church is the only
>       church within christianity that worships Mary.  If this is not true,
>       would somebody please straighten me out.

This is not true.

Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Anglicans, and many other Christians
revere Mary above all saints.

None of them worship her.  All Christians worship God alone.

/john

Thanks John.  It will take a lot of gentle reminders to show the distinction
you have in .70.

Also, us poor evangelicals don't "see" much difference between Catholic
and Anglican.  Maybe you can see what I mean when protestants don't see
much difference between Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians (though
I am only slightly more aware of the differences between these than I
am between Catholic and Anglican).

To further confuse the matter, what with some sects claiming Christianity
but resembling very little of Christ, it is easy for some to confuse the
Catholic church as worshipping Mary when reverence seems to get a bit
extreme.  And it would make matters worse if a splinter group which calls 
itself Catholic actually participates in Mary worship - giving rise to 
labelling all Catholics as such - even if the church disavows the splinter
group.

So what we see is the example of labelling, on various levels.  I am happy to
talk about the differences in doctrinal understandings, and even stating them 
as Phil did "it is my current understanding that..." so I can get the facts.
I appreciate the gentler reminders (and hope to learn from them).

Mark

> I find this to be preposterous reasoning.  The question certainly makes
> sense, even if you don't agree with it, in the context of being a virgin
> before marriage.  My daughter can say at 13 that she has "no knowlegde of
> man" without meaning in any way, shape or form that she's taken a vow of
> life-long virginity.

If your daughter was engaged -- and remember that betrothal was much more
serious than engagement and required a divorce to break -- and she was 
seriously preparing for marriage, and someone told her that she would have a
son, would she ask, "How can this be, since I don't have knowledge of man,"
which is to say, "How can this be, since I don't have sex with man"?

The question makes sense for a thirteen year old, but not for someone who
is all but married.

Incidentally I did not write that three part series -- it was written by
Karl Keating of Catholic Answers.

>>    Your study Bible's analysis of prototokos is pretty shoddy.  See the
> This is the shoddy work, Eric.  Consider whether you would distinguish
> between those firstborn of many and those only firstborns when referring
> to the judgment on the Egyptians, knowing that one word expresses
> them all.  Further, the gospel account refer to *specific* persons and
> not a group as in the Exodus account, so the verb becomes more weighted.

I apologize if I offended you with the word "shoddy."  I was describing
your study Bible, not you.  Apparently not even among evangelicals is Dake 
regarded universally as a respected scholar; I believe he is the person about
whom so many notes in this conference have been written.  Anyway, you quoted
him:

> One of the notes I have in the study Bible says that the greek word used
> for "firstborn" is prototokos meaning the first of many others.  The
> commentator goes on to say that "had he been her only son, the word
> would have been monogenes, which occurs in Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38):

But "firstborn" demands no such interpretation.  First born means just that:
the first one born, whether or not there are others born.  It's fairly clear
that when Scripture uses this word, it does not imply that there were neces-
sarily other children, let alone the "first of many others."  Even heathen
scholars will tell you that "firstborn" does not imply more than one child.

Your study bible has a specific footnote on this passage.  You yourself have
expressed the question, what does it matter anyway?  Apparently to your
commentator it matters a lot, since he took great pains to make his point. It
makes me wonder why he did.

> Matthew 1:25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:
> and he called his name JESUS.

> What "doesn't make sense" is how anyone can say that this verse means
> Joseph NEVER knew Mary.

No one's arguing that.  The argument is that we cannot conclude from this
construct that Mary did or did not have sex with Joseph.

> Now, please satisfy my curiosity:  why is it important to see Mary as
> a "perpetual vi[r]gin?"

I might ask, why is it important for Protestants to publish tracts and write
Bible footnotes insisting that Mary had brothers and sisters, arguing from that
implicitly or explicitly that the Catholic Church is anti-Scriptural and we
should convert over to "real" Christianity right away?  Why is it necessary to
launch all these attacks to discredit what we believe?

