Mary as Immaculate Conception

[crazzeto]

In order for the doctrine of immaculate conception to be true, Mary would have to have been born in the same way Jesus was, with one non human parent. She would have to be free of sin, yet we see Mary calling God her Savior, thus acknowledging she was a sinner. The Bible also tells us that there is no one righteous, no not one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Mary’s mother would have to be immaculately conceived as well. How could Mary be conceived without sin if her mother was sinful? The same would have to be said of Mary’s grandmother, great-grandmother, and so on. So, in conclusion, the immaculate conception is not a Biblical teaching. The Bible teaches the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus Christ, not the immaculate conception of Mary.

Jesus is LORD

Where do you get this from? Jesus isn’t even said to have been born immaculate, since he was borng God. That’s something different entirly. Mary is based on several scriptual passages, Luke 1:28 is one such passage (which Randy already pointed out)

Another would be Genesis 3:15 below

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=3&l=15&f=s#x

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Notice the Lord tells the serpent (Satan) “I will put enmities between thee and the woman”, looking up enmity in the dictionary we see that it means:

en⋅mi⋅ty  /ˈɛnmɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [en-mi-tee] Show IPA
Use enmity in a Sentence
See web results for enmity
See images of enmity
–noun, plural -ties. a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.

---

Origin:
1250–1300; ME enemite < MF; OF enemiste < VL *inimīcitāt- (s. of *inimīcitās), equiv. to L inimīc(us) enemy + -itāt- -ity

now having this, lets notice the next interesting thing about this passage:

and thy seed and her seed

Huh?? Her seed? How many times have you heard anyone talk about “her seed”? This is one very usual thing to say isn’t it? Unless maybe you happen to be God, and you know that you will be making your word flesh, and bringing it to the world through a Virgin, named Mary.

So the Lord is telling Satan that he will be putting emnity between him (Satan) and the woman who will bare the Word Made Flesh. How could you say Mary had emnity with Satan, if she was not born immaculate? If this wasn’t he case, she would have been born into sin, she would have no emnity with Satan, as the rest of us have no emnity with Satan (if you find your self being shocked by this statement, ask your self: “Have I sinned?”, if yes, then you’ve taken Satan’s side against God at least once in your life).

 

[swords99]

BTW, has anyone ever visited Quito, Ecuador? It has the biggest Catholic Cathedral in the entire country. In the center of the sanctuary you will find Mary hanging on a Cross shedding her blood for you…Mary-not Christ!!

This is what catholics really mean about co redeemer. Her role and adoration has grown so much that it’s getting harder and harder to find Christ.

C’mon folks, why do you keep replacing Jesus? You’ve added sooo much dogmas and traditions over hundreds of years that you no longer know what Jesus really taught.

Jesus is LORD

 

[clmowry]

BTW, has anyone ever visited Quito, Ecuador? It has the biggest Catholic Cathedral in the entire country. In the center of the sanctuary you will find Mary hanging on a Cross shedding her blood for you…Mary-not Christ!!

This is what catholics really mean about co redeemer. Her role and adoration has grown so much that it’s getting harder and harder to find Christ.

C’mon folks, why do you keep replacing Jesus? You’ve added sooo much dogmas and traditions over hundreds of years that you no longer know what Jesus really taught.

Jesus is LORD

It’s not Mary on the Cross. It’s a woman martyr who was actually crucified (by her own father), and who is commemorated for her martyrdom.

You might want to do a bit of fact checking,

catholic.com/library/Expo…atholicism.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9507qq.asp

andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biou1/uncu1.html

On wait this just in, one of the local protestant churches has a Starbucks in their lobby.

A sign right there above every thing else. Not a cross or picture of Christ in the place…I can’t believe protestants are worshiping coffee franchises now instead of Jesus Christ…

Oh wait that would be a silly thing to conclude…

Chuck

 

[Dominicanis]

“This is what catholics really mean about co redeemer. Her role and adoration has grown so much that it’s getting harder and harder to find Christ.”

