Things I've only just realised...

[Sausagenbacon]

That when the kings visit Herod, and say that the messiah will be born in Bethlehem, they are referring to Micah's prophecy.

I’m off back to my sick bed, whilst you work out your angry retort

It’s important to Catholics but isn’t Biblical doctrine. Surely Christians should believe the Word of God over man?

I wouldn't disagree with you there @PraiseHim but from what I understand (happy to be corrected if any catholics on here think I'm wrong) the tradition and teaching of the catholic church comes before the Bible for them.

The PP was very much saying that Mary and Jesus are equal. If anyone hates Mary then they are not of God, as we are told to love one another

@PraiseHim It does however seem people feel very negatively about Mary. I have a very religious Baptist friend in real life. She really doesn’t like Mary, and has been very rude about her.

The Catholic Church venerates Mary, but doesn’t think she’s equal to our Lord at all.
Mary is viewed as an example of perfect love and obedience to Christ

I was a catholic myself, until I read the Word .

The catholic system worships Mary, which is idolatry, and prays to her (although she is dead). The Hail Mary (which isn’t biblical, unlike the Our Father) asks Mary to pray for sinners, but the bible says Jesus is our mediator (and the dead know nothing)

Your friend needs to have a look at her heart if she hates a neighbour or brother created in God’s image. Pray for her

I'm aware that, in MN, one can't post and then control what people post in response (where would be the interest in that?). But is there really any point in continuing to argue about the position of Mary?
I'm not particularly interested in doctrine, and I believe there is no benefit to be had in arguing with people about it, especially here.
While I don't agree with the Catholic position on her, I prefer to respect other's opinions, and leave it at that.

@Sausagenbacon you make a good point
@PraiseHim I’m going to leave it there with you. Your statement about the Catholic Church is incorrect

I’m not sure if your response was directed at me , but I shall assume so.

Are you not a Christian? Christians are very much interested in Doctrine as it is the Law and Testimony of Our Creator.

I don’t argue with anyone. I come in peace to share the Truth, that others may be saved. Whilst it may be your opinion that the Mary issue isn’t an issue, of which you are entitled, I speak out so that others have the Truth on the matter. Salvation is conditional on keeping the commandments of God and having the Testimony of Jesus. Worship of Mary is Idolatry and that is not in keeping with the commandments of God

Salvation is conditional on keeping the commandments of God

I really don't want to get into a doctrine war but I'm a bit concerned by this comment. I'm wondering if you meant something different.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast". Eph 2

The bible says if yes love me, keep my commandments. There’s the condition. By faith in Jesus Christ, by walking with Him and learning of Him, we shall be transformed. Faith is dead without works, but you can do works without faith

My comment wasn't directed at any poster in particular.
But this discussion isn't going to change anyone's opinions, let's face it. And it just becomes plain boring when posters take it upon themselves to preach.

I missed this earlier, yes that’s true, it does. I used to be a catholic until I read the word of God for myself and saw that the Word of God has been changed by man in the catholic system

There's a difference between loving Jesus and learning to do the right thing, and actually being saved by doing the right thing. One is fruit, one is law.

One more word on the perpetual virginity of Mary… Uzzah! Remember in the Old Testament where the oxen stumble when carrying the Ark of the Old Covenant and he reaches out his hand to steady the cart? God instantly strikes him down for touching such a sacred item. (2 Samuel 6:1-7) Likewise, Joseph would know very well not to lay a finger in any carnal sense on his betrothed, as Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant. The parallels are clear in the Bible between the old and new testaments.

The old ark carried God’s word, the Ten Commandments on stone, Aaron’s staff representing God’s power, and the heavenly bread manna to feed the Israelites.

The new ark carried Jesus, the new covenant between God and humanity, the Word made flesh (John 1:14), who is the ultimate power to accomplish salvation, and who is the bread of life who gives spiritual nourishment through the eucharist.

When the Ark of the Covenant was brought into Jerusalem, King David leapt and danced with joy. (2 Samuel 6:14-16)
When Mary visited Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth’s womb because of Jesus. (Luke 1:41-44).

The Ark stayed in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Samuel 6:11).
Mary stayed with Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56)

God’s presence in the Old Testament was shown as a cloud over the Ark (Exodus 40:34-35).
When the angel Gabriel came to Mary, he said the Holy Spirit would “overshadow” her, like the cloud (Luke 1:35).

Also veneration =/= worship with regard to Mary and saints. Only God, the trinity, father, son and spirit is due worship (latria). To Mary and saints is due honour and respect (dulia) and a deep recognition of their virtues and exemplary lives upholding God's plan. They are just humans like us, and their holiness comes from God's grace, not their own intrinsic nature. They can intercede in prayer for us, much like asking a friend to pray for us, but they are mediators who relay and enhance our prayers towards God, but are not worshipped of themselves.

“Likewise, Joseph would know very well not to lay a finger in any carnal sense on his betrothed, as Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant.”

We agree, Joseph didn’t lay a finger on her while she was carrying Christ in her womb.

Scripture confirms this

“Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.”
Matthew1: 24-25

I covered that in my earlier post on page 1 that the word “heos” - until - has an ambiguous meaning in Greek, so that it doesn’t necessarily give any clue to the status of the thing in question after the event. So Matthew 1:25 merely leaves open and ambiguous whether or not she remained a virgin later in life after the birth of Jesus. It neither supports nor refutes her later virginity.

There’s also other places in scripture that support her ongoing virginity.