Nevertheless, to answer your question, it is important to see Mary as a
perpetual virgin for several reasons.  First, because this is one of the
doctrines of the faith we regard as fundamental which was declared dogmatically
at early councils.  Specifically, it was declared at the fourth Ecumenical
Council, the Council of Chalcedon around 431 I think, where the dual nature of
Christ (which Protestants accept as fundamental to orthodox Christianity) was
also declared.  Beyond that, there are the reasons I mentioned in .64; it is
inconceivable to imagine someone else dwelling in the Ark of the New Covenant,
it is contrary to the symbolism of Ezekiel to have someone else go through the
gate, and it is a defilement of the vessel whom God set apart for himself to
take flesh and pitch his tent among us.  We Catholics believe she is blessed,
set apart, and holy, because she bore the Creator and Ruler of the Universe.
For her to have sex after this event and bear children would be to profane
(i.e. use for a common purpose) the vessel whom God set apart for a holy
purpose. We have also since the very earliest church held Mary up as an example
of virginity and chastity -- the concept of women consecrated to virginity
throughout their lives (nuns and sisters) are modelled on the life of Mary.  We
refer to her perpetual virginity in our liturgy and worship, and always have.
We believe, as Scripture alludes to, that the consecrated single life is more
noble than married life. Finally, we believe what we believe because we have
always believed it.  The Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed call Mary a
virgin for a reason: we've always believed she is one, not merely before
Christ's birth but after.  (Why should the Creeds refer to the Virgin Mary if
she was only a virgin briefly?)  So from my perspective, it's a mystery why
many Protestants are so completely opposed to the doctrine and why they find
denying it so important.

Eric

    > The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament was a type of Christ not
    > Mary.         
    
    > ace
    
    The ark was the created thing in which Yahweh dwelt.  It could
    not be a type of Christ because Christ is Yahweh who is enthroned upon
    the cherubim (the cherubim statues on the ark, that is). Perhaps the
    ark is a type of the _body_ of Christ, i.e., the material in which he
    took human form, but then, so, too, is the Church a type of the body of
    Christ.
    
    I'm curious what your Scriptural support or reasoning is for the Ark
    itself being a type of Christ.

>    The ark was the created thing in which Yahweh dwelt.  It could
>    not be a type of Christ because Christ is Yahweh who is enthroned upon
>    the cherubim (the cherubim statues on the ark, that is). Perhaps the
>    ark is a type of the _body_ of Christ, i.e., the material in which he
>    took human form, but then, so, too, is the Church a type of the body of
>    Christ.

And Mary, who brought Christ into the world, is a type of the Church,
which continues to bring Christ into the world.
    
>    I'm curious what your Scriptural support or reasoning is for the Ark
>    itself being a type of Christ.

I would be more inclined to believe that the Covenant (or the Word of God
on the stone tables, carried within the Ark) is a type of Christ.

/john

Note 74.72 LEVERS::EWANCO 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>If your daughter was engaged -- and remember that betrothal was much more
>serious than engagement and required a divorce to break -- and she was 
>seriously preparing for marriage, and someone told her that she would have a
>son, would she ask, "How can this be, since I don't have knowledge of man,"
>which is to say, "How can this be, since I don't have sex with man"?
>
>The question makes sense for a thirteen year old, but not for someone who
>is all but married.

  It absolutely makes sense to ask "how can this be?"  She is NOT asking
  about the process of HOW A BABY IS CREATED, as I think we both agree. She
  is asking  how can she be having a baby without sexual union with a man. 
  What's so difficult about this? Remember Sarah laughing when it was told
  that she would have a child in her [barren] age.  She also thought (this
  cannot be), which is the same interjection of thought that we all have
  when confronted by things beyond our current understanding.  No doubt,
  everyone wonders about how something can be against the current frame of
  reference.

>Incidentally I did not write that three part series -- it was written by
>Karl Keating of Catholic Answers.

  Yep.  So my comments are directed at his comments, but also to you if you
  present them as your own.  Do you?

>I apologize if I offended you with the word "shoddy."  I was describing
>your study Bible, not you.  Apparently not even among evangelicals is Dake 
>regarded universally as a respected scholar; I believe he is the person about
>whom so many notes in this conference have been written.  

  Misinformation again.  When you say "among evangelicals" you mean Mike
  Heiser and when you say "many notes" you mean those notes between Mike
  Heiser and myself.  Dake's work is not shoddy and has yet to be proven
  any more shoddy than any other scholar.

>> One of the notes I have in the study Bible says that the greek word used
>> for "firstborn" is prototokos meaning the first of many others.  The
>> commentator goes on to say that "had he been her only son, the word
>> would have been monogenes, which occurs in Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38):
>
>But "firstborn" demands no such interpretation.  First born means just that:
>the first one born, whether or not there are others born.  It's fairly clear
>that when Scripture uses this word, it does not imply that there were neces-
>sarily other children, let alone the "first of many others."  Even heathen
>scholars will tell you that "firstborn" does not imply more than one child.

