Marian dogmas, crucial for salvation?

[TMC]

naaa… I doubt it. It’s not a convincing argument at all. If redundancy were employed here, you would spot it as some kind of aimless talk. But the specific context is clear. These were Jesus’ brothers, specifically, just as the “women” who came were not just any women, … and the Mary who came was not just any Mary who came into the upper room. The brothers, all of the sudden, were brothers in general?.. naaaaa…

Maybe you’re just scrambling for any other answer than the obvious one. Jesus had brothers and Mary had relations with her husband as any normal Jewish couple would have.

I am not as confident as you in your position, and I would just generally say that everyone should accept a certain amount of humility and doubt when trying to interpret ancient texts when 1) we do not have the original texts, 2) the texts we have are in an ancient language no one actually speaks today, 3) the texts we have may not be in the same language as the original texts, and 4) the versions and fragments we do have differ from one another, sometimes in important ways.

All that said, I think that it is clear from an objective reading of the texts that the doctrine of perpetual virginity is simply not found in scripture. In fact, it is a bit hard to square the doctrine with the Gospel accounts (although perhaps not impossible).

To be clear - I am not saying that it is definitively not true, but Catholics should acknowledge that the doctrine comes from tradition, not scripture. Trying to force meanings into scripture that are not found there does not strengthen faith - it weakens it when people read the texts for themselves and do not find the convoluted exegesis persuasive. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that the Marian doctrines come from tradition. Catholicism has never been strictly a religion of the book - Catholics are not sola scriptura.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

That’s easily explained by Hebraisms

naaa… I doubt it. It’s not a convincing argument at all.

Whether you are convinced by the truth or not, is not my concern. The truth is true whether you believe it or not.

If redundancy were employed here, you would spot it as some kind of aimless talk.

Redundancy in Jewish colloquy is not aimless.

But the specific context is clear. These were Jesus’ brothers, …

There’s no need to continue with this post of yours as you’re merely repeating the same errors with no substance. Let me show you, from Scripture, that you are wrong.

If we study the Scriptures, we find that 3 of the 4 brethren identified in Matt 13:55 are indeed, Apostles. Let me show you:

Matt 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

So, who are these brethren? First let us correlate the lists of the Apostles in the various Gospels:
Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mark 3:16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

Luke 6:14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

St. John does not provide a list. Here we go:

They all begin with Simon Peter, showing his primacy.
They all mention Andrew, his brother, although not in the same order.
They all mention James, the son of Zebedee.
They all mention John, the brother of James.
They all mention Philip.
They all mention Bartholomew.
They all mention Thomas.
They all mention Matthew.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d @tgGodsway

Now, pay close attention to the next three:

ONE: They all mention James the son of Alphaeus. Some call him James the less.

TWO: Matthew’s Labbaeus Thaddeus is Mark’s Thaddeus which corresponds to Luke’s Judas the brother of James. Did you catch that? Judas the brother of James. Keep that in mind.

THREE: Next, Matt’s and Mark’s Simon the Canaanite corresponds to Luke’s Simon Zelotes.

We can disregard the final Apostle, the traitor Iscariot.

What were the names of those brethren again? James, Joses, Simon and Judas. Is it a coincidence then that James, Judas the brother of James and Simon are always listed together in the lists of Apostles?

There is no question in my mind, that these three Apostles are the brethren mentioned in Matt 13:55.

Furthermore, if we study further, we will also see that these same 3 brethren are identified as the children of the other Mary. There is another Mary who is the “sister” of the Virgin Mary. Let us correlate some Scriptures:

John 19:25Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

This Mary is always mentioned along with Mary Magdalene.

Matthew 28:1In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Note that she is the mother of James:
Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

I’m assuming that Joanna is Salome, who is also frequently mentioned with Mary Magdalene and the other Mary:
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Now, this Mary is the mother of James the less and of Joses. Therefore she is also the mother of Judas the brother of James and of Simon:

We know from Tradition that the Virgin Mary is an only child. Therefore her “sister”, the OTHER Mary, is her “cousin.”

