CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
What is illogical of Mary and Joseph having sexual relations that results in children?

 

[Bible_Student]

I thought you would say that. However, since Our Lord only founded One Church, and only has One Body, then by definition, all those who are grafted into Him are a part of it.

Betcha didn’t know you were Catholic, didja?

If you mean Catholic as in the universal Church of Jesus Christ, then yes I did know I was a Catholic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic
However, I try to stay as close as I can to the earliest traditions of the Church as taught by the Apostles and test everything in the light of scripture. I suppose that makes me a reformation type of Christian or protestant if you like to put tags on people. I prefer to call myself a Christian because without Christ your religion is useless. You are correct in saying there is one body of believers, with many parts all connected through the Head, which is Christ alone.
In Christ, Pat

 

[justasking4]

Hi Justasking,
What specifically before the 5th century, that is not a pseudo autograph, did they teach that you believe was problematic? I can find nothing that would give me pause.
In Christ, pat

Not sure what you are asking here. Can you clarify?

Do you find anything after the 5th century problematic?

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Huh? How is it desicrating for Joseph and Mary to have sexual relations? How is it a desiscration for her to have children of her own?

There were married and had every right and privilege for this. Sex between a man and wife is a wholesome thing and is never a desicration, wrong or sinful.

The LORD said to me, "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. Ez 44:2

 

[ToMo]

really, ive never heard of this. what church? since when?
if you are talking about the Catholic church then you should realise they are the only christians who teach this.

If we are the only Christians that teach this, it is because we are the only Church truly guided by the Holy Spirit, who also protects our infallibly defined doctrine from error.

 

[Mimi]

(Wow, almost 400 posts on this thread; impressive!
I’m just jumping in here, so sorry if this was covered.)

Just as no-one had automatic right to enter the Holy of Holies. Even the High Priest himself never entered, except the once a year when God Himself specifically required it. No such requirement was placed upon Joseph. If anything the contrary. God Himself had already claimed Mary as His own pure spouse (the Holy Spirit being neither a rapist nor an adulterer nor a fornicator, this must be so).

For Joseph to touch her would’ve made HIM sacrilegious, but also an adulterer or fornicator.

Not to mention, he would’ve probably been struck dead on the spot as what happened to someone who dared to enter the Holy of Holies (in the OT). Sorry I can’t name chapter and vs here.

I’m also often reminded that when I receive Jesus in Holy Communion, I am, for those 10 minutes or so, just like Mary (Miriam) in that I am bearing Jesus inside me!

Mimi
given name: Miriam

 

[justasking4]

The LORD said to me, "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. Ez 44:2

What has this to do with Mary? Have you looked at the context for this passage? It has nothing whatsoever to do with Mary.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

What has this to do with Mary? Have you looked at the context for this passage? It has nothing whatsoever to do with Mary.

Jesus entered the world through Mary.

 

[Bible_Student]

Not sure what you are asking here. Can you clarify?

Do you find anything after the 5th century problematic?

Yes, I do find some writings after the 5th century problematic but not all but if you read my former post - I only said I was okay with the first 4 centuries. I believe the early Christians we find in those first few centuries should not differ greatly from Christians today. Christianity did not start in 1521 but in the first century so I voraciously read the early Church Fathers for context. As to the theory that tradition trumps Scripture, however, I would have to ask why the Lord’s own, Simon Peter himself, warned the Church in the following manner unless he already prophetically knew that destructive heresies would begin to enter into the Church after the Apostolic age? Which is why I believe every Christian is called on to test what is of God and what is not.
from 2Peter 2:1-4 italics mine:

BUT there were also false prophets among the people, *(he speaks of Israel as a model of the Church) *even as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. *(By the way this is happening in many protestant churches today to their utter shame) * And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber. For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; …

We are, as Paul admoninshes us in 1Thessalonians 5:21, to “Test all things; and hold fast what is good.” and to “Examine ourselves as to whether we are in the faith.” (And furthermore to) “Test ourselves.” (As he asks) “Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?–unless indeed you are disqualified.” -2Corinthians 13:5

Hope that clarifies my position a bit.
In Christ, pat

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Bible student

If you think this is Mary where in the gospels is she ever referred to in this way ?

Genesis 3:
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,] and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

John !9:
26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman], behold, your son!”
27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Rev, !2
13 And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman] who had borne the male child.
14 But the [woman] was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time.
15 The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood.
16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth.
17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.

