- Mary could not be the mother of God. God always was and has no beginning. Mary had a natural birth as a natural human.
- Scripture does not tell us that Mary was conceived without sin. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that Mary could not have been conceived without sin because of the Scriptures telling us that Mary rejoiced in God her savior. St. Thomas Aquinas is canonized saint in the RCC and I don’t believe anybody posting here is.
- Again, Scripture doesn’t say anything about Mary remaining a virgin. It in fact tells us that she had other children besides Jesus and says nothing to the contrary that Mary led a normal married life with Joseph.
- Scripture tells us of Enoch being assumed into Heaven body and spirit but never anything about Mary.
As you can see clearly, the Mary of the Catholic church is a far different Mary than the Mary in Scripture.
I say again, the scriptures you cited had nothing to do with the Marian dogma’s. However…
Mary is called the Mother of God, not the creator of God. She did not pre-exist God the Son. However, she did pre-exist God Incarnate who is Jesus. Therefore, she is called the Mother of God. Or as Elizabeth says “Mother of my Lord”. Clearly this is scripturally supported. Yes, I agree with what others have said and which you agreed, Mary is not the mother of the Father and the Spirit. They were not born to her, only the Son took flesh, of course.
Not everything thought of or written by a saint is the teaching of the Church. The Bible doesn’t directly tell us there is a Trinity either, we have to apply some reason to what we read. Mary’s immaculate conception is NOT about Mary. It is not a Catholic attempt to elevate Mary in any way. It is recognition of a truth about JESUS who is utterly holy. This is revealed in Scripture when you understand things in context. For example, the fact that Mary is “full” of grace,
prior to the greeting by the angel, indicates she was pure before the Spirit overshadowed her. Additionally, in the Old Testament you see in typology Mary’s Immaculate Conception. St. Paul makes great use of typology so that is not some Catholic invention. Anyhow, read up on the Ark of the Covenent, which was made of the purest gold so it could hold the written Word of God, the manna (bread of heaven) and the rod of Aaron (representing the priesthood). The womb of Mary is like the Ark-- it was completely pure (free from sin) not because of anything Mary did or deserved, simply because her womb was to “house” the Word of God, the Bread from Heaven, the High Priest.
Actually scripture does not say Mary had other children besides Jesus. There is scripture that says “brothers of the Lord” but NOT ONE scripture indicates Mary was a mother to other children. Brother is a term that was loosely used in the Bible. We see that brothers can mean disciples, as is the case when Jesus tells Mary Magdalene to go tell His brothers He has risen and she goes to the Apostles. Or, it can mean kin or cousins, like when Abraham is called Lot’s brother but we know from another passage that he was an uncle. But the real clincher, for anyone who knows about ancient Judaism, comes from the lips of Our Lord when He gives Mary to the Beloved Disciple at the foot of the cross. It would have been ILLEGAL for Jesus to have given Mary to someone else if He had blood brothers. Jesus would never have done this.
Scripture does not explicitely say that Mary was assumed into heaven. However, scripture does not conflict with the idea either. The precedent was already set. Anyway, the point of the thread (I thought) was about “conflicts” between scripture and Marian dogma. This is not a conflict, scripture simply does not mention it.
