Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical?

[placido]

The Scripture also nullifies the perpetual virginity unless Joseph’s and Mary’s other children were adopted, which there is no indication of this and every indication of the words of the writers of the NT, including Jesus own words, is that Joesph and Mary waited to engage in sexual relations after the birth of Jesus as a God ordained and blessed family would be. If she did not have physical relations with her husband, then God is the God of contradiction because ordained marriage and part of that covenant relationship is the gift of sexual relation and the result of that is clearly represented by the fact that they had other children besides Jesus. Anyone who holds onto these types of contradictory traditions from men, in my opinion, cannot believe what the Bible says in this regard.

There is no evidence (yes, I mean just that) that Mary and Joseph had children. The Bible nowhere reveals Mary’s other children other than Jesus.
That is the truth you will have to learn to live with.

Take it for what it is; you either chose to believe the Biblical accounts or you chose not to; it really is that simple according to Mary’s own words.

And the Biblical account nowhere reveals Mary’s supposed children other than Jesus.

This is all I have to contribute concerning this topic, which is rather cut and dry.
That is called jumping the gun. You are well aware that a thorough refutation was coming and that you would have nothing else to say.

placido

 

[graceandglory]

Not “wildly”…but most have their basis in non-canonical writings such as the “Protoevanglion of James”…and I would dare say much of the belief of Mary and her titles come from a very pagan influence of the Roman world at the time the doctines and dogmas were being developed…pagans didn’t want to give up their goddesses…Mary solved the problem by giving them a “feminine face to deity”.

**
You would dare say???** :hypno:You don’t really know who you’re talking about, do you???Don’t you think the Church for 2000 years would have been working to quell the influence of paganism??? The Church would never cater to wanting to be like the PAGANS!!! Give me a break!!!

Nice thought, coming from a pagan post-Christian American culture, just not historically correct.

The Catholic Church taught that in order to follow Christ, you had to be separate from the world, even DIE for your faith. THOUSANDS of Saints have been martyred for their faith.

Don’t even suggest that the Church would PAGANIZE God’s Truth. Read some Church History, man.

That is blasphemous!

 

[graceandglory]

Yes I do…but I’m sure if you were interested, you’d have already looked. If you are content with your position as detailed by your church…I rejoice with you in your belief…I have no wish to change them in any way. I was offering my opinion based on my own study of historical doctrinal developments…I have no desire to seek to “win the arguement”…since I’m not in an arguement to “win”.

Historical documents that you find and purchase in America are always biased. Usually they have an anti-Catholic bias, because they are written by a protestant. Have you read any history from before, say, 1500???

 

[graceandglory]

Yes I do…but I’m sure if you were interested, you’d have already looked. If you are content with your position as detailed by your church…I rejoice with you in your belief…I have no wish to change them in any way. I was offering my opinion based on my own study of historical doctrinal developments…I have no desire to seek to “win the arguement”…since I’m not in an arguement to “win”.

Yes, please find CATHOLIC sources that attribute Marian dogma to Isis.
All Catholic sources are well-annotated. Good luck with that!

 

[KathleenGee]

Mary was under the care of St. John and he would not place her in a domicile and use her to be competition against the local goddesses.

Jesus Christ gave his mother to the care of St. John while he was dying on the cross. Not an origin in one’s memory to exploit one’s mother, especially the Mother of God.

 

[agent_grey]

The marian dogmas are the number one way to determine the true church. Each and every one of them are grounded in scripture.

The sinless nature of the virgin for example is right out of the Old Testament. The one that denies this shows his lack of understanding and demonstrates the inability to teach and his true nature as an accuser.

 

[Calvin_95]

Saying something is impossible to the omnipotent God is itself a contradiction.
The Bible says, “Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about …” (Matthew 1:18).
According to the Bible, God the Father used Mary to give birth to God the Son, “an eternal being”.
That is unfortunate you see that as “contradiction in terms”.

placido

“so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie,” Is it possible for God to lie or sin? According to your understanding God is a “contradiction” in and of Himself. What i said before stands because it stands on His word; not mine.