In Gehesis, John, and revelation its interesting the writer uses the word woman. Interestingly John is the writer of revelation also.

Also the disciple Jesus loved most[John,] was not physically birthed by Mary. Yet Jesus said behold your Mother; and woman behold your son. Jesus adopts the human race along with his mother, we become adopted sons of God WOW !

Revelation. 12:
1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman] clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.
3 And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads.
4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth;
5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,
6 and the woman] fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Your comment on Mary sleeping in Christ. Mark 9
2 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them,
3 and his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them.
4 And there appeared to them Eli’jah with Moses; and they were talking to Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

And I do call her Blessed I just do not call her ‘Queen of Heaven’, nor did my Lord ask me to, nor can I find any evidence that the Apostles did or the early Church.

Do you think that Jesus treated His mother with less respect and honor than Solomon treated his?

I think Mary, herself, would be quite jouful to see us give all the glory to God alone.

Indeed. Mary always points to Christ.

 It is not our duty, nor even our right, to give glory to the saints for their glory comes from God alone, and even that only because of His great mercy towards us.

It is our duty to give honor to those whom honor is due. All glory comes from God, but those he has justified, He also glorified. They rest in HIs glory. We recognize that He has raised them up.

Remember the example in Acts, whereby Peter, Paul, Barnabas, when those near saw that God was with them fell down that they all said, paraphrase ‘stand up – for we are just men like you’.

In order to distinguish honor from worship.

Our Salvation and the blessedness of the power to walk with our Lord comes from God alone.  Nevertheless Mary was greatly blessed ( and I love her model of obedience) and we (who are in Christ) are blessed as well.  May we all be found to be obedient to Him who called us out of darkness into His glorious light!

May God Bless, Pat

Indeed! We look unto those who have gone before us, and follow their example.

 

[guanophore]

If you think this is Mary where in the gospels is she ever referred to in this way?

This question does not make any sense. Mary was not crowned Queen of Heaven, as John saw her in his vision, until after the gospels were written. His was the only gospel that was written after her death, and his is the only one that mentions her. Why would the gospels refer to events that had not occurred? The gospel accounts, according to what they say about themselves, are accounts of what Jesus said and did, in order to bring about faith in Him. Those that accepted the gospel message became Mary’s offspring (brothers of Jesus) in faith.

Giving devotion to Mary is not keeping the commandments nor giving a witness to Jesus. You will never find such a thing in the scriptures nor will you find such a thing in the early centuries taught this kind of thing.

The early church practiced these devotions, and that is why they exist in liturgy and prayer. Jesus was sinless, and he kept the Commandments perfectly. He honored His father and His mother. It is difficult for us to know what type of honor is appropriate for the Mother of God, but we can be confident that Jesus performed it.

 

[guanophore]

That may be but it does not hold up when you look at the contexts throughout scripture. (Matt. 12:46, 47; 13:55; Mark 3:31, 32; 6:3; Luke 8:19, 20; John 2:12; Acts 1:14). The conjoined mention of the mother of Jesus appears to imply that children of the same mother are meant. Secondly, it would go against the very purpose of marriage which is to have children. Thirdly, it would be unnatural for them not to want to have sex and children. To have children was to be blessed in jewish culture.

You are correct that some verses appear to imply that Jesus has uterine brothers. If you are willing to read up in the CAF library, and search here for Mary, you will find plenty of info to address all these references. You are also correct that it was a very unusual marriage. However, we have from the Fathers that Mary was ever Virgin. If you are willing to explore why we believe this, the information is available.

Again this is incorrect. There are a number of places in scripture that say she did. See the above references for a sample.

These are references to the children of other women named Mary, not the mother of Jesus. He was an only child of His mother.

Where do you see this in scripture? Its not in John 19:26-27 since we have no evidence in the NT iself that Mary was ever referred to as the mother of the church nor that John represents the church.

You will find answers to this if you will follow the sources that are here.

 

[guanophore]

But the apostles never say anything about this.

You are lacking a major part of the Divine Revelation, since you are bound by your Sola Scriptura. We have much in the Sacred Tradition, including liturgy and prayers that are passed on to us through the Apostolic succession. All of the Revelation is not in the NT.

Do we agree that the only apostlolic teachings are found only in the scriptures?