The children of this other Mary, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are kindred of Jesus. But not brothers of the womb.

That’s from Scripture.

 

[De_Maria]

To be clear - I am not saying that it is definitively not true, but Catholics should acknowledge that the doctrine comes from tradition, not scripture.

Everything that the Catholic Church Teaches comes from Tradition. Including the New Testament.

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

In addition, all Doctrines of the Catholic Church are either implied or explicitly stated in Scripture. So, yes, the perpetual virginity of Mary is implied in the Scriptures. But in order to understand this, you must study other disciplines. You must study Ancient Hebrew culture, speech patterns and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. You can’t simply pick up a Bible and read it, Protestant style and automatically understand everything that the Church is Teaching through her Scriptures. And most of all, in my opinion, you need a firm grounding in Sacred Tradition in order to be able to identify the Traditions that are being taught in seed fashion, in the Scriptures.

 

[tgGodsway]

okay… finally! … this I can respect. I will study it and get back. thank you.

 

[tgGodsway]

Are you really making the point that He is denying that His physical mother is also His spiritual mother?

No… absolutely not. The way I read this is, concerning the spiritual family, it isn’t about flesh and blood at all. Obviously Mary believed in her son to be the eternal Son. So, yes, that belief justifies her eternally as it does all people. She is a spiritual mother in that sense. But there is evidence that His half brothers took a little more time to come to that conclusion. (John 7:3-5)

3 His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing.
4 For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.”
5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.

We do know that Later James the half brother of Jesus became the Pastor at Jerusalem. Jude wrote his letter , but I’m guessing the others came to faith also.

Are you literally claiming that His mother did not do the will of God? If so, you are contradicting Scripture and thus nullifying your argument in the eyes of all Catholics.

This particular passage does not come to the conclusions that you and I both agree on. Yes, Mary did the will of God and was not only His mother biologically, but she was part of the spiritual family of God because she did the will of God. And what was that will? … She believed in Him. John 6:29.

This is what it means. He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His Apostles and His disciples.

De_Maria… I think you need to take another look at John 2:12. Because you added words here that are not on the page. You exchanged the word brothers for Apostles. Why?.. it is not there. the word brothers is adelphoi and it means… brothers, or brothers and sisters. siblings in a family.

And I’m the one who reads scripture with protestant presuppositions? you are the protestor here my friend.

 

[Mary888]

then how is it that the first century Christians were able to be saved without these dogma’s being in existence, except for the virgin birth of course?

1. Martyrdom - if you will, washes away a lot of sins.
2. The Immaculate Conception of Mary was tradition in the East sometimes. It was the Coptic Church who kept it going until it reached RC. Who can say if the Apostles or Holy Church Fathers believed in it or not.
3. Virgin Mary is being blasphemized as we speak in most ^^civilized world^^. Do you think God is an imperfect man? That He can just not care about the reputation of His mother? Better to exaggerate in good if uncertain about Mary.
4. Archangel Gabriel. If you think you can just skip Him and enter Heaven, then go ahead ignore Mary.

 

[TrueRomanCatholic]

The only salvation is through Mother Church and her Holy Spouse. All the extra bits that She amends, such as veneration of her Spouses Mother, the mantilla requirement, and kneeling to receive the Holy Body are extra bits and pieces that don’t apply to the time they weren’t enforce.

 

[tgGodsway]

TWO: Matthew’s Labbaeus Thaddeus is Mark’s Thaddeus which corresponds to Luke’s Judas the brother of James. Did you catch that? Judas the brother of James. Keep that in mind.

How does Thaddeus correspond to Luke’s Judas? And What Luke are you referring to here? Judas the brother of James based on what?.. please quote the verses you are looking at here? These names are very common in their day. Please specify what you are talking about here.

 

[De_Maria]

No… absolutely not. The way I read this is, concerning the spiritual family, it isn’t about flesh and blood at all. Obviously Mary believed in her son to be the eternal Son. So, yes, that belief justifies her eternally as it does all people. She is a spiritual mother in that sense. But there is evidence that His half brothers took a little more time to come to that conclusion. (John 7:3-5)

3 His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing.
4 For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.”
5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.

