Mary as having authority as the "Queen Mother"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter flameburns623
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Each is clearly, supported by scripture:)

Each is meant to affirm the person of Jesus Christ. In a deeper understanding of Mary, we come to a more full understanding of the two part nature of Christ and His work of salvation.

These are examples of teachings that are held in order to SUPPORT scriptures, and to help us understand the word of God, which is Christ Himself.

Please explain how these ideas are contrary to scripture, because I am not seeing it.
You surely cannot be that naive to Scripture can you? You cannot possibly be reading the inspired Word of God. Again, show me how you can back up Mary being assumed into Heaven body and spirit with the Bible?? For God’s sake Ashley it isn’t even written in Scripture! How can you support it with Scripture? At some point, you need to be able to use your OWN conscience and you OWN reasoning and your OWN knowledge of the TRUTH found in God’s inherant Word. I pray for you as a sister in Christ. I truly do.
 
You surely cannot be that naive to Scripture can you? You cannot possibly be reading the inspired Word of God. Again, show me how you can back up Mary being assumed into Heaven body and spirit with the Bible?? For God’s sake Ashley it isn’t even written in Scripture! How can you support it with Scripture? At some point, you need to be able to use your OWN conscience and you OWN reasoning and your OWN knowledge of the TRUTH found in God’s inherant Word. I pray for you as a sister in Christ. I truly do.
Sia, explain how Jesus gave His Mother to the whole world when at his dying breath he said “BEHOLD YOUR MOTHER”.
 
I expected that the posse would be all jumping in soon.
Can you be serious for once and answer my question? What did you get out of that phrase that Jesus Christ himself said with his dying breath? He gave His Mother to the whole world. So, what is your answer to this?
 
Can you be serious for once and answer my question? What did you get out of that phrase that Jesus Christ himself said with his dying breath? He gave His Mother to the whole world. So, what is your answer to this?
How do you get that out of what he said? Again, you attempt to paraphrase Christ (wrongly) instead of simply reading and believing what he said. This is Catholicism’s way of sealing the deal on the denial that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters. he was talking to James when he said “behold thy mother” and it is clearly stated In Scripture that****James was one of Jesus’ brothers. Refute away because I know that you will!
 
You surely cannot be that naive to Scripture can you? You cannot possibly be reading the inspired Word of God. Again, show me how you can back up Mary being assumed into Heaven body and spirit with the Bible?? For God’s sake Ashley it isn’t even written in Scripture! How can you support it with Scripture? At some point, you need to be able to use your OWN conscience and you OWN reasoning and your OWN knowledge of the TRUTH found in God’s inherant Word. I pray for you as a sister in Christ. I truly do.
I am not disputing that these aspects of the faith are not explicited expounded in the Holy scripture. For me, not everything is IN the BIBLE, as I am not bound to only that part of the Word of God.

Thank you for your prayers:) I cannot rely “on my own understanding” however, as the Bible clearly urgest against that practice. It was the leading of the Holy Spirit which brought me to Christ’s church, and it is by the grace of God that I was brought into the full light of truth:)

What I am disputing is your claim that these teachings are “CONTRARY” to scripture, which you have yet to back up. So until you can show how they go against scripture (not how they are absent, but actually AGAINST) then I am left to assume the Catholic church is right in emphasizing them. For me, they only emphasize the truth and knowledge of Christ, fully man and fully God. They “support” scripture, because they re-affirm what scripture tells us about Jesus.

Please demonstrate for me how they are contrary, because without an example you are bearing false witness.
 
How do you get that out of what he said? Again, you attempt to paraphrase Christ (wrongly) instead of simply reading and believing what he said. This is Catholicism’s way of sealing the deal on the denial that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters. he was talking to James when he said “behold thy mother” and it is clearly stated In Scripture that****James was one of Jesus’ brothers. Refute away because I know that you will!
**HE WAS TALKING TO JOHN!!! JOHN WAS THE ONE “WHOM JESUS LOVED”, HIS DISCIPLE WITH WHOM HE LEFT HIS MOTHER TO! OMG, you can’t even tell me the name of the disciple who stood at the foot of the cross, and you are suppose to be so Scriptural??? Go figure…🤷 **
 
**HE WAS TALKING TO JOHN!!! JOHN WAS THE ONE “WHOM JESUS LOVED”, HIS DISCIPLE WITH WHOM HE LEFT HIS MOTHER TO! OMG, you can’t even tell me the name of the disciple who stood at the foot of the cross, and you are suppose to be so Scriptural??? Go figure…🤷 **
Sorry, my fault. I was addressing you and addressing a discussion about James at the same time. You are correct. My apologies. Same premise though. John would also be one of Jesus’ brothers.
 