Here’s what Catholics understand about Mary’s role as co-redemptrix:

Mary said,* “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” ***

His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."

Mary says yes to God, and points to her Son and tells us to do whatever He tells us.

Yours in Christ’s Love,
Dominicanis

 

[Randy_Carson]

In order for the doctrine of immaculate conception to be true, Mary would have to have been born in the same way Jesus was, with one non human parent.

How would this help? She would have inherited original sin from either parent.

She would have to be free of sin, yet we see Mary calling God her Savior, thus acknowledging she was a sinner.

She did not acknowledge herself to be a sinner. She acknowledged that she needed a savior. God saved Mary differently than He saves other people; He prevented her from inheriting the original sin that you and I are born with. That is what made her conception IMMACULATE.

The Bible also tells us that there is no one righteous, no not one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Yes, it does, but Paul did not mean this to be taken literally. Why? Because infants have not sinned. Mentally handicapped people without full use of their reason have not sinned. So, logically not ALL have sinned. Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.

Mary’s mother would have to be immaculately conceived as well. How could Mary be conceived without sin if her mother was sinful? The same would have to be said of Mary’s grandmother, great-grandmother, and so on.

Nope. No infinite regression is necessary. God protected Mary at the moment of her conception. End of story.

So, in conclusion, the immaculate conception is not a Biblical teaching. The Bible teaches the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus Christ, not the immaculate conception of Mary.

I’m afraid the only conclusion is that you do not understand what the Bible is saying even though you have read the words.

 

[Dominicanis]

The Bible teaches** the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus Christ**, not **the immaculate conception of Mary. **

You are treating two things as similar that are not. Christ was conceived of a virgin without human paternity because He is the Son of God. Mary was saved from being tainted with sin so that the Son would have a pure and clean tabernacle within which to dwell. Nothing sinful can be in the Presence of God and live:

Then [Isaiah] said, “Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar. He touched my mouth with it. “See,” he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged."

If a sinful man could be purged of sin and his wickedness removed by an angel, how is it not possible for God Himself to do this with His own grace for the woman who would be the Mother of His Son? God is not bound by space and time as we are; He knew from all eternity that His Son would be born of this woman, so He took the merits of Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross and applied them to her to cleanse her of sin. The reason for this is that God had to place enmity between the woman and the serpent of Genesis, the enemy who had tempted Adam and Eve into sinning.

Complete enmity means that the devil would have no hold over her… * None at all.* This was by God’s plan, not man’s.

The Early Church Fathers called her the Ark of the New Covenant, evoked by Luke’s parallelism between Mary’s meeting with Elizabeth and David recovering the Ark in 2 Samuel 6. God had commanded the older Ark to be crafted with great skill out of precious metals and gems. This newer Ark would be His own handiwork, crafted by the Master Builder, and since all things are made by God through the Son and Holy Spirit, that means that Our Lord got to create His own mother.

Yours in Christ’s Love,
Dominicanis

 

[adriancombe]

Brian-

I understand your argument, but I think the circumstances are different.

In the case of Catholic appeals to the Aramaic concerning Peter, Petros, Petra and Kepha/Cephas, the fact that Peter is called “Cephas” in other passages means that we are not relying simply on the one passage from Mattthew 16:18 to make our case. And the existence of these passages PROVES that Simon was called “Kepha/Cephas” and NOT Petros by Jesus.

In the case of the “brothers” and “adelphoi”, again, other scriptures passages PROVE the Catholic argument by illustrating that James and Joses were NOT uterine brothers but “kinsmen” and that Lot was NOT a “brother” but the nephew of Abram.

In the case of kecharitomene, there are no other passages to which we can refer. Thus, we are left with a Greek word written by a Greek convert who was inspired by the Holy Spirit to tell the story told to him by Mary herself.

And unless Luke knew Aramaic, Mary had to tell her story to him in Greek.

