Marian dogmas, crucial for salvation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmgi1957
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tgGodsway said:
All of these passages are divinely placed within your reach if you can accept the word of God above your tradition.
Click to expand...
When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Dear woman, here is your son,’ 27 and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." (John 19:25-27)
Click to expand...
There’s only one way to read this.
 
You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices [ the outflow of your presses . The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep. It shall be with its mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me. (Exodus 22:29-30)

Notice it says “on the eighth day” you shall give it to Me. They are called first born sons even on the eighth day of life. Do you get it now?
 
I’m sorry I don’t know what you are trying to say. You’re gonna have to spell it out for me.
 
Are we not talking about whether first born means others “must” come afterwards, or not?

Number all the firstborn males of the children of Israel, from a month old and above, and take the number of their names.(Numbers 3)

Again, they are called first born even at a month old.
 
Last edited:
The passages you gave me include both examples. but to suggest that first-born doesn’t really mean first, but some kind of general statement to mean any born, is an unpersuasive argument. Honestly, that is a stretch my friend.
 
tgGodsway said:
The passages you gave me include both examples. but to suggest that first-born doesn’t really mean first, but some kind of general statement to mean any born, is an unpersuasive argument. Honestly, that is a stretch my friend.
Click to expand...
Who is saying first born doesn’t mean the first??
 
I apologize, I’m not understanding you jmgi1957. I thought that is what you mean. Please correct me.
 
Ok, let’s back up, maybe I’m not understanding your position, I don’t know.

You believe that “first born” means that there “must” be others to follow, correct?

I’m trying to show you from Scripture that the first to open the womb is called “first born” and it does not necessarily mean that there “must” be others that follow. The verse I quoted from Numbers shows that these males that opened the womb are called first born when they are only a month old.

When Scripture say Jesus was Mary’s first born son, it does not necessarily mean he was the first of others born to Mary, that’s all.
 
Okay then. I’m glad you are speaking plainly here. No, I totally disagree. The word “first” in Matt. 1:25 is not the kind of word which is somehow interchangeable with something like “only.” There are no examples of your point found in the N.T.
Your O.T. argument is not convincing either.

We do know that the CC believes Mary was and still is a virgin, (which would be a gross abuse of the marriage vow according to the principles found in the law of Moses concerning marriage)

But this presents a problem by Matthews account. We read that Joseph “… did not know her (sexually) TILL she brought forth her firstborn…” It is not unreasonable to suggest that Matthews line of thought included both ideas. The suggestion that she did KNOW Joseph after the birth of Christ, makes sense in the broader context of calling Jesus the first! Typically Jewish families believed in having large families.

The CC Tradition teaches that Mary is a virgin, but this view came centuries later and far removed from the N.T. eye witnesses, including Matthew as one of those witnesses. So … should we believe Matthew’s testimony who knew Mary personally as he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?.. or should we trust the voices of tradition who addressed this matter from a position outside of the inner circle of apostolic faith centuries later in Rome? … and who obviously have a contradicting view?
 
Last edited:
tgGodsway said:
But this presents a problem by Matthews account. We read that Joseph “… did not know her (sexually) TILL she brought forth her firstborn…” It is not unreasonable to suggest that Matthews line of thought included both ideas. The suggestion that she did KNOW Joseph after the birth of Christ, makes sense in calling Jesus the first! Typically Jewish families believed in having larger families.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, this is a common style of writing back then and there are other examples of it in scripture. Jesus will be with us until the end of the ages. Does that mean that at the end of the world, he will no longer be with us? There are more examples than this one in the Bible but that one is just off the top of my head.
 
Are you suggesting that Mathew 1:25 is in a figure of speech?.. then by context we’d have to also conclude that when He was born, it was only in a figurative sense. No… the context is literal and should be read at face-value. If you do a word study on the word firstborn as used in the N.T. there are no little men behind a curtain hitting buttons and making thunder. At face value, the word first born means exactly that. I do know that the CC does a good job attacking the plain meaning of this word suggesting it means something other than what it means. They do the same with the word “brother.” But we get our interpretation based on the context in each case.
 
Last edited:
tgGodsway said:
The word “first” in Matt. 1:25 is not the kind of word which is somehow interchangeable with something like “only.”
Click to expand...
But it doesn’t say “only”, it says “first born” in Luke, Jesus was Mary’s first born son. I have shown that in the Book of Numbers and Exodus, the PRIMARY meaning of first born is “the one who opens the womb” namely a male. And you say my OT argument is not convincing?? You think first born in the OT means something different than the meaning in the NT?? No, I don’t think so.

First born can also mean that there were other children who eventually came along, but you would not be able to use it in that sense until a second was born obviously. In the case of Jesus, Scripture makes NO mention of a second child born to Mary, or any others during Jesus’ life up to age twelve, which doesn’t help your argument.
 
Last edited:
I’m still curious why, if Jesus had other biological siblings, why did Jesus refer Mary to John and vice versa and not just assume that Mary would be taken care of by her “other” children?

If Jesus had other siblings, why weren’t they reported being there at the foot of the cross with their mother at Jesus’ crucifixion when other specific people close to Jesus were mentioned? Wouldn’t it have been logical for them to have been there? Did St John leave Jesus’ siblings out of the biblical narrative because he didn’t like them?

Or perhaps it was because he didn’t have other siblings after all and the people who were called brothers were relatives instead and Mary remained the mother of only Our Lord as her first and only born son.
 
Last edited:
Isn’t this, and some of your other posts on the subject, similar to a Protestant argument? As has been pointed out by others, the Marian dogmas appear to be the product of the Church rather than, strictly speaking, that of the Bible. They seem to be a matter of faith rather than exegesis.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
the Marian dogmas appear to be the product of the Church rather than, strictly speaking, that of the Bible
Click to expand...
But the Bible is also a “product of the Church”. If I can accept the authority of the Church to promulgate the books of the Bible, it’s within reason I’d accept its teachings regarding Mary and her role in salvation history.
 
I suppose so although I was referring to the Magisterium of the Church. Is there not also an Oral Tradition which is not explicitly detailed in the Bible?
 
Yes, and not shared by many Protestant denominations, as witnessed in the dialog above.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
tgGodsway said:
as long as that “declared doctrine” does not fly in the face of inspired scripture.
Click to expand...
We disagree here subtly but the impact is enormous. We’ve already agreed that doctrine espoused in communion with the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit is valid. This is where I believe a Full Stop is in order.

There is no further clarification needed nor justified as necessary.

The Holy Spirit will not in any way contradict Scripture. It is the interpretation of Scripture of the Holy Spirit that can be trusted perfectly. Full Stop.

My position is that the Holy Spirit was given from the very beginning of the establishment of the Church to lead the ONE Church, that Christ established, to correct understanding of Scripture.

I will go further to say that the Holy Spirit not only leads the Church but intervenes at His leisure to correct what is necessary, whereby doctrine, (more explicitly, dogma) of the ONE Church, to which the Holy Spirit was and is given, is fully protected from error, by the leading and intervention of the Holy Spirit A.K.A. God.

This is why I believe the Catholic Church does indeed have the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture. Our Lord ordained for it to be so. Roman Catholic dogma is not the doctrine of Apostles, Bishops, Cardinals, or Popes (They are merely the mechanism God chose), rather it is fully the doctrine revealed by the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent by His authority, which is why it is binding on all of creation.

“Behold I am with you always”
“Upon this rock I build MY Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

This is still binding and true to this very moment. Not by Scripture alone. By our Almighty God alone. By I AM alone. By the Alpha and Omega alone. Not by Scripture alone.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top