Sorry, my fault. I was addressing you and addressing a discussion about James at the same time. You are correct. My apologies. Same premise though. John would also be one of Jesus’ brothers.
Jesus never had brothers. He came for one reason and one reason only. He was DIVINE. This is always the “Protestant standpoint” about Jesus Christ…you people take things so literally…🤷

It is a beautiful day out, can’t waste it on the computer…talk to you soon…
 
Sorry, my fault. I was addressing you and addressing a discussion about James at the same time. You are correct. My apologies. Same premise though. John would also be one of Jesus’ brothers.
**If John was Jesus’s brother he would of addressed him “brother”…good grief, I give up…🤷 **
 
Originally Posted by mpernot
First of all, to answer your challenge, all you have to do is pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church and look up our Blessed Mother. This book speaks for the Catholic Church more authentically than any of us laity can. **Problem: The Bible is the inherant Word of God. The Catechism of the Catholic church isn’t. **
This is a problem for non-Cathlolics only. I mostly agree with your bold quote, though the Catechism is infallible and every word of it agrees with the Word of God and was taught by the Church with the authority of God. You asked in post 71 - "Prove all of these so called Truths that cannot be found in Scripture. The Marian doctrines, the papacy etc". I responded with the Catechism. If you really want to know what the Catholic Church believes on Mary, look it up in the book that contains the Catholic beliefs. You didn’t ask for a Scripture verse, so don’t be disappointed that I didn’t give you one.

But, I’ll bet you say, this doesn’t prove anything. Well, the proof is purely based on the authority of the Catholic Church. Catholics believe that the Church was given her authority by Christ, and so whatever the Church infalliby proclaims has the authority of Christ to back it up ( keep in mind that only Church doctrine in the area of faith and morals can be infallibly proclaimed, not the score of the football game or anything the pope happens to like that day). That’s the proof. I’ll bet you won’t be satisfied with this because you likely don’t believe the Church’s authority was given to her by Christ, but that’s the way it is. I’m sure this has been discussed countless times in other threads, so we should not hijack this one (any more than it already has been, that is) to go deeper into this.
Originally Posted by mpernot
Having said that, show me where the Bible says that everything we as Christians need to know about our faith must come only from Sacred Scripture. If this is what you believe, you ought to be able to find a verse from Scripture that backs this up. Can you do this? **I don’t believe everything that is truth is contained in Scripture, but I do believe that everything in the Bible is truth. Think about that. **
I agree with 100% of your reply to my quote in bold. Great. So, if you believe that there is truth contained outside of Scripture (so do Catholics, we have common ground), then why do you keep asking for Scriptural evidence of Marian doctrine to justify it? You just admitted that the fact that certain Catholic beliefs about Mary are not counter to Scripture *simply because *they are not explicitly stated in Scripture.

Also, if you believe that truth is contained outside of Scripture, who gets to decide exactly what pieces of material (writings, oral traditions, etc.) outside of Scripture are truth? You? Me? How does one get the authority to teach this to others - do they have to have a theology degree or a certain IQ? It’s all subjecive unless something gives this “proclaimer of truth” some authority to make the proclamation valid - it isn’t you or I simply because we said so in a thread. Do you see where authority becomes important?

I think we’d both agree that this “proclaimer of truth” has to be able to trace their authority to a command from Christ in order for us to find them credible. Catholics believe that the Catholic Church can do that, so we believe her when she proclaims doctrine. You likely do not believe that she has that authority, so you do not believe it - this is logical and rational, I wouldn’t expect you to believe anything without believing in the authority that it came from. But on the flip side, that’s why Catholics believe in the Church’ doctrine on Mary, the Saints, Purgatory, and all the other doctrines she teaches, It all comes down to authority.
The writings of the Bible are authored by St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, Jesus Christ, etc. etc. Why would anything they believed to be truth be so far removed from what was recorded in their writings? This is kind of getting at the root of the problem with Catholicism.
I thought you said before that the author of Scripture was God? Don’t you believe that St. Peter, St. Paul, etc. wrote down God’s word, not their own? You gave another poster a heck of a time about this when they tried to explain that the Catholic Church was the one that compiled God’s word as Sacred Scripture.