 

[Calvin_95]

hi calvin. thank you for your thoughts. its interesting to note though, that the term brothers in the new testament could also mean cousins, or close relatives. also, Jesus kept the law perfectly. that being said, as he was dying on the cross, he gave Mary to john to take care of her. why? if in fact the brothers mentioned were actually brothers, not only would there be no need for this, it would be a violation of the law of moses. it would have fallen on them to take care of her needs. this is not what happened. john took her to his own home. even if there were brothers, there is the possibility that Joseph could have been a widower, and had children by another woman. not likely though. again, these sons would have been required to take care of Mary. do not forget also that Joseph may have been much older than Mary. she would probably have been 14 years old and he would be closer to 40. also if you had married a woman, that gave birth to God the Son, would you wish to be intimate with her in that way? i sure wouldnt. she is the living embodiment of the ark of the covenant. more to follow on that if you wish. Peace

Nice try; here is where the specific use of the specific term cousin is used in the NT (Praise God) and if cousin were meant, then writers would have used the same term, but did not because it is quite obvious what the simple reading of Scripture says. You either believe Scripture or you don’t or you pick and choose, which the latter is the same as not believing in my opinion.

**“Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’s cousin Mark”–**Colossians 4:10

Anepsios can only mean on thing; cousin.

 

[Calvin_95]

There is no evidence (yes, I mean just that) that Mary and Joseph had children. The Bible nowhere reveals Mary’s other children other than Jesus.
That is the truth you will have to learn to live with.

And the Biblical account nowhere reveals Mary’s supposed children other than Jesus.

That is called jumping the gun. You are well aware that a thorough refutation was coming and that you would have nothing else to say.

placido

Disbelief of the Biblical record is the only way you can make such as statement that there is no evidence when the Lord Himself gave plenty of evidence, but since you say there is no evidence then we can conclude you do not believe the Lord meant by what He said. He is one of a few examples, but this is definititve.

3 Therefore His brothers s****aid to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4 “For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. Since You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him. 6 So Jesus said to them, “My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune.” – John 7

This is the very reason while on the cross that Jesus gave the apostle John to care for His mother. You must see the whole of Scripture and the culture at the time. Jesus would not give His mother to those who were not HIs true brothers and sisters as He made abundantly clear the definition of who was His mother, brother, or sister in Luke 8, Mark 3 and Matthew 12. But you are forced to deny the words of Jesus and the Biblical record in light of Mary dogmas because both cannot be true; so you accept one and reject the other; just a simple observation.

 

[Calvin_95]

Of course it is problematic because the tradition contradicts the Biblical record; so one is forced to make a choice.

 

[Calvin_95]

Mary was under the care of St. John and he would not place her in a domicile and use her to be competition against the local goddesses.

Jesus Christ gave his mother to the care of St. John while he was dying on the cross. Not an origin in one’s memory to exploit one’s mother, especially the Mother of God.

You need to ask and then find the answer as to why Jesus had John take care of Mary as opposed to Jesus “UNBELEIVING biological brothers”. The answer is in how Jesus defined who was His mother, brother and sisters; which His biological and unbelieving brothers were not considered by Jesus to be His true brothers; but John was considered as one. That would later change as the biblical record shows, but at this time their conversion had not yet taken place.

 

[KathleenGee]

Calvin,

You are the one coming across as picking and choosing…do you think any answer we give you will suffice?

Do you imply then that St. John had other intentions for the mother of Christ than to provide and care for her…without her we would not have Jesus.

Do you personally know or have been part of Jewish families? They are among the best in the caring for their loved ones. Where were all Christ’s brothers and sisters you claim He had? Why weren’t they there to come forward to care for Mary, their mother?

There is a passage in the Gospels that His brethren were worried for Him. They must have missed out living in that small house that He was being prepared in His hidden life to be the sacrificial Lamb for our salvation. So they missed out on sharing His mission, and they took off not caring about their own mother.

 

[placido]

“so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie,” Is it possible for God to lie or sin? According to your understanding God is a “contradiction” in and of Himself. What i said before stands because it stands on His word; not mine.

So, you believe the Bible when it says it is impossible for God to lie, yet you don’t believe the Bible when it says God was born; you reject it as impossible.
BTW, lying is evil and God is LOVE. God lying would be a contradiction as well.

placido

 

[placido]

Disbelief of the Biblical record is the only way you can make such as statement that there is no evidence when the Lord Himself gave plenty of evidence,

The Lord did not do such a thing. You are reading your beliefs into the Bible.

but since you say there is no evidence then we can conclude you do not believe the Lord meant by what He said.

