ÿþ<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Holy Trinity Reformed Evangelical Church</TITLE> <style type="text/css"> <!-- p {text-indent: .25in} --> </style> </HEAD> <BODY BGCOLOR="snow" TEXT="saddlebrown" LINK="saddlebrown" VLINK="saddlebrown" ALINK="saddlebrown"> <H1 ALIGN="CENTER"<b>H&nbsp;&nbsp; o&nbsp;&nbsp; l&nbsp;&nbsp; y&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; T&nbsp;&nbsp; r&nbsp;&nbsp; i&nbsp;&nbsp; n&nbsp;&nbsp; i&nbsp;&nbsp; t&nbsp;&nbsp; y</b></H1> <CENTER> <HR SIZE=4 WIDTH="100%" ALIGN=CENTER> <IMG SRC="churchgreen.jpg" HEIGHT="85" WIDTH="125" ALT="redorange"> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <IMG SRC="river.jpg" HEIGHT="85" WIDTH="125" ALT="river"> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <IMG SRC="dtgreenville.jpg" HEIGHT="85" WIDTH="125" ALT="dtgreenville"> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <IMG SRC="eppingforest.jpg" HEIGHT="85" WIDTH="125" ALT="eppingforest"> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <IMG SRC="earth.jpg" HEIGHT="85" WIDTH="125" ALT="earth"> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <IMG SRC="eye.jpg" HEIGHT="85" WIDTH="125" ALT="eye"> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <IMG SRC="churchgreen.jpg" HEIGHT="85" WIDTH="125" ALT="redorange"> </CENTER> <HR SIZE=4 WIDTH="100%" ALIGN=CENTER> <br> <center> <u> <a href="http://holytrinityreformed.com/New Church.html" title="home" >new church</a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://holytrinityreformed.com/worship.html" title="worship" >worship</a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://holytrinityreformed.com/creeds.html" title="creeds" >creeds</a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://holytrinityreformed.com/links.html" title="links" >links</a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://holytrinityreformed.com/contact.html" title="Contact us" >contact us</a> </u> </center> <br> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="saddlebrown"><CENTER> MORE THOUGHTS ON BLESSED MARY EVER VIRGIN</FONT> <br> <br> <center><table cellpadding="15" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="900"> <tr><td align="right" valign="top" width="200"> <IMG SRC="churchgreen.jpg" HEIGHT="905" WIDTH="150" ALT="churchgreen"> <td align="left" valign="top" width="500"> <FONT SIZE="5">More Thoughts BMEV</FONT SIZE><BR> By James Jordan<BR> <p>The previous discussion led to several points that I d like to take up in like to take up in more detail. For the sake of discussion, I ll number them for ease of consideration. <p>1. Typological  evidences for Mary as perpetual virgin, queen of heaven, etc. etc. I assert here that these have never been the reasons for Marian doctrines, but that they have been brought into consideration by those who are already completely convinced of those doctrines because of their traditions. As the previous discussion demonstrated, I believe, there is no Biblical warrant for the notion that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus Christ. The Bible explicitly states that Joseph did not routinely have sex with her until after her purification.   <p>When I was in grammar school in the 1950s, I attended a Roman Catholic school. The sisters taught the Catholic kids that Jesus brothers were really cousins. One sister told us that they were Jesus half-brothers, because Joseph had had an earlier marriage. She, at least, seemed to know that if they had been cousins, the word for cousin would have been used. So, they had to be real brothers and sisters of Jesus, but not children of Mary. That, of course, was impossible. All this was taught with full and total assurance.  <p>When one reads discussions of Marian doctrine, one never sees any discussion of the Biblical evidence, except to try and discount it by twisting the grammar. No, the doctrines are assumed, and then the Bible is plundered to find allegorical evidence for it. I have read enough Eastern and Roman theology to feel quite confident about this. The actual Biblical data is pretty clear. Nowhere is Mary venerated. She does not appear in the Bible after Pentecost, which means her entire historical role is located in the Old Covenant as the last Eve who bore the last Abel, as the last  Adamah who bore the last Adam. <p>She surely was dead by the time the latest epistles were written, but nothing in them indicates any veneration of her or anything about her dormition or assumption. Forcing Mary into Revelation 12 or into the book of Esther, or whatever, is just that: forcing. The assumption is made, based on tradition and upbringing, that X, Y, and Z are true about Mary. Only then do parts of the Bible  reveal those truths. And these  revelations obscure the actual meaning of the text. The woman in Revelation 12 is the