And again, there’s more than just Sacred Scripture that composes our faith - you just said so above. The fact that something is not explicitly (or even implicitly) mentioned in Scripture does not make it a false doctrine. Find the word “Trinity” in Scripture, if you can. It isn’t there, yet I’ll go out on a limb and say that we likely both believe in the Holy Trinity. It doesn’t get more fundamental for a Christian than the Holy Trinity, yet the word never appears in Scripture. Lots of important thing happened that weren’t written down, including things that happened to Mary.What happened in Jesus’ life from the time His parents found Him in the temple to the time He is mentioned promulgating the Good News? Scripture doesn’t tell us, yet surely everything that happened to Jesus in His Earthly life was important, right? We could trade example after example of this sort of thing back and forth and be no further than when we started. If one doesn’t understand the authority of the Catholic Church, they will not believe her.
 
This is a problem for non-Cathlolics only. I mostly agree with your bold quote, though the Catechism is infallible and every word of it agrees with the Word of God and was taught by the Church with the authority of God. You asked in post 71 - "Prove all of these so called Truths that cannot be found in Scripture. The Marian doctrines, the papacy etc". I responded with the Catechism. If you really want to know what the Catholic Church believes on Mary, look it up in the book that contains the Catholic beliefs. You didn’t ask for a Scripture verse, so don’t be disappointed that I didn’t give you one.

But, I’ll bet you say, this doesn’t prove anything. Well, the proof is purely based on the authority of the Catholic Church. Catholics believe that the Church was given her authority by Christ, and so whatever the Church infalliby proclaims has the authority of Christ to back it up ( keep in mind that only Church doctrine in the area of faith and morals can be infallibly proclaimed, not the score of the football game or anything the pope happens to like that day). That’s the proof. I’ll bet you won’t be satisfied with this because you likely don’t believe the Church’s authority was given to her by Christ, but that’s the way it is. I’m sure this has been discussed countless times in other threads, so we should not hijack this one (any more than it already has been, that is) to go deeper into this.

I agree with 100% of your reply to my quote in bold. Great. So, if you believe that there is truth contained outside of Scripture (so do Catholics, we have common ground), then why do you keep asking for Scriptural evidence of Marian doctrine to justify it? You just admitted that the fact that certain Catholic beliefs about Mary are not counter to Scripture *simply because *they are not explicitly stated in Scripture. No I did not. I said that there are things that came to pass from the authors of Scripture that are not in Scripture, but some of the Marian dogmas are contrary to Scripture
Big difference between not in Scripture and contrary to Scripture.

Also, if you believe that truth is contained outside of Scripture, who gets to decide exactly what pieces of material (writings, oral traditions, etc.) outside of Scripture are truth? You? Me? How does one get the authority to teach this to others - do they have to have a theology degree or a certain IQ? It’s all subjecive unless something gives this “proclaimer of truth” some authority to make the proclamation valid - it isn’t you or I simply because we said so in a thread. Do you see where authority becomes important?But again, where does this authority of the church come from? We can debate all day long about binding and loosing.

I think we’d both agree that this “proclaimer of truth” has to be able to trace their authority to a command from Christ in order for us to find them credible. Catholics believe that the Catholic Church can do that, so we believe her when she proclaims doctrine.**Here again, is the Catholic church God itself? ** You likely do not believe that she has that authority, so you do not believe it - this is logical and rational, I wouldn’t expect you to believe anything without believing in the authority that it came from. But on the flip side, that’s why Catholics believe in the Church’ doctrine on Mary, the Saints, Purgatory, and all the other doctrines she teaches, It all comes down to authority.

I thought you said before that the author of Scripture was God? Don’t you believe that St. Peter, St. Paul, etc. wrote down God’s word, not their own? You gave another poster a heck of a time about this when they tried to explain that the Catholic Church was the one that compiled God’s word as Sacred Scripture.