I do believe what the Lord said, but do not atribute to the Lord that what He never said.

He is one of a few examples, but this is definititve.

Let us see if what you present is really “definitive evidence”.

3 Therefore His brothers s****aid to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4 “For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. Since You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him. 6 So Jesus said to them, “My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune.” – John 7

But nowhere does the text you presented as “definitive evidence” say Jesus’ brothers are Mary’s children. It seems you are reading your beliefs into the text.

This is the very reason while on the cross that Jesus gave the apostle John to care for His mother.

No, the fact that Jesus gave His mother to John proves Mary did not have other children.

You must see the whole of Scripture and the culture at the time.

Yes, and the Jewish culture would not allow John to care for Mary who has own grown up biological children.

Jesus would not give His mother to those who were not HIs true brothers and sisters as He made abundantly clear the definition of who was His mother, brother, or sister in Luke 8, Mark 3 and Matthew 12.

And seeing Scripture as a whole (like you suggested) you would easily see that those named as Jesus’ brothers have a different mother – Mary the wife of Clopas. Do you think that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the wife of Clopas?

But you are forced to deny the words of Jesus and the Biblical record in light of Mary dogmas because both cannot be true; so you accept one and reject the other; just a simple observation.

What I accept is this: the Bible does nowhere say Mary had other children. You wanted it to say so, but it doesn’t.

placido

 

[placido]

You need to ask and then find the answer as to why Jesus had John take care of Mary as opposed to Jesus “UNBELEIVING biological brothers”.

Nice try but Jesus had no biological brothers. That is why even your “definitive evidence” failed to prove what you allege.

placido

 

[benidict]

Nice try; here is where the specific use of the specific term cousin is used in the NT (Praise God) and if cousin were meant, then writers would have used the same term, but did not because it is quite obvious what the simple reading of Scripture says. You either believe Scripture or you don’t or you pick and choose, which the latter is the same as not believing in my opinion.

"Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’s cousin Mark"–Colossians 4:10

Anepsios can only mean on thing; cousin.

i do have to admit my friend that i am not a scholar. i have a high school education. (barley ) but no. i do not pick and choose. i am a convert from protestantism. baptist as a matter of fact. and i believe everything the Catholic Church teaches. Peace

 

[benidict]

You need to ask and then find the answer as to why Jesus had John take care of Mary as opposed to Jesus “UNBELEIVING biological brothers”. The answer is in how Jesus defined who was His mother, brother and sisters; which His biological and unbelieving brothers were not considered by Jesus to be His true brothers; but John was considered as one. That would later change as the biblical record shows, but at this time their conversion had not yet taken place.

be that as it may. if in fact they were his biological brothers, they would have been angered by the arrangment Jesus made. it is evident that they were observant Jews, and if they were his biological brothers, they would not have stood idley by without some sort of protest. there is none recorded. why? because there was no conflict of interest. these were close relatives. Jesus had the right to choose whoever he pleased to care for his Mother. Peace

 

[benidict]

You need to ask and then find the answer as to why Jesus had John take care of Mary as opposed to Jesus “UNBELEIVING biological brothers”. The answer is in how Jesus defined who was His mother, brother and sisters; which His biological and unbelieving brothers were not considered by Jesus to be His true brothers; but John was considered as one. That would later change as the biblical record shows, but at this time their conversion had not yet taken place.

so…using the same passage, Mary is not Jesus Mother, correct? she was right with them outside the door…i could be misunderstanding you. Peace

 

[KathleenGee]

Calvin,

And we also must recall that the Word of God is that, His presence is in His Word. We should not use the Sacred Scripture in a manner that it is more a weapon or something we manipulate for our own righteousness.

 

[graceandglory]

Of course it is problematic because the tradition contradicts the Biblical record; so one is forced to make a choice.

Incorrect.

Scripture contradicts YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Biblical record.

You are forced to make a choice.

“Be ye not wise in your own eyes. Fear the Lord.” Proverbs 3:7

Tradition is older than the NT. You received your NT from Tradition. You believe in Tradition when you CHOOSE to. If you believe Tradition in the big things (the canon of the NT), why not in the teeny tiny things, like the meaning of the word “cousin.”