His brothers. His kin. Not brothers of the womb.

We do know that Later James the half brother of Jesus became the Pastor at Jerusalem.

Not the half brother of Jesus. The cousin of Jesus.

Jude wrote his letter , but I’m guessing the others came to faith also.

You are assuming many things based upon your deliberate indifference and closing your eyes to the history and evidence of the early Church which tell us precisely who
James is kin to.

This particular passage does not come to the conclusions that you and I both agree on.

Yes. It does. Your reading of it misses the point.

Yes, Mary did the will of God and was not only His mother biologically, but she was part of the spiritual family of God because she did the will of God. And what was that will? … She believed in Him. John 6:29.

De_Maria… I think you need to take another look at John 2:12. Because you added words here that are not on the page. You exchanged the word brothers for Apostles. Why?.. it is not there.

Because Jesus and the Apostles themselves referred to themselves as His brothers.

the word brothers is adelphoi and it means… brothers, or brothers and sisters. siblings in a family.

Adelphoi means exactly what brother means today. We have brothers in Christ, brothers who are dear friends, brothers who are actually cousins and much more.

If you have only had brothers who were simply brothers of the womb, your life is not typical.

And I’m the one who reads scripture with protestant presuppositions? you are the protestor here my friend.

On the contrary, you still don’t understand that the Catholic Church does not READ INTO Scripture. The Catholic Church Teaches the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture.
The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. The New Testament would not be infallible if it had been written by any other entity.

Protestants read into Scripture their presuppositions. Protestants read their errors into Scripture.

 

[tgGodsway]

His brothers. His kin. Not brothers of the womb.

hee hee… your statement here reminds me of the Liberal Democrats who say, Yes we want border security. yes we want drones, yes we want electronic surveillance, yes we want more officers on the border. but NO!!!.. we can’t have a wall to help accomplish these things. No sir.

Yes! His “brothers” means brothers in a vague and general way, Countrymen!.. yes his “brothers” can also mean cousins even though the word cousin from is a different Greek word which the Holy Spirit chose NOT to employ in the text. Yes His “brothers” can simply mean some obscure list of 4 men who seem to pop up with his mother, Mary, in the context of curious discussions about Christ’ identity in relations to where He came from.

But NOPE! not his literal brothers! … this is protestant thinking all the way my friend. Let me go over the Mark 6 passage again,

1 He went away from there and came to His HOMETOWN, and His disciples followed Him.
2 When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard Him were astonished. “Where did this man get these things?” they said. “What is this wisdom given to Him, and how are these miracles performed by His hands?

3 Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother(=ADELFOS) of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t His sisters(=ADELFAY) here with us?” So they were offended by Him.

The question is reasonable. How can this man do such great works?.. we know Him as the “carpenter” the son of Mary. In other words, He is just an ordinary guy.

He is the brother, (singular,) of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon, v3 says. It is here in this verse where the Greek word for “Relative” would make your case. But this is not what the Holy Spirit chose to say. If verse 3 read like “Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the RELATIVE of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon?..” I would be more incline to concede your point.

The line of questioning by the “they said” people of verse 2 continued … "aren’t his sisters here with us? All of the context of thought is very narrow NOT general at this point.

Jesus’ response broadens the scope of the context to include relatives when He said, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, among his relatives, AND, in his HOUSEHOLD.”

It is certainly possible that those asking the questions may have been relatives such as cousins or countrymen, but we have no biblical evidence that they literally lived in His house with the 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters. To the contrary, Jesus made it a point to separate these two possibilities with the word “AND”…

"A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, (among his relatives,) AND… in other words not just among the relatives of the hometown, but also … no honor even in his own house by his own brothers James, Jose, Jude, Judas and his sisters.

4 Then Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his household.”

 

[Justin_Mary]

If only a man could be born again of the Spirit. To humble himself & follow his Lord through His mother’s womb.