And again, there’s more than just Sacred Scripture that composes our faith - you just said so above. The fact that something is not explicitly (or even implicitly) mentioned in Scripture does not make it a false doctrine. Find the word “Trinity” in Scripture, if you can. It isn’t there, yet I’ll go out on a limb and say that we likely both believe in the Holy Trinity. That is because the Bible tells us that it is true beyond a shadow of a doubt in many many verses. It doesn’t get more fundamental for a Christian than the Holy Trinity, yet the word never appears in Scripture. Lots of important thing happened that weren’t written down, including things that happened to Mary.**Here we go again. Like what and how do we know?**What happened in Jesus’ life from the time His parents found Him in the temple to the time He is mentioned promulgating the Good News? Scripture doesn’t tell us, yet surely everything that happened to Jesus in His Earthly life was important, right? We could trade example after example of this sort of thing back and forth and be no further than when we started. If one doesn’t understand the authority of the Catholic Church, they will not believe her.
 
So, if you believe that there is truth contained outside of Scripture (so do Catholics, we have common ground), then why do you keep asking for Scriptural evidence of Marian doctrine to justify it? You just admitted that the fact that certain Catholic beliefs about Mary are not counter to Scripture simply because they are not explicitly stated in Scripture. No I did not. I said that there are things that came to pass from the authors of Scripture that are not in Scripture, but some of the Marian dogmas are contrary to Scripture
Big difference between not in Scripture and contrary to Scripture.
First of all, you sure did say this very thing in post 91: “I don’t believe everything that is truth is contained in Scripture, but I do believe that everything in the Bible is truth.” You are contradicting yourself by demanding Scriptural proof of Marian doctrines, just as you did in post 81 - "Again, show me how you can back up Mary being assumed into Heaven body and spirit with the Bible?? For God’s sake Ashley it isn’t even written in Scripture! How can you support it with Scripture?" So you can believe truths outside of Scripture but Catholics can’t? Because they’re not your truths? This is why we have 33,000+ Christian denominations.

And to your point, there is nothing that Catholics believe about Mary that is contrary to Scripture. Nothing. Some of these doctrines can’t be found directly in Scripture, but none of them are contrary to Scripture.
Also, if you believe that truth is contained outside of Scripture, who gets to decide exactly what pieces of material (writings, oral traditions, etc.) outside of Scripture are truth? You? Me? How does one get the authority to teach this to others - do they have to have a theology degree or a certain IQ? It’s all subjecive unless something gives this “proclaimer of truth” some authority to make the proclamation valid - it isn’t you or I simply because we said so in a thread. Do you see where authority becomes important?But again, where does this authority of the church come from? We can debate all day long about binding and loosing.
I already gave this answer. The authority to proclaim truth must be traceable to authority given by Christ. I wouldn’t settle for anything less, and neither should you.
Catholics believe that the Catholic Church can do that, so we believe her when she proclaims doctrine.Here again, is the Catholic church God itself?
No the Catholic Church is not God itself. However, she has the authority to speak for God on Earth (when speaking on matters of faith and morals) and can trace this authority back to Jesus through apostolic succession. Agree or disagree, this is the Catholic basis for saying these things.
I thought you said before that the author of Scripture was God? Don’t you believe that St. Peter, St. Paul, etc. wrote down God’s word, not their own? You gave another poster a heck of a time about this when they tried to explain that the Catholic Church was the one that compiled God’s word as Sacred Scripture.
I noticed that you chose not to address this.
Find the word “Trinity” in Scripture, if you can. It isn’t there, yet I’ll go out on a limb and say that we likely both believe in the Holy Trinity. **That is because the Bible tells us that it is true beyond a shadow of a doubt in many many verses. **
The Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship is clearly established, but the word “Trinity” is not used. Catholics are routinely blasted for not having their beliefs stated verbatim in Scripture, but it seems that it’s alright for non-Catholic Christians to describe their beliefs with words not in Scripture (the Holy Trinity, again, as an example). This is the case for some Marian doctrines, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this line of reasoning to refute the Catholic belief in Purgatory. It makes no sense, so don’t use it to attack Marian doctrine.
Lots of important thing happened that weren’t written down, including things that happened to Mary. Here we go again. Like what and how do we know?
That’s my whole point, just because something can’t be explicitly found in Scripture doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or makes it unimportant. I noticed you use this line of reasoning to refute the papacy in post 77. So all of the secular historical events from around 25 AD must also not have happened because they’re not in Scripture? Please, the Bible is supposed to contain the word of God, not to record the history of the world or the Church. This reasoning just doesn’t make sense.
 