  Evidently prototokos and monogenes does demand such an interpretive
  distinction between firstborn, where the english does not, just as the
  english "love" is  interpreted philios, eros, and agape in the greek.

>Your study bible has a specific footnote on this passage.  You yourself have
>expressed the question, what does it matter anyway?  Apparently to your
>commentator it matters a lot, since he took great pains to make his point. It
>makes me wonder why he did.

  Wrong assumption, Eric.  The study Bible is annotated, which means there
  are hundreds of comments per page, and he took no great pain any more
  than any other point.  I take it you have never even seen a Dake's
  Annotated Reference Bible.  It makes it more clear why you wonder.


>> Matthew 1:25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:
>> and he called his name JESUS.
>>
>> What "doesn't make sense" is how anyone can say that this verse means
>> Joseph NEVER knew Mary.
>
>No one's arguing that.  The argument is that we cannot conclude from this
>construct that Mary did or did not have sex with Joseph.

  The only way you "cannot conclude from this construct" is to comepletely
  ignore the language contruct altogether!

>> Now, please satisfy my curiosity:  why is it important to see Mary as
>> a "perpetual vi[r]gin?"
>
>I might ask, why is it important for Protestants to publish tracts and write
>Bible footnotes insisting that Mary had brothers and sisters, arguing from that
>implicitly or explicitly that the Catholic Church is anti-Scriptural and we
>should convert over to "real" Christianity right away?  Why is it necessary to
>launch all these attacks to discredit what we believe?

  I don't know why it is important to attack anything but false doctrines.
  I find this paragraph very defensive on your part.  That Mary was a
  "perpetual virgin" does not seem to be as supportable a position as it
  does that Mary was a virgin "till she had brought forth her firstborn
  son."  Most Protestants that *I* know don't give this issue much though
  and treat it as a Catholic peculiarity, until [counter-charge coming]
  Catholics find it important to insist that Mary did not have brothers and
  sisters, arguing that the other view is anti-Scriptural.

Nevertheless, to answer your question, it is important to see Mary as a
perpetual virgin for several reasons.

  I accept your reasons for the belief you hold, though I don't buy them as
  you have.  I declare that your belief is based on unsure foundations -
  but then you can declare the same of my belief.

>We believe, as Scripture alludes to, that the consecrated single life is more
>noble than married life. 

  But Mary *WAS* married to Joseph.  How do you reconcile this?

  24  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had
  bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
   25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and
  he called his name JESUS.
   
>The Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed call Mary a virgin for a reason:
>we've always believed she is one, not merely before Christ's birth but
>after.  (Why should the Creeds refer to the Virgin Mary if she was only a
>virgin briefly?)  

  This is easy.  The creeds call out the fulfilment of prophecy through the
  virgin birth ("born of the virgin, Mary").  But makes no reference, nor 
  "we cannot conclude from this construct" to *perpetual* vriginity of
  Mary.

>So from my perspective, it's a mystery why many
>Protestants are so completely opposed to the doctrine and why they find
>denying it so important.

  The opposition is because it [seems to] plainly contradict what is
  written.  I put [seems to] in brackets to acknowledge your perspective.

  More vigorous opposition, I suggest (and guess), stems from what is
  perceived to be the crossing of the line of reverence into worship of
  someone who is not God.  It is likely a reaction against the extreme.

  As I heard said: "Catholics adore Mary, while Protestants ignore Mary."
  Either extreme is likely stunting to spiritual growth and middle ground
  on both sides might be good to find, even while holding our differences
  over the perpetual or initially virgin.

  Mark

    Hi,
    
    Mark, Eric, I admire both of you for the attention and depth you
    have given to your replies. But,  why don't you both just drop it and 
    move on to something else.  Issues like this are what we call 
    "perspective theology" at school - once you have a perspective 
    on an issue it is VERY difficult to see another perspective - 
    especially when the evidence is inconclusive on both sides. Issues
    like the Mother of God, Doctrine of the Trinity, the end of the 
    world, are very difficult issues to talk about between different 
    denominations because no matter what someones perspective is on the
    issue, ultimately it is a matter of FAITH - faith in what we believe
    to be true.  St. Augustine's was right, "I believe in order to under-
    stand."  Unless you believe the doctrine to be true, I doubt very much
    if either of you are going to see the others viewpoint.
    