 

[De_Maria]

hee hee… your statement here reminds me of the Liberal Democrats who say, Yes we want border security. yes we want drones, yes we want electronic surveillance, yes we want more officers on the border. but NO!!!.. we can’t have a wall to help accomplish these things. No sir.

That makes no sense. If anything, you’re the liberal democrat who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word, “security”. You say, “security means drones, surveillance and more officers, but it doesn’t include walls and barriers.”

Yes! His “brothers” means brothers in a vague and general way, Countrymen!.. yes his “brothers” can also mean cousins

Thank you. You just proved your argument wrong.

even though the word cousin from is a different Greek word which the Holy Spirit chose NOT to employ in the text.

That’s true. Did you know that we have a different word for “cousin” in English. Yet many of us choose to call our cousins our “brothers”. Not only that, but we also call our beloved friends, brothers.

Yes His “brothers” can simply mean some obscure list of 4 men who seem to pop up with his mother, Mary,

Have you not noticed that there is another Mary in Scripture, which is described as the “sister” of Jesus’ own mother. And that her children are the ones’ described as Jesus’ brothers?

in the context of curious discussions about Christ’ identity in relations to where He came from.

But NOPE! not his literal brothers! …

He has no “literal” brothers according to Scripture, Tradition or history. But you don’t rely upon the word of God. You rely upon the traditions of men who have distorted the teachings of Christ to their own destruction.

this is protestant thinking all the way my friend. Let me go over the Mark 6 passage again,
…
He is the brother, (singular,) of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon, v3 says. It is here in this verse where the Greek word for “Relative” would make your case. But this is not what the Holy Spirit chose to say. If verse 3 read like “Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the RELATIVE of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon?..” I would be more incline to concede your point.

It doesn’t matter whether you concede or not. The truth is simple and clear. You rely upon YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture alone without regard to history, Tradition or any other evidence which God has provided.

Since Scripture is all you will accept, I have shown you that Scripture identifies another Mary. And describes her as the sister of Jesus’ mother. I have also shown you that it is this Mary who is described as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon. But you prefer to close your eyes to the facts and insist upon your unsupported conclusions based upon a modern reading of the text.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d with @tgGodsway

The line of questioning by the “they said” people of verse 2 continued … "aren’t his sisters here with us? All of the context of thought is very narrow NOT general at this point.

Very narrow because they are known quantities. And they aren’t his sisters of the womb. They are Mary, the sister or kin of His mother and Salome, the daughter of the other Mary.

Jesus’ response broadens the scope of the context to include relatives when He said, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, among his relatives, AND, in his HOUSEHOLD.”

Hahaha. This is why you won’t ever understand this subject matter. You’re reading this from the viewpoint of a wealthy American. Where single family homes are the rule. If more than one family lives in one house, they quickly get upset with each other and move out.

Friend. This is the American dream that draws the whole world to our borders. This is why people are jumping the walls to get in illegally. But you think that this is the norm and that this was the norm from the time of Christ.

No. I was raised in a multi-family dwelling where my cousins (brothers and sisters) slept toe to toe with me on the floor.

Jesus Christ was also raised in poverty. Don’t you remember that they could only afford to offer a dove for His presentation?

It is certainly possible that those asking the questions may have been relatives such as cousins or countrymen, but we have no biblical evidence

Biblical evidence isn’t the only evidence. Do me a favor and crack another book. You think that closing your eyes to the truth will bring you to the truth, but you are mistaken. God gave us many resources to learn about Jesus Christ and you are ignoring most of them.

that they literally lived in His house with the 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters. To the contrary, Jesus made it a point to separate these two possibilities with the word “AND”…

No, He didn’t. You do because you can’t conceive of anything else because you interpret life from your rose colored glasses of modern American living.

"A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, (among his relatives,) AND… in other words not just among the relatives of the hometown, but also … no honor even in his own house by his own brothers James, Jose, Jude, Judas and his sisters.

His cousins, who may have also lived in His house at one time or another.