There is another instance of κεχαριτωμενη but it’s in the deuterocanonical of the LXX. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, we cannot readily arrive at any Aramaic language conclusions based on it.
I am certain there are free Hebrew and Aramaic translations out there. I
am not sure if they would be conclusive in this regard. The Chaldean Rite, in use in Iraq to this day, is in Aramaic. If I had easy access to a ton of their liturgical books, I might start there. Still, I have only slight familiarity with Hebrew and virtually none with Aramaic. But I will dig and see what I get.

 

[adriancombe]

There is another instance of κεχαριτωμενη but it’s in the deuterocanonical of the LXX. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, we cannot readily arrive at any Aramaic language conclusions based on it.
I am certain there are free Hebrew and Aramaic translations out there. I
am not sure if they would be conclusive in this regard. The Chaldean Rite, in use in Iraq to this day, is in Aramaic. If I had easy access to a ton of their liturgical books, I might start there. Still, I have only slight familiarity with Hebrew and virtually none with Aramaic. But I will dig and see what I get.

Okay - so it would appear the Aramaic, at least now, reads ‘full of grace’. See here: peshitta.org/pdf/Luqach1.pdf

 

[adriancombe]

This thread was initiated in response to specific claims by Yankee_drifter.

Mary as Immaculate Conception Proved from Scripture

Luke 1:28
Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

Further, Hebrew and Aramaic do not use superlatives as do modern languages (or even Greek). ‘Blessed are you among women’ is a semitic way of saying ‘You are the most blessed woman.’ So for that to be true, she would have to be more blessed than Eve. Since Eve was created sinless, Mary would have to have at least that same advantage, if not greater, for Gabriel’s statement to be true. QED

 

[crazzeto]

The Bible also tells us that there is no one righteous, no not one.

I kind of glossed over this, but I just noticed it and had to comment. This is what you’re talking about, Romans 3:10

9 What then? Do we excel them? No, not so. For we have charged both Jews, and Greeks, that they are all under sin. 10 As it is written: There is not any man just.

Some times I wonder if some Christian’s even notice the bolded words, “As it is written”. These are not insignificant words, why? Because… “It was written”, the logical next question is “where was that written??”. Well, we’re pulling this quote from the bible, could it be that what Paul is talking about is… Written in the bible? Lets do a quick google search (thanks Douay-Rheims).

Lets look at Psalms, Ch 14

1
1 For the leader. Of David. 2** Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is right. **
2
The LORD looks down from heaven upon the human race, To see if even one is wise, if even one seeks God.
3
All have gone astray; all alike are perverse. Not one does what is right, not even one.
4
Will these evildoers never learn? They devour my people as they devour bread; they do not call upon the LORD.
5
They have good reason, then, to fear; God is with the company of the just.
6
They would crush the hopes of the poor, but the poor have the LORD as their refuge.

So “Not one does right, not even one”, but yet “God is with the company of the just”? Who is the “just” if “Not one does right, not even one”? There can’t be any just, unless in this Psalm, which Paul is quoting, God isn’t refering to every single man woman and child. Perhaps the one being referred to is “Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is right.”, or those fools who say in their heart “there is no god”.

So even in the OT passage which Paul quotes, the bible isn’t saying that there aren’t any righteous people, rather it’s talking about a certain group of people and saying among the group, there are no righteous individuals. More over, it talks about those of that group “eating up my people as bread”. Again, it’s making yet another distincion among people.

I think what was missing in this interpetation were 2 things. First the OT context of the quote, secondly and more generally (commonly) for Romans the historical context in which the book (letter) was written. Paul is addressing the Jewdizers! Romans is all about the Gentiles v. the Jewdizers. It’s not about Catholic v. Protestant, or whatever else. You can not read this book with out keeping this in mind, this entire book in the bible is all about a flint knife, the flint knife used to perform circomsision. The Jewdizers were saying you must first become a Jew in order to follow Christ. Paul is trying to set the record straight. What he is saying is anyone can come to Christ, whether or not they observe Jewish law. All then need bring, is their faith and obediance to God, as Abraham did when he offered his son on the alter.