Old Covenant church. Esther is a type of Christ. <p>Of course, if one accepts the Roman doctrine of Tradition (capital tee), as a separate course of revelation next to the Bible, then things change. It still is an issue how to understand Esther and Revelation 12, of course, but the Marian notions can be preserved. But, here at BT, we are not among those who accept that notion of Tradition. <p>2. This leads me to my second consideration, which is the influence of timeless and gnostic thinking on theology. Heaven knows, there is plenty of that influence in Lutheran and Calvinistic thought. (I have spent most of my career attacking such things in Calvinistic thinking.) Here, however, we are considered with the Marian notions. <p>What the Bible shows is the importance of Mary as mother of the Chief Heir of the Old Covenant. Her firstborn son was born under the Law. Her greatness is in her willing acceptance of this role, even though it meant virtually everyone she knew would regard her as a loose woman. And indeed, a sword would pierce her heart. But in all of this she is NOT a symbol of being a mother of the New Covenant church. Actually, the Mary who met Jesus in the garden immediately after His glorification was Mary Magdalene, so if there is a NEW Eve, it is she. Much more importantly, the Spirit who paracletically came from Jesus side is the new Eve, and Mother of the Church. <p>Mary had a role in covenant history, and her role ended when Jesus gave her into the house of His disciple John. It was a great role, but that was the end of it. <p>3. I d like to suggest how some of these doctrines come about. This is somewhat speculative, of course, and at age 60 (Korean years) I m not about to write a dissertation and spend five years looking into all this. But just consider. <p>3a. Theotokos. A friendly interlocutor referred to Mary as theotokos in the present, but then when challenged realized that this is not quite accorate. Theo-tokos means  God-bearer. It means that the baby on Mary s womb was God incarnate, the second person of the Trinity. (Note: It does not mean  mother of God, and that phrase is much more problematic because of its slippery ambiguity.) But of course, Mary stopped being theotokos the moment Jesus was born. He was no longer in her womb, and she was no longer carrying Him. She WAS theotokos, but she IS no longer theotokos. <p>If, however, theologians and uneducated monks (especially the latter in late antiquity) go around calling Mary  theotokos, then it gets into the air that she still IS theotokos. Icons are made with the baby Jesus blessing the world from Mary s lap. She is his environment, always. <p>Now, a better construction on such ikons can be that the woman is the Church, which carries Jesus with her into the world. Yes, that s true, but it s also true that Jesus is in heaven and not living  inside the Church. It s much more important that the Church is inside of Him! <p>3b. More important is the phrase,  the virgin Mary. The ecclesiastical Creed nicely says,  came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made man. Here it is clear that Jesus conception and birth were of the virgin Mary. The so-called Apostles Creed, often used but unofficial in the early church, simply says,  born of the virgin Mary. This might suggest (in context it does not) that  the virgin Mary was some kind of name, like  Pontius Pilate. One might begin to think that  the virgin Mary was always a virgin.  <p>Now, the Apostle s Creed does not SAY that Mary was always a virgin, but again, consider ignorant and illiterate monks whose theology is little more than the list of things in the creeds, and who are given to all kinds of superstitions anyway (and for that matter are happy to form gangs and murder people like Hypatia). Is it hard to understand that  the virgin Mary becomes an idea, a slogan, something timeless?  especially in the gnostic and philosophized context of the ancient world, where all truths are timeless.  <p>Again, does your Protestant hymnal say  virgin Mary or  Virgin Mary ? If the latter, why the capital vee? (If so, get rid of it. And for that matter, let the Latin guide you and say,  born of a virgin, Mary .) <p>To return, once  the virgin Mary becomes an idea divorced from history, then it becomes an important theological datum. It fits in nicely with several factors in the early Church: <p>a. the context of timeless philosophical thinking, regarded by too many theologians and apologists as important.  <p>b. the influence of ignorant monks and Buddhist-like  holy men like Anthony. <p>c. the increasing celibacy of much of the clergy, cut off from real life. Along these lines consider the crackpot opinions of Jerome, which you can read about in the wikipedia article on him. It is no surprise that Jerome condemned Helvidius, Tertullian, and Victorinus for believing that Mary had a real marriage with Joseph. We admire Jerome for some things, but we cannot admire  his vicious asceticism any more than the people of his own day did.  <p>d. and, perhaps most importantly, the growing fear of music (too emotional), food (too tempting), and sex (way too tempting) in the later early church. The rejection of music, wine, and woman is characteristic of Islam, and Islam just brings to perfection these three trends emerging from late antiquity. Augustine hold that sex within marriage is always sinful, partakes of  concupiscence, and is justified only to make children. Basil says that sex is a result of the fall, and that if Adam had not sinned, we would reproduce by division.  <p>Given this context, it is hardly a surprise that after a couple of centuries  the virgin Mary became an important theological matter. <p>4. Once these completely unBiblical notions gain currency, they begin to play havoc with orthodox teachings. For instance, in order for Mary to be a virgin always, her hymen must not have been broken when Jesus was born. He just passed through it, as He passed through doors after His resurrection. Now, notice two things: <p>4a. This confuses the pre-resurrection Adamic body of Jesus and the post-resurrection body of Jesus. Here again we see an example of timeless gnostic thinking. <p>4b. And no matter how many times this may be denied, this foolish notion means that Jesus did not experience a birth. It is a denial of the virgin birth, because it was not a natural birth at all. Please note, that the Bible never says that Mary was a virgin while Jesus was being born. The doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus only means that no man had slept with her before Jesus was born. The  hymen intacta notion is a docetic move that implies Jesus did not have a real human body. He was NOT like us in all ways, though without sin. He, unlike us, could pass through the birth canal and cause no ripping of any sort. <br> <br>Biblical Horizons <br>P.O. Box 1096 <br>Niceville, FL 32588 <br>850-897-5299 <br> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.biblicalhorizons.com">Biblical Horizons Website</a> <br> <a target="_blank" href="http://biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/more-thoughts-on-bmev/">Biblical Horizons Blog</a> </td> <td <td align="left" valign="top" width="200"> <IMG SRC="tableset.jpg" HEIGHT="150" WIDTH="190" ALT="table"> <br> <FONT SIZE="4">Christ came into the world to be the Life of the world. Holy Trinity Church exists to bring that same life to Greenville, South Carolina.</FONT> <br> Location:<br> We meet at Zoar United Methodist Church at 1005 Hwy 357 in Greer, SC. <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Zoar+United+Methodist+Church,+Greer,+SC&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.495706,92.724609&ie=UTF8&z=16&iwloc=r1" title="map" >Here is a map</a> of where we meet. <br> <br> <b>Suggested Resources</b> <br> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.holytrinityreformed.com/Mary's Unbelief.htm">Mary's Unbelief</a> <br> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.holytrinityreformed.com/Blessed Mary Ever Virgin.html">Blessed Mary Ever Virgin</a> <br> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.holytrinityreformed.com/Protestants and BMEV.htm">Protestants and BMEV</a> <br> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.holytrinityreformed.com/The Impending Distress.htm">The Impending Distress and Enforced Celibacy</a> <br> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.canonpress.org/store/pc/showsearchresults.asp?pageStyle=H&resultCnt=9&keyword=shape+of+sola+scriptura">The Shape of Sola Scriptura</a> <br> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.cmfnow.com/dvd-areromancatholicsmembersofthenewcovenant.aspx">Are Roman Catholics Members of the New Covenant? (Debate)</a> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Examination-Council-Trent-Part-I/dp/057003213X">Examination of the Council of Trent</a> <br> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.exodusbooks.com/details.aspx?id=3343">Putting the Reformation Solas in Perspective</a> <br> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1592446787/103-4416146-6354253?v=glance&n=2 83155">The Principle of Protestantism</a> <br> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.athanasiuspress.org/inventory.html?invid=71">The Liturgy Trap</a> <br> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.reformed.org/misc/hodge_catholic.html">Is Rome a Part of the Visible Church?</a> <br> <br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.faithtacoma.org/sermons/Romancath/roman.html">Robert Rayburn on Roman Catholicism</a> </table></center> </BODY> </HTML>