Certainly not! In fact, none of the Apostolic Teachings were written for at least 20 years, and some of them, as many as 50 after Christ ascended. How was the teaching preserved? In the same way all the Jewish tradition was preserved, through Sacred Oral Tradition.

Only the scriptures are inspired-inerrant and not the church.

If you reject the teaching of Jesus about the inspired and inerrant ca pability of the Church, then you reject Jesus Himself. It is your perogative, of course, but don’t expect the rest of us to fall into it!

No church has the power to make something inspired-inerrant.

I agree with this, only the HS has this authority, and He works through the church established by Jesus. There is only one Church, and that Church, Jesus promised He would lead them into all truth, that the gates of hell would not prevail, and that He would remain with them till the end of the age.

1 Tim 3:15-16
…you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

Truth can be found in the book produced by the Church, but it is not the sole source of truth.

Secondly the OT was already in place before the birth of the church.

No arguement here. When Paul speaks of the the scriptures:

2 Tim 3:16-17
6 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

he was speaking only of the OT, since the New had not yet been written!

Thirdly,the foundation for the church are the apostles (teachings) Eph 3:20. Without Christ and apostolic teaching i.e. the scriptures there would be no church.

Hmmm. No, I think the foundation is the people, Jesus being the cornerstone. yes, the teachings that emanated from them, but the teachings were never meant to be separated from the people whose sacred duty it was to keep and teach them. The problem arises when reading the scriptures in the vaccuum created when one is separated from that Apostolic Authority. Misunderstandings occur, and error.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2663163]This question does not make any sense. Mary was not crowned Queen of Heaven, as John saw her in his vision, until after the gospels were written. His was the only gospel that was written after her death, and his is the only one that mentions her. Why would the gospels refer to events that had not occurred? The gospel accounts, according to what they say about themselves, are accounts of what Jesus said and did, in order to bring about faith in Him. Those that accepted the gospel message became Mary’s offspring (brothers of Jesus) in faith.

So we agree that there is nothing in the gospels? We can say the same thing in the rest of the NT also.

The early church practiced these devotions, and that is why they exist in liturgy and prayer. Jesus was sinless, and he kept the Commandments perfectly. He honored His father and His mother. It is difficult for us to know what type of honor is appropriate for the Mother of God, but we can be confident that Jesus performed it.

What time period are you referring to? Who practiced these devotions?

 

[RobHom]

There is absolutely no ‘plain reading of the texts’ that indicates that Mary had ‘other children’.

Thats right

Thats right

And this was the 'PLAIN READING OF THE TEXT" in Christendom for hundreds of years,.

Not something ‘dreamed up’ in year X.

Christ’s having brothers and sisters of direct blood born of Mary would have been known in apostolic times. Why then, by the time that the Scripture had been assembled, and with all the works by the ECFs which speak of Mary’s perpetual virginity, were there not ‘rebuttals’ made, as the ‘fact’ and the ‘plain reading’ would have been known since apostolic times?

Because the dogma of the Catholic Church is correct and proper in its entirety.

Yes his plain reading…or better yet, “wholesale misinterpretation” of the entire subject is in DIRE CONTRAVENTION with the writings of LUTHER as shown at this link:

davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

The writings of Martin Luther are historically preserved not only by the Catholic Church, but the Lutheran Church and others as well. And they most certainly disagree with “protestants” such as yourself

just4… no matter how much or how long you persist in your folly, you cannot change what is, always has been and always will be.

Sorry bucko, but thats “life”.

[/QUOTE]

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2663275]You are lacking a major part of the Divine Revelation, since you are bound by your Sola Scriptura. We have much in the Sacred Tradition, including liturgy and prayers that are passed on to us through the Apostolic succession. All of the Revelation is not in the NT.

What other revelation is inspired-inerrant? Can you give me a specific example?

D

Certainly not! In fact, none of the Apostolic Teachings were written for at least 20 years, and some of them, as many as 50 after Christ ascended. How was the teaching preserved? In the same way all the Jewish tradition was preserved, through Sacred Oral Tradition.

What were these oral traditions of the apostles that were not recorded in the scriptures?

If you reject the teaching of Jesus about the inspired and inerrant ca pability of the Church, then you reject Jesus Himself. It is yoru perogative, of course, but don’t expect the rest of us to fall into it!

Jesus is not the catholic church. Think about what you are saying. Was the inqusition of Christ?