 

[Palamas]

We give up to much when we try to argue only from scripture. The Church existed for over 300 years before the canon of the NT was settle on. And who decided what was in the NT?
The preexisting Church, in a Church council of Orthodox bishops. There were no protestants around, unless you want to count the heretics. Only the Church can properly explicate the NT since it is a record of the experience of the early Church. It is our family history. Someone who is not an Orthodox Cahtolic telling us what is the meaning of the bible is like a stranger trying to tell a person what that person’s personal diary means, or who is in who family picture album.

By all means, use the Bible for our education and edification, but never forget that Church preceded the NT, and as such, it is the Church alone who is the guide, standard, and norm for what the NT says and means and what the true faith is.

 

[crazzeto]

I kind of glossed over this, but I just noticed it and had to comment. This is what you’re talking about, Romans 3:10

Some times I wonder if some Christian’s even notice the bolded words, “As it is written”. These are not insignificant words, why? Because… “It was written”, the logical next question is “where was that written??”. Well, we’re pulling this quote from the bible, could it be that what Paul is talking about is… Written in the bible? Lets do a quick google search (thanks Douay-Rheims).

Lets look at Psalms, Ch 14

So “Not one does right, not even one”, but yet “God is with the company of the just”? Who is the “just” if “Not one does right, not even one”? There can’t be any just, unless in this Psalm, which Paul is quoting, God isn’t refering to every single man woman and child. Perhaps the one being referred to is “Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is right.”, or those fools who say in their heart “there is no god”.

So even in the OT passage which Paul quotes, the bible isn’t saying that there aren’t any righteous people, rather it’s talking about a certain group of people and saying among the group, there are no righteous individuals. More over, it talks about those of that group “eating up my people as bread”. Again, it’s making yet another distincion among people.

I think what was missing in this interpetation were 2 things. First the OT context of the quote, secondly and more generally (commonly) for Romans the historical context in which the book (letter) was written. Paul is addressing the Jewdizers! Romans is all about the Gentiles v. the Jewdizers. It’s not about Catholic v. Protestant, or whatever else. You can not read this book with out keeping this in mind, this entire book in the bible is all about a flint knife, the flint knife used to perform circomsision. The Jewdizers were saying you must first become a Jew in order to follow Christ. Paul is trying to set the record straight. What he is saying is anyone can come to Christ, whether or not they observe Jewish law. All then need bring, is their faith and obediance to God, as Abraham did when he offered his son on the alter.

One correction, I ultimatly pulled Psalm 14 from the NAB rather that Douay, appologies for that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

BTW, has anyone ever visited Quito, Ecuador? It has the biggest Catholic Cathedral in the entire country. In the center of the sanctuary you will find Mary hanging on a Cross shedding her blood for you…Mary-not Christ!!

This is what catholics really mean about co redeemer. Her role and adoration has grown so much that it’s getting harder and harder to find Christ.

C’mon folks, why do you keep replacing Jesus? You’ve added sooo much dogmas and traditions over hundreds of years that you no longer know what Jesus really taught.

Now that you have been shown that your statement above is a gross error, I have two questions:

1. Have you borne false witness against your Catholic neighbors in direct violation of the ninth commandment?
2. Why are you so quick to believe any false rumor just because it’s anti-Catholic?

 

[crazzeto]

Ok, odd… It would seem this is why I had trouble finding what I was looking for in Douay Rheims… What is Psalm 14 in NAB & KJV is Psalm 52 in Douay-Rheims… Oh well, here’s the Douay-Rheims version of Psalm 14 (or 52, depends upon which book you own?)

1 Unto the end, for Maeleth, understandings to David. The fool said in his heart: There is no God. 2 They are corrupted, and become abominable in iniquities: there is none that doth good. 3 God looked down from heaven on the children of men: to see if there were any that did understand, or did seek God. 4 All have gone aside, they are become unprofitable together, there is none that doth good, no not one. 5 Shall not all the workers of iniquity know, who eat up my people as they eat bread?

