/lit/ - Literature

First of all, please try condensing your arguments as much as possible, to avoid spamming up the thread with sequential posts which do not at all approach the character limit.

The fact is that we have an incredibly early tradition attesting to the perpetual virginity of Mary, as evidenced by its presence as an already established and accepted doctrine among the church fathers and champions of orthodoxy, even among such powerhouses as Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, and Hippolytus of Rome (not to mention the Proto-Evangelium of James), making it a part of the ancient teaching of the Church. If you believe that the council fathers, filled with the Holy Spirit, had the authority to determine that Christ was of the same essence as the Father and create something as authoritative as the Nicene Creed, then you also must accept that that same authority has the ability to make binding proclamations on faith and morals, such as Mary's perpetual virginity and immaculate conception, through that same Holy Spirit and authority to bind and loose. If you deny that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, you are making scripture a liar. If you deny that Jesus Christ gave the authority to the St. Peter by giving him the keys of heaven, saying to him, "Whatever you bind on earth WILL HAVE BEEN bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth WILL HAVE BEEN loosed in heaven.” (eg. make infallible proclamations, the very meaning of binding and loosing - see https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing).). Thus, the authority of the Church (of whom Peter is the rock and earthly head), by virtue of Jesus Christ's command, to establish infallible doctrines of faith and morals (including anathemas), shows that the Holy Spirit is who guided the Church into the Marian dogmas. To deny the Marian dogmas is, therefore, to deny the authority of the Holy Spirit, or the promises of Christ.

With regards to the typology of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, it is incredibly obvious just by a simple comparison of the Septuagint text with Luke's visitation narrative. Pic related - it is clear that even if you reject it, the scripture is materially sufficient to support the doctrine of perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and the assumption.

And please, don't even start with the Chick-tract-tier arguments about Ishtar. Stay within the realm of evidence, at least, and do not delve into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and unfalsifiable claims. I can just as easily say that Protestantism is a Satanic deception created by demons to further division and hatred among the Christians through whispering ideas of revolution and discord into the ears of the "reformers".

>>19443420
The Proto-Evangelium of James is not a gnostic text. Please see Trent Horn and Albrecht on James White's treatment of the topic.

>>19443370
>>19443373
>>19443377
>>19443384
>>19443391
>>19443398
>>19443408


First of all, please try condensing your arguments as much as possible, to avoid spamming up the thread with sequential posts which do not at all approach the character limit.

Besides the fact of St. Paul's obvious implication that the relation from James to Jesus is not by blood - calling James the "so-called brother of Jesus" - the fact is that we have an incredibly early tradition attesting to the perpetual virginity of Mary, as evidenced by its presence as an already established and accepted doctrine among the ante-Nicene fathers, even among such powerhouses as Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, and Hippolytus of Rome. If you believe that the council fathers, filled with the Holy Spirit, had the authority to determine that Christ was of the same essence as the Father and create something as authoritative as the Nicene Creed, then you also must accept that that same authority has the ability to make binding proclamations on faith and morals, such as Mary's perpetual virginity and immaculate conception, through that same Holy Spirit. If you deny that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, you are making scripture a liar.

With regards to the typology of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, it is incredibly obvious just by a simple comparison of the Septuagint text with Luke's visitation narrative. Pic related.

And please, don't even start with the Chick-tract-tier arguments about Ishtar. Stay within the realm of evidence, at least, and do not delve into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and unfalsifiable claims. I can just as easily say that Protestantism is a Satanic deception created by demons to further division and hatred among the Christians through whispering ideas of revolution and discord into the ears of the "reformers".

>>19443420
The Proto-Evangelium of James is not a gnostic text. Please see Trent Horn and Albrecht on James White's treatment of the topic.

>>19429787
>Mary is the container for the new covenant by being the mother of Jesus. If the Israelites had specific customs relating to the cleanliness of the Ark, wouldn't it make sense for the new covenant to have teachings on the purity of Mary?

Pic related.

Explained in greater detail here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmNWqLSJcJI

>>19410209
>The easiest primary example of this, which both Catholicism and "Orthodoxy™" share are certain degrees of "Mary worship", which became an official "Church™" dogma in the 4th century (the 2 branches split around 700 years later).

What you fail to understand is that the Marian doctrines are rooted in scripture. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is Mary's role as the Second Eve, in parallel to Christ's role as the last or second Adam.

Now, you are dismissive and even contemptuous of these doctrines. That is unfortunate, and I doubt anything I say can change that. However, for those with an open mind I leave a link to a talk that includes a fine exposition of various Marian doctrines by a Bible scholar who went from being an anti-Catholic Protestant to a faithful Catholic... because he could not resist the clear teaching of scripture and the early Church Fathers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGJWwqs0Ajs

>>19300706
>Never trust anyone who goes back to the Greek to try to make an argument.
Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint.

>Are you even sure that he knows any Greek?
Yes.

>>19300712
Mary is the fulfillment of the type of the ark of the covenant. Rev 11:19 - Rev 12:1 makes this clear, as does an abundance of other scriptural evidence, as detailed in the video, and also in the attached.

>>16548142
>Mary