    Mark, one point, if you ever want to read some EXCELLENT Catholic 
    scholarship for personal enrichment, I would pick up a few of Karl 
    Keatings books. He's one of the top Catholic scholars in the field today
    (although rather conservative).  Raymond Brown, a Biblical scholar, is 
    also very good for commentaries on Scripture.
    
    Peace,
    
    j

    Just as an aside, there are examples of virgin birth today, according
    to a doctor that I know who practices in Australia.  Fertilised by a
    male human, as opposed to the spirit, but without "other" evidence.
    
    James

    RE:77
    James,
          was he referring to artificial insemination ? 

    I'd have to wonder why a virgin would go through artificial
    insemination before knowing if she could conceive through
    natural intercourse.

    Jim

.76 j

> But,  why don't you both just drop it and move on to something else. 

For Eric and I, it helps to understand the alternate perspective.
Rather than dogmatically holding a position based on something we've
learned secondhand, the digging on either side helps both of us to learn
firsthand what is said and why.  Eric and I know that we're likely not
to change the other's mind, but this helps us both to understand more
intimately our "perspective theology."

>    Unless you believe the doctrine to be true, I doubt very much
>    if either of you are going to see the others viewpoint.

On the contrary, I have been very enlightened by this discussion.  I had
often wondered what the big deal was for Catholics to see Mary as a Perpetual
Virgin, when from the "theological perspective" of the other side, Mary
performed her function, and the "till she had her firstborn" meant no
profanity in or minds.  Let's see if I can summarize:

Catholic perspective:
  Mary is a Perpetual Virgin
    - she was sanctified for a specific use, therefore any other use
      would be profaning the sanctified object (person); therefore,
      sexual union with her earthly husband, Joseph, would be profane,
      as would children by Joseph.
    - Mary is objectified by the symbolism of the Ark of the Covenant,
      because Jesus represent the New Covenant (fulfillment of the 
      Law - Old Covenant), and the Ark held the Law, and God made it holy.

Protestant perspective:
  Mary was an initial virgin
    - she was chosen of God for a specific use.  The birth of Jesus fulfilled
      the prophecy of the virgin birth; having other children by her husband
      did not break any prophecy.  The scripture seems clear that Joseph
      "knew" Mary after the firstborn was born; and doing so does not
      violate prophecy, Mary's unique station, or the commandments of scripture
      for married couples to procreate.  To Protestants, it makes _more_ sense
      that Mary did have normal relations, as most all persons whom God had 
      chosen for various tasks in the Bible.

While repugnant to Catholics, Protestants don't see Mary's loss of virginity
in marriage after prophecy was fulfilled as an issue.  And Protestants view
the Catholic reverence for Mary to sometimes border the extreme, while the
Catholics view the protestants' understanding of Mary with contempt (for 
the idea of profanity).

Have I summarized this well enough?  Yes, I have leanred from this
discussion where "perspective theology" isn't going to change our
perspectives.

And I have met Eric, and have respect for him, too.  :-)
Thanks for caring.

Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
.78 Jim

>    I'd have to wonder why a virgin would go through artificial
>    insemination before knowing if she could conceive through
>    natural intercourse.

Some people are quirky.  A single woman may have no desire for a man
to be involved is one possible reason.  Now let's talk what some consider 
to be a profanity.  ;-/

>  I'm curious what your Scriptural support or reasoning is for the Ark
>    itself being a type of Christ.

	
	Romans 3:25

	"Whom (Christ Jesus v.24) God set forth as a propitiation place 
through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus"

	In the Old Testament, the propitiation place, the lid of the ark, as
a type, was hidden in the Holy of Holies; in the New Testament, Christ as the
reality of the propitiation place is openly set forth before all men.

re.74

>I would be more inclined to believe that the Covenant (or the Word of God
>on the stone tables, carried within the Ark) is a type of Christ.

	This is not wrong, but it would be more accurate to say that the
law written on the stone tablets is a type of the inner enlightening Spirit of 
God written on human hearts. The Lord Jesus was the prototype, the first of
many to follow. 

	Hebrews 8:10  "..I will impart My laws into their mind and on their
hearts I will inscribe them.."	

	The reason I say it's not wrong to say this is because the Lord Jesus
is the Spirit. 