Mary as co-Redemptrix with Christ.

Mary as co-Mediatrix with Christ.

Mary as perpetually virgin.

Mary remaining without sin for her entire earthly life.

Each can be Clearly refuted by using Scripture.
None of these are contrary to Scripture, but I’m guessing that your basis for saying this about Mary as Co-Mediatrix comes from 1 Tim 2:5:

1 Tim 2:5: “For there is one God, and there is *one mediator *between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…”

Similar arguments are used against Mary as Co-Redemptrix. So, as Catholics, we are told that Mary as Co-Mediatrix is counter to Scripture because this verse says that Jesus is the only mediator. However, just as in many other passages of Scripture, reading and interpreting literally is not accurate.

There were instances in the Old Testament where Abraham, Moses, and Job clearly interceded on behalf of others… that’s mediating between God and man. Scripture cannot contradict itself, so how do we reconcile this with 1 Tim 2:5? Also, we know that it is okay to ask others here on earth to pray for us… that’s mediating between God and man. This is another passage that is convenient for non-Catholic Christians to misinterpret and slam Catholic beliefs, so they do.

There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, but as members of the Body of Christ, He allows us to share in His mediation.

Also, Scripture tells us that we have only one foundation, Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11); but, Scripture tells us that there is more than one foundation (Eph 2:19-20). Scripture tells us that we have only Lord, Jesus Christ (Eph 4:4-5); but, Scripture tells us there is more than one lord (Rev 19:16). Scripture tells us that we have only one Judge, Jesus Christ (James 4:12); but, Scripture tells us there is more than one judge (1 Cor 6:2).

Contradictions in Scripture? No! Not when these passages are all properly understood in context. Catholics take the totality of Scripture into account, not just specific verses that “prove” something we want to say. Jesus is the only foundation; Jesus is the only Lord; and Jesus is the only Judge. But, we are members of Jesus’ Body. Therefore, we are able, according to the graces given by Christ, to share in Jesus’ role as foundation, as lord, and as judge, and in other aspects of Christ, as well.

Another example, as a father I share in God’s role as Father, by His grace. This doesn’t make me equal to God the Father, as I am only sharing in this Fatherhood that He established because He lets me (God the Father set up the family and fatherhood to work this way). So also with Mary; she shares in Christ’s role as redeemer and mediator because He allows her to, not because she is equal to Jesus (indeed she is not, she is a creature created by God) or in some other way has earned God status. Her capacity in these roles is to bring people to her Son, not to herself. Similarly, we and the saints and angels in Heaven can share in Christ’s role as Mediator by bringing others to Him.

I’ve heard this analogy used before, and it made a lot of sense to me. Say a mother is going to bake a cake. She has all the ingredients out and is ready to go when her daughter comes in and asks “Mom, can I help you make the cake?”. The mother says “yes”, and they make it together. The mother didn’t say “yes” because she needed the daughter’s help or couldn’t do it without her. By saying yes, the mother allowed the daughter to share in the process. Same idea with Mary’s role; she is not equal to God. Every power/role she has was given to her by God because of His grace, not any merit of her own. Jesus was Mary’s savior, too.

So again, I say, the ideas of Mary as Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix are not counter to Scripture. These ideas are, however, very misunderstood among non-Catholics. They cannot be directly found in Scripture, but you yourself told me that this alone doesn’t make them counter to Scripture.

Information included paraphrases the following work:
biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#14
 
You surely cannot be that naive to Scripture can you? You cannot possibly be reading the inspired Word of God. Again, show me how you can back up Mary being assumed into Heaven body and spirit with the Bible?? For God’s sake Ashley it isn’t even written in Scripture! How can you support it with Scripture? At some point, you need to be able to use your OWN conscience and you OWN reasoning and your OWN knowledge of the TRUTH found in God’s inherant Word. I pray for you as a sister in Christ. I truly do.
By what test do you decide that it is really the Holy Spirit leading you? How do you know that you do not just think what you want to think, and then persuade yourself that it must be right because you think it, and that your opinion must be the voice of the Holy Spirit? Other people, just as sincere, arrive at other conclusions. Why would it be wiser to accept your verdict rather than theirs? All kinds of strange religions have been given to the world by men who have declared with the utmost confidence that the Holy Spirit is responsible for their ideas. St. John warns us: “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into this world.” And he adds, “He that heareth not us, is not of God. By this we know the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error.” 1 Jn. IV., 6. St. John appeals to the teaching of the Apostles as constituting the teaching Church - that Catholic Church of which Christ said, “If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen.” That Church we Catholics hear and obey.
 