Luke 1:34 - the annunciation - “how can this be since I do not know a man?”. This question only makes sense in the context of her understanding that she was a consecrated temple virgin and dedicated in obedience and holy service to God. If she expected that she would become a normal wife/mother through the usual sexual activity, this question wouldn’t make sense… she would have just thought God was going to bring a good husband her way, and they’d bring about children the unremarkable, conventional way 😁 Reneging on her vows to God was so unthinkable, she actually quizzed him on it!

Ezekiel 44:2 “The gate shall remain shut; it shall hot be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered by it”. This vision indicates that Jesus’ birth was unique and no other siblings followed after; Mary’s body was uniquely sanctified by the presense of Christ and her womb remained a “shut gate”.

John 19:26-27 - “”Woman, behold your son!” “[John], behold your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” Why did Jesus entrust the care of his mother to John the Baptist, if there were younger siblings? Jewish custom would have required the other children to take on the care of her, not some unrelated disciple. Absconding from familial duties to your parents would have been unthinkable, especially in holy, close knit, God-fearing families. The crucifixion clearly left Mary alone in the world without family in the younger generation.

the word “heos” - until - has an ambiguous meaning in Greek
Ambiguous. So doesn't definitely mean never.

I have never heard of Mary being a type of ark before. Maybe that's just in catholic circles. I don't really see it myself, and even so it wouldn't mean she's permanently the ark and can't be touched.

I have been in churches that have pretty much ignored Mary as a reaction to the focus given to her in other churches. She was an amazing woman we can all learn a lot from.

Hence I said Matthew 1:25 “neither supports nor refutes her later virginity”. The word heos doesn’t tell us anything useful about the matter here.

Plenty of other Christians besides catholics make the deep interconnections between the old & new testaments and make the parallels with Mary being the ark that carried the new covenant, the Word of God made flesh, just as the old ark carried the 10 commandments in stone.

Mary was definitely an amazing woman, but more than that she’s the most holy - Panagia - that any mortal-lived being could be, living her life completely without sin and in total alignment with God’s will, which in being the one chosen to carry God’s only living son and eternal life bearer into the world to remit all sins and corruption, was a pretty phenomenal tall order for a lowly servant girl to take on with her “yes” in Luke 1:38. “Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed” Luke 1:48.

Plenty of other Christians besides catholics make the deep interconnections between the old & new testaments and make the parallels with Mary being the ark that carried the new covenant, the Word of God made flesh, just as the old ark carried the 10 commandments in stone.

I've been in a wide range of protestant churches and while I'm really aware of a lot of the interconnections between OT and NT I haven't heard of Mary and the ark.

I can't really agree with your last paragraph but I'm sure there are plenty of other things we do agree on.

This isn’t an attempt to change your mind @DogandMog, I can see you’re fully committed to your position. 😊

However, as there may be others following this conversation, I would like to offer my solely Biblical responses to your three points.

“Luke 1:34 - the annunciation - “how can this be since I do not know a man?”. This question only makes sense in the context of her understanding that she was a consecrated temple virgin …”

No, there’s zero Biblical evidence that Mary was a “consecrated temple virgin”. When the passage is read in context, Mary’s question makes sense because she was, at that time, a virgin, and understandably wanted to understand how she would physically become pregnant with the Son of the Highest …whose kingdom would never end.

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end. Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”
Luke 1: 31-35

“Ezekiel 44:2 “The gate shall remain shut; it shall hot be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered by it”. This vision indicates that Jesus’ birth was unique and no other siblings followed after;…”

Now this is a considerable stretch of interpretation! Again a fuller reading of the passage in context reveals no connection with Mary, nor of any of Christ’s siblings, but rather a vision concerning the Temple.

“Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary which faces toward the east, but it was shut. And the LORD said to me, “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. As for the prince, because he is the prince, he may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway, and go out the same way.
Also He brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the temple; so I looked, and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD; and I fell on my face. And the LORD said to me, “Son of man, mark well, see with your eyes and hear with your ears, all that I say to you concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD and all its laws. Mark well who may enter the house and all who go out from the sanctuary. Now say to the rebellious, to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “O house of Israel, let Us have no more of all your abominations. When you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh…”
Ezekiel 44: 1-7

“John 19:26-27 - “”Woman, behold your son!” “[John], behold your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” Why did Jesus entrust the care of his mother to John the Baptist, if there were younger siblings? …”

Firstly, John the Baptist was already dead. Again a fuller reading of the passage reveals much -

“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.”
John 19: 25-27
This is none other than the writer of John’s Gospel (& Revelation), a son of Zebedee (like his brother, James).

Now why would Jesus entrust His mother to this man and not one of His brothers? Not such a mystery when one remembers that His brothers were not always believers
“For even His brothers did not believe in Him.”
John 7:5

this, coupled with our Lord’s statement relegating earthly relationships to a secondary position beneath His kinship with those who believe in and follow Him (see Luke 8:19-21) begins to illuminate why He chose His “beloved disciple” to care for His mother, rather than His (at that time) unbelieving earthly brothers.

“Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.” But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Luke 8: 19-21

The brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned several times in scripture. We are given the brothers’ names as James, Joses (aka Joseph), Judas (aka Jude) and Simon. The sisters are not named.

“Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.”
Mark 6:3

Paul makes two references to the brothers in his letters:
”But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.”
Galatians 1:19
”Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”
1 Corinthians 9:5

Dr Luke also mentions the (now believing) brothers of the Lord in Acts 1:14
“These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”

There’s no Biblical reason to assume that these men and women were anything other than the natural children of Joseph and Mary.

For further study
www.christianity.com/jesus/life-of-jesus/youth-and-baptism/how-many-brothers-and-sisters-did-jesus-have.html

That's well put @LeaningOnTheEverlastingArms thank you.