6 They have not called upon God: there have they trembled for fear, where there was no fear. For God hath scattered the bones of them that please men: they have been confounded, because God hath despised them. 7 Who will give out of Sion the salvation of Israel? when God shall bring back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

Anyway, continue…

 

[PRmerger]

Why do Catholics say Mary needed a Savior yet never sinned?

Because God, her Savior, saved her FROM sin. Prevented her, so to speak, from falling into the deep murky waters of sin.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

This thread was initiated in response to specific claims by Yankee_drifter.

Mary as Immaculate Conception Proved from Scripture

Luke 1:28
Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

Hail Mary Full of Grace was a greeting by the angel sent by God…you keep saying that it SUGGESTS this and SUGGESTS that…Mary plain and simple was a willing vessel that God used to give birth to His Son that was born with out sin. NO WHERE does it say Mary was born without sin. And she was not a prepetual virgin. She and joseph had other children. They are mentioned in Matthew, John, Luke , and Mark.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

This thread was initiated in response to specific claims by Yankee_drifter.

Mary as Immaculate Conception Proved from Scripture

Luke 1:28
Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

Hail Mary Full of Grace was a greeting by the angel sent by God…you keep saying that it SUGGESTS this and SUGGESTS that…Mary plain and simple was a willing vessel that God used to give birth to His Son that was born with out sin. NO WHERE does it say Mary was born without sin. And she was not a prepetual virgin. She and joseph had other children. They are mentioned in Matthew, John, Luke , and Mark.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hail Mary Full of Grace was a greeting by the angel sent by God…you keep saying that it SUGGESTS this and SUGGESTS that…Mary plain and simple was a willing vessel that God used to give birth to His Son that was born with out sin. NO WHERE does it say Mary was born without sin. And she was not a prepetual virgin. She and joseph had other children. They are mentioned in Matthew, John, Luke , and Mark.

I would recommend a re-reading of my post which explains the true meaning of the angel’s greeting.

The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present.

Mary is “full of grace”; no sin was present within her.

Apart from this scriptural evidence, we have the infallible declaration of an authoritative Church to support this dogma.

Finally, no passage of scripture proves that Mary had other children. The “brothers of the Lord” are what we southerners would call “kinfolk”, and the Aramaic word for “brother” had a much broader meaning than uterine sibling. The “brothers of the Lord”, James, Joses, Jude and Simon, are easily shown to be the sons of Clopas and Mary of Clopas.

Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

---

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)
2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

---

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

---

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)
4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

---

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)
5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

---

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

---

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

---

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

1. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Now that you have been shown that your statement above is a gross error, I have two questions:

1. Have you borne false witness against your Catholic neighbors in direct violation of the ninth commandment?
2. Why are you so quick to believe any false rumor just because it’s anti-Catholic?

Swords 99…I never heard that before. I knew that things where turning in that direction, but I never dreamed such a thing could happen…Are you sure…I pray God you are not.
God have mercy on us all.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

I would recommend a re-reading of my post which explains the true meaning of the angel’s greeting.

The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present.

Mary is “full of grace”; no sin was present within her.

Apart from this scriptural evidence, we have the infallible declaration of an authoritative Church to support this dogma.

Finally, no passage of scripture proves that Mary had other children. The “brothers of the Lord” are what we southerners would call “kinfolk”, and the Aramaic word for “brother” had a much broader meaning than uterine sibling. The “brothers of the Lord”, James, Joses, Jude and Simon, are easily shown to be the sons of Clopas and Mary of Clopas.

Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

---

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)
2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

---

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

---

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)
4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

---

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)
5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

---

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

---

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

---

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

1. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.

They refer to Christ as Marys First born…If He was the only child she had the reference would not have been such…indicating that Mary had other children. You are grieving the Holy Spirit and I want no part of this post…