How do you get that out of what he said? Again, you attempt to paraphrase Christ (wrongly) instead of simply reading and believing what he said. This is Catholicism’s way of sealing the deal on the denial that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters. he was talking to James when he said “behold thy mother” and it is clearly stated In Scripture that****James was one of Jesus’ brothers. Refute away because I know that you will!
The reference to Jesus as the Son of Mary and the brother of James and Joseph, Jude and Simon, as also to His sisters is also quite compatible with our Lord’s being the only Son of Mary. The term brothers or sisters was applied to any near relatives within the same tribe even though they were first, second or third cousins. In much the same way I could speak of a brother American without suggesting that he was of the same mother as myself. Remember that in the Aramaic language used at the time, there was no word in existence to denote cousin. The Jews had to use the word “Achim,” brethren, for the description of any kindred by collateral descent. I could give you a dozen references from the Old Testament proving the Jewish usage of those terms for half-brothers, nephews and nieces, cousins, and any blood relatives in general. Renan, quite an unbeliever in Christ and whose verdict is above suspicion, says of this passage that the preliminary expression “the Son of Mary” followed by the mention of the other names takes it for granted that Jesus was known as the only son of a widow. Loisy, another who was by no means well disposed towards the Catholic doctrine, declares that, when Mary hesitated to accept the offer of the Angel to become the Mother of Christ, she spoke so absolutely when she said, “How shall this be, for I know not man,” that Catholics are justified in seeing the intention of perpetually preserving her virginity.
 
There are many things here that I am being pressed with from several posters. Let me respond. What I am saying is that I believe what the Scriptures contain and what the authors of the books of the Bible are saying to be God’s inherant Word. It is crazy to think that every single happening in all of early Christian history would be written about and contained in Scripture. It is equally crazy to also believe that (would be) very imporant events in early Christian history would have never been even faintly eluded to in these writings. I believe that God wishes for everyone to know his Word and to begin to dive into its understanding and meaning. I do not however believe that the meaning and understanding only belong to a select few persons. The Bible does not tell us this. The Bible is very specific on many topics including the Trinity, the Eucharist, the divinity of Christ, Salvation etc etc even though some of these exact words are not used. The Bible however is either completely silent or in contrast to many Catholic dogmas. This was (when I was a cradle Catholic) is and always will be a problem for me. I am much closer aligned with Catholic tradition and practice than I am with raw Evangelism simply because of the richness of that tradition traced back to the Early Church and how the Apostles worshipped. I do not dispute this. What I do dispute mainly is how Catholicism defines the papacy and the Marian dogmas. I believe wholeheartedly in the Reformation and why it happened. I believe that reformation is needed in all churches. After all, we are human and we need to be rebooted every so many generations. Just some thoughts from me, a proud and happy Anglican worshipping our Holy and Almighty God.
 
The reference to Jesus as the Son of Mary and the brother of James and Joseph, Jude and Simon, as also to His sisters is also quite compatible with our Lord’s being the only Son of Mary. The term brothers or sisters was applied to any near relatives within the same tribe even though they were first, second or third cousins. In much the same way I could speak of a brother American without suggesting that he was of the same mother as myself. Remember that in the Aramaic language used at the time, there was no word in existence to denote cousin. The Jews had to use the word “Achim,” brethren, for the description of any kindred by collateral descent. I could give you a dozen references from the Old Testament proving the Jewish usage of those terms for half-brothers, nephews and nieces, cousins, and any blood relatives in general. Renan, quite an unbeliever in Christ and whose verdict is above suspicion, says of this passage that the preliminary expression “the Son of Mary” followed by the mention of the other names takes it for granted that Jesus was known as the only son of a widow. Loisy, another who was by no means well disposed towards the Catholic doctrine, declares that, when Mary hesitated to accept the offer of the Angel to become the Mother of Christ, she spoke so absolutely when she said, “How shall this be, for I know not man,” that Catholics are justified in seeing the intention of perpetually preserving her virginity.
I don’t agree. The originators of the Gospels knew very well how to distinguish between brothers, sisters and other kin. They did so in many other parts of Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top