4 Then Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his household.”

Because Jesus wasn’t born to a wealthy family. Jesus was born in poverty and had to share even His home with His earthly father’s and His mother’s relatives.

Open your eyes. Scripture alone is the devil’s doctrine. It is the recipe for those who want to eat the cake of rebellion against the Word of God which He has given us MAINLY in Sacred Tradition. If this isn’t true, explain why Jesus Christ didn’t write any Scripture? He had 33 years to accomplish this task. But He didn’t. He established a Church and commanded that Church to Teach.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

TWO: Matthew’s Labbaeus Thaddeus is Mark’s Thaddeus which corresponds to Luke’s Judas the brother of James. Did you catch that? Judas the brother of James. Keep that in mind.

How does Thaddeus correspond to Luke’s Judas? And What Luke are you referring to here? Judas the brother of James based on what?.. please quote the verses you are looking at here? These names are very common in their day.

First, you tell me, from Scripture alone.

Please specify what you are talking about here.

I quoted all the lists of the 12 Apostles. Look at the top.

 

[tgGodsway]

until heretics arose forcing the church to define doctrine.

Until heretics showed up forcing the CC to define doctrine? Wow. It’s not like doctrine should be a priority or anything, right? Hello. The eye witnesses to Mary’s life and those doctrine police, called the Apostles, made absolutely no record to the view held today. Keep in mind, their testimony matters more than any other since it was the holy Spirit who recorded her life.

 

[De_Maria]

humbleseeker:

until heretics arose forcing the church to define doctrine.

Until heretics showed up forcing the CC to define doctrine? Wow. It’s not like doctrine should be a priority or anything, right? Hello.

Are you denying the importance of doctrine?

The eye witnesses to Mary’s life and those doctrine police, called the Apostles, made absolutely no record to the view held today. Keep in mind, their testimony matters more than any other since it was the holy Spirit who recorded her life.

On the contrary, the record they left is there. But you refuse to engage it because you want to read Scripture according to your own presuppositions.

I’d like to add that it’s interesting that you ignored humbleseekers 3 or 4 paragraphs and zoned in on 10 words giving the impression that this was his entire response.

The reason you’ve done this is very clear. You want to close your eyes to every source of information which God has provided, except one. And you want to be able to twist that one to your own destruction.

Try reading some of the material that humbleseeker recommended.

 

[tafan2]

Sorry to interject this into the thread. I admittedly have not read all of the thread, but came across this gem yesterday, and I think it is somewhat appropriate. From Ronald Knox’s The Beliefs of Catholics:

And above them all–for who would concede that place of honour more anxiously than themselves?–stands the Virgin Mother of Christ, the sorrowful Mother of us all. Not less intimate because so high above us, not loved less personally because her munificence is so wide, she permeates the thought, the art, the poetry, the lives of Catholics with radiance as of a spring day, or of good news heard suddenly. Protestants have said that we deify her; that is not because we exaggerate the eminence of God’s mother, but because they belittle the eminence of God. A creature miraculously preserved from sin by the indwelling power of the Holy Ghost–that is to them a Divine title, because that is all the claim their grudging theologies will concede, often enough, to our Lord himself. They refuse honour to the God-bearing Woman because their Christ is only a God-bearing Man. We, who know that God could (if he would) annihilate every existing creature without abating anything of his Blessedness or his Glory, are not afraid less the honour done to his creature of perfect Womanhood should prejudice the honour due to him. Touchstone of Truth in the ages of controversy, Romance of the medieval world, she has not lost, with the rise of new devotions, any fragment of her ancient glory. Other lights may glow and dim as the centuries pass, she cannot suffer change; and when a Catholic ceases to honour her, he ceases to be a Catholic.

 

[tgGodsway]

It is true that this week I scanned things that jump off the page and then high light them. It is not true I have taken the time to read through everything and then choose not to respond to certain things. If I were to respond to everyone and everything, I would be full time on this forum. I have a wife and 4 kids at home, not to mention a mortgage and many other things. But your comments are predictable De_Maria.