	2 Cor 3:17  "And the Lord is the Spirit..."


>And Mary, who brought Christ into the world, is a type of the Church,
>which continues to bring Christ into the world.

	This is not according to the Bible, though I know it fits well with 
your concepts. 8*) 8*)

	When Christ came the reality came. There is no need for New Testament
types to represent New Testament things. It would be accurate to equate Ruth as
a type of the church, but not Mary. There was no need for a NT person to 
represent the church, since the church came into being in the New Testament
in Acts 2. You only need a type when the real thing is not yet fully available.

	However, the Bible does use illustrations for the church. A few are
the Body of Christ (Ephesians), the household of God (1 Peter 2), the holy
priesthood (1 Peter 2), the wife of Christ (Eph 5), the warrior of God
(Eph 6), the masterpiece of God (Eph 2:10), the bride of Christ (Rev 22:17)
and the temple of God. 

	The Bible doesn't use Mary has an illustration of the church 
anywhere.

ace

Hebrews 9:4  Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant
overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and
Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

-----------------

The OT references to the manna are:

Exodus 16

 32  And Moses said, this is the thing which the Lord commandeth, fill an
omer of it to be kept for your generations; that they may see the bread
wherewith I have fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you forth from the
land of Egypt.
 33  And Moses said unto Aaron, take a pot, and put an omer full of manna
therein, and lay it up before the Lord, to be kept for your generations.
 34  As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the testimony,
to be kept.

(The KJV says "lay it up before".  Does this mean "inside the ark"?)
-------------------
The OT reference for the rod of Aaron that budded:

Numbers 17
 10  And the LORD said unto Moses, Bring Aaron's rod again before
the testimony, to be kept for a token against the rebels; and thou shalt quite
take away their murmurings from me, that they die not.
 11  And Moses did so: as the LORD commanded him, so did he.

(Again here "before the testimony".  Does this mean "inside the ark?")

------------------

I did this research based on the Catholic view of ark symbolism of Mary.
I suppose one would have to conclude from the perpetual virginity side that
the manna and staff *ALSO* represented Jesus as did the "tables of the
covenant."  

And this is what Dake says about its symbolism:

_The_whole_ark_ symbolizes the Divine Presences in all places (refs. omitted).
It served as the container of the covenant stones which were a continual
reminder of the covenant between God and Israel (Ex. 25:16, 21).  It also 
contained the pot of manna symbolizing the bread of God from heaven (refs.
omitted).  Aaron's rod was placed in it later, as a witness to Israel of
God's choice of the priesthood (refs. omitted).
  The ark was placed at the middle point just inside the vail which divided 
the holy place from the most holy.  On the other side of the vail and opposite
the ark, the golden altar of incense was placed so that continual incense
would ascend up before the mercy seat from which God was to speak to His
people and bless or curse them as they would obey or disobey the covenant.
The high priest went in beofre the ark to sprinkle blood only once a year
(refs. omitted).  The total absence of any figure or symbol of God on the mercy
seat is significant. It testified of His invisible presence and discouraged 
all idol making.  The ark was never carried in processions, and was kept 
concealed being covered in transportation.  A man was killed for even seeking 
to steady it  (2 Sam 6:6-7).
  .
  .
  .
It was called the ark of the testimony because of the constant testimony of
the law inside the ark; the ark of the covenant because it represented the 
Mosaic covenant between God and Israel; the ark of Thy strength because it 
represented what God was to Israel in power and blessing; and the holy ark
because of the sacredness and holiness it represented.

>>Have I summarized this well enough?  Yes, I have leanred from this
>>discussion where "perspective theology" isn't going to change our
>>perspectives.
    
    With such a "perspective" I would urge you to continue, Mark. :^)
    
    Peace,
    
    j

    Re: Note 74.78 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ
    
>   RE:77
>         was he referring to artificial insemination ? 
    
    No, he was referring to rather intense non-penetrative intercourse,
    where insemination was "against all probability".  Both the doctor and
    the patient considered that virginity was not lost.
    
    James

    RE:84
    
    Of course the pregnancy was not pre-announced a couple hundred years
    prior was it ? 

     Jim

.85 Jim

>    Of course the pregnancy was not pre-announced a couple hundred years
>    prior was it ? 

Excellent point, Jim.  And to dispel further arguments such that Mary 
got pregnant this way to fulfill prophecy, consider the other factors
that went into the prophecy and begin to calculate your probabilities,
folks.