I agree with this, only the HS has this authority, and He works through the church established by Jesus. There is only one Church, and to that Church, Jesus promised that He would lead them into all truth, that the gates of hell would not prevail, and that He would remain with them till the end of the age.

1 Tim 3:15-16
…you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

Truth can be found in the book produced by the Church, but it is not the sole source of truth.

i agree. Nor is all that the catholic church teaches is the truth either.

No arguement here. When Paul speaks of the the scriptures"

2 Tim 3:16-17
6 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

he was speaking only of the OT, since the New had not yet been written!

Not necessairly so. Peter refers to Paul’ letters as scripture. Secondly we know all the NT was inspired-inerrant even though the writers may have been aware of it. It is not the writers awareness that makes scripture inspired but that God makes their writings inspired-inerrant.

Hmmm. No, I think the foundation is the people, Jesus being the cornerstone. yes, the teachings that emanated from them, but the teachings were never meant to be separated from the people whose sacred duty it was to keep and teach them. The problem arises when reading the scriptures in the vaccuum created when one is separated from that Apostolic Authority. Misunderstandings occur, and error.

The problem is that the catholic church has allowed false teachers to teach its people. We know this because it contains teachings that are not grounded on the scriptures but on speculations of men and their false ideas.

 

[RobHom]

What time period are you referring to? Who practiced these devotions?

Had you actually bothered to read the links to the very information that has already been provided to you on this site…the very information you are asking about…you would already know the answers.

 

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2662377:

There is absolutely no ‘plain reading of the texts’ that indicates that Mary had ‘other children’.

Yes his plain reading…or better yet, “wholesale misinterpretation” of the entire subject is in DIRE CONTRAVENTION with the writings of LUTHER as shown at this link:

davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

The writings of Martin Luther are historically preserved not only by the Catholic Church, but the Lutheran Church and others as well. And they most certainly disagree with “protestants” such as yourself

just4… no matter how much or how long you persist in your folly, you cannot change what is, always has been and always will be.

Sorry bucko, but thats “life”.
I’ve got the context and what the words mean in those contexts that supports my view. Thats how truth is. Even though many may be against the truth that doesn’t mean its not true. Sorry but thats how it works.

 

[guanophore]

There is aboslutely no support for this in scripture. Look this parable up in context and it doesn’t even come close to what you are saying here.

Perhaps you would like to interpret the parable? Better move it to another thread. If you have ever seen a mustard seed, and a mustard “tree” (biologically it is not) you can hardly see a resemblence between them. This is one reason people don’t recognize the Catholic Church for the Church that Jesus founded.

God used the church to discover and define the canon. The church itself is not the source of the canon.

It has a combined source, as God prefers to work sacramentally with us.

2 Peter 1:20-21
21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. "

Those men that created the NT were Catholics, inspired by God. They, moved by the HS, wrote the books.

There are all kinds of teachings that the catholic church either rejects about scripture i.e. celibacy as a requirement for church leadership which is in direct opposition to married men being leaders to teaching doctrines not taught in scripture such as Mary’s assumption.

This is pure, unadulterated anticatholic drivel. The Catholic Church, having produced the NT, teaches and practices nothing in opposition to it. Celibacy is not a requirement for Church leadership. The Church has the authority to teach whatever is revealed to it by the HS, including the Marian Doctrines.

Not so. I take the scriptures in context. When you do that, you will not see the catholics doctrines there but a reading into the texts catholic doctrines.

I used to, when I was Protestant. I have since become educated. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church, and therefore, all of it must be interpreted through that perspective in order to be understood correctly.

What was the criteria used to determine the canon?

Great question, belongs on another thread.

Even if that is the case how does that help you?

It makes me realize that Apostolic Teaching is not dependent upon the NT, but in fact, that the NT emanates from the Apostolic Teaching, and should not therefore be separated from it.

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

The letters, and the word of mouth, are of equal value, and complement one another.

This is not entirely true. The doctrines on Mary are not supported by the scriptures.

It does not seem that way to you because you are reading and interpreting them outside of the context from which they were produced.

I don’t mind catholics being aggressive and passionate about what they believe. What’s important is for catholics to study the scriptures and compare that with catholic doctrines. I think when they do so many will be deeply troubled.

That happened to me. I was a cradle Catholic, and left the Church in my ignorance. After 20+ years in various Protestant faith communities, and 3 years in Protestant Seminary studying historical theology, Greeek, and the Patristic writings, I finally came to my senses. I am troubled no more!