Protestants and Mary

[Dokimas]

I understand you. Sorry, I won’t change the way I feel about the situation, however…we all dodge posts from time to time. Oh, and about your “scripture meaning being taken out of context” comment: Likewise.

God Bless

If there’s statements or questions you’d like me to consider that you think I have not, please let me know. I’ll try my best.

 

[rchapm77]

And if you go back and read the posts – it has already been proven ad nauseam that the “siblings” of Jesus mentioned in Scripture were NOT uterine brothers. You may have missed it, so I’ll review:

In the Septuagint, the normal Greek words for “brother(s) “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used much more liberally than the normal meaning. It was applied to cousins, uncles, nephews and kinsmen alike. The Aramaic word, “ach”, encompasses the meanings for* brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman*. The attempt by some Protestants to apply one word for all of these meanings in 21st century English is ludicrous. Just as languages differ – so do the meanings of different words.

It can be illustrated that Jesus himself and the Apostles studied and quoted from the Septuagint. The fact is that many passages in the New Testament are directly correlated to these 7 books from the Septuagint. Some examples include: Matt. 27:42/Wis. 2:18-20, Luke 24:4/2 Macc. 3:26, John 10:22/1Macc 4:36 & 52-59, Rom. 11:33/Judith 8:14, 1 Cor. 10:20/4:7 and 1 Pet. 1:6-7/Wis. 3:5-6. The Septuagint use of the word “Adelphos” is used MUCH more liberally that the regular Greek.

Furthermore, there was no term for the word “cousin” in the Aramaic language that our Lord spoke. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek in the centuries before the birth of Christ (the Septuagint), the words “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used in places where “ach” was. This is why we have many examples in the Septuagint of the following:

In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother", even though he was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28). In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" of his uncle Laban.

Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brethren”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

There is another problem for Protestants who try to prove that Mary had other children and list the names given in the bible. They give the names of these adelphoi, James, Joseph (Joses), Jude (Judas), and list the passages that mention these adelphoi, (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

According to the 2nd century document, The Protoevangelium of James, these brothers and sisters of the Lord were Joseph’s children from another marriage. However, there is stronger Scriptural evidence that would debunk the myth of these “siblings”.

The “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being the mother of James and Joses and Salome. She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” *(adelphe) *(John 19:25).

**James is elsewhere described as the son of *Alphaeus ***(Matt. 10:3), which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. It’s also possible that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the same way that Saul took the name Paul.

You have given many sound arguments on this thread that the term brothers doesn’t neccesarily mean sibling. You have convenced me, thats one of the many things I have learned here. However while you have made the point that Jesus may not have had siblings, you have not proven that as fact from scripture. I’m not bringing this up to say that your position is wrong, only to say that there isn’t enough evidence to say for fact that He didn’t have siblings.

 

[CWBetts]

You have given many sound arguments on this thread that the term brothers doesn’t neccesarily mean sibling. You have convenced me, thats one of the many things I have learned here. However while you have made the point that Jesus may not have had siblings, you have not proven that as fact from scripture. I’m not bringing this up to say that your position is wrong, only to say that there isn’t enough evidence to say for fact that He didn’t have siblings.

Christianity is not bound by Scripture alone. Christianity is bound by Scripture and tradition. Where Scripture in this matter is ambiguous, Sacred Tradition is not. Jesus had no bllod siblings.

 

[rchapm77]

Okay great all of what you say could be true except…this also must be true for all Christians. I think the problem with labeling is that it becomes very ambiguous about all the other folks who have did the will of God throughout the ages. Very example Paul should be rendered as co-medatrix and co-redeemer because it appears but not limited to just Paul as teh biggest advocate of the gentiles and to the Jews that spread the gossple.Why can’t he have a title like that who Peter or any others who have died and has been tormented for Christs sake. Albeit, I am not God but nor is the Pope either.

We are all called to be planters of Christ to people…we are all called to be co-heirs alongside with Christ. We are all called to be the mirror by which people see Jesus. When we start to label one person who attains all these things it can become very dangerous and can very easily be idioltry very quickly. Not saying you we are there yet but it can turn that way…I was listening to a catholic radio were litterly this priest demanded Mary to do something about a certian issue in his church. and after this guy came in she gave thanks to Mary??? This is where these worshiping of Mary steam from. It was like he went to God and said hey, I have this problem that I need your help on give me somebody to fix it and then God sends Mary (which I have no problem) But because this individual went straight to Mary and even gave thanks to Mary is an act of worship were we need to give all supplications and prayers to God.

Amen

 

[Bengoshi]

But the messiah they believed in was not Jesus Christ nor anywhere near like Jesus Christ. They believed in a different kind of Messiah.

Besides, in Noah’s and Abraham’s time there was no concept of a messiah yet so faith in a messiah was non existent.

I think “prospective faith” is just one of your coined words to wiggle out of this.

Only because you say that “salvation” comes only through faith. But that is not quite true. When babies are baptized, they have no conscious faith.

Also, what do you do with the severely mentally ill from birth who has no conscious faith?

Will try to read back.

I 'm sorry but you are definitely WRONG. How can you say that there was no concept of a coming Messiah before Noah’s time? Even in the book of Genesis there was already a hint of the coming Messiah, and Catholics love to quote that verse (Gen. 3:15).

The Jews’ belief in a different Messiah was only of recent times. Isaiah clearly describes the coming “Suffering Servant.” I am not “wiggling out” of anything. What I’m saying is very logical and biblical. You just refuse to see it. Moreover, I did not coin the term “prospective faith,” it has been in usage by theologians for God knows when! It is not originally mine. I encountered it in my theological studies.

As regards salvtion by baptism, we do not believe that as well. We are not saved by works but by grace through faith. Baptism is a declaration of that faith and a symbol of a person dying to sin and being born again in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). This is out of the topic of this thread though.

Infants and imbecils may still be saved by God’s mercy, providence, and grace. Again, there is a theological term for it but I couldn’t remember it at this time. I think it’s potential something… Anyway, I’ll try to remember it.

 

[AwGusTeen]

How strong is your agrument that your beliefs are correct because my church says they are true and my church has been around for 2000 yrs? Now be honest with yourself.

Would you care to answer my question, or do you prefer to obfuscate?

 

[Bengoshi]

You have given many sound arguments on this thread that the term brothers doesn’t neccesarily mean sibling. You have convenced me, thats one of the many things I have learned here. However while you have made the point that Jesus may not have had siblings, you have not proven that as fact from scripture. I’m not bringing this up to say that your position is wrong, only to say that there isn’t enough evidence to say for fact that He didn’t have siblings.

I agree. In fact, I have attended a seminar series in 2007 by a Catholic priest who is also a salesian seminary professor in the Philippines and in Israel. I posed him the question regarding Jesus’ possible siblings and his answer was that there really is no evidene either way. There are good arguments for both sides but we can never really be sure. Anyway, as I have already said before, it really doesn’t matter whether or not Mary had other children. I would respect and honor her just the same. It doesn’t affect our salvation either. So I think it’s one of those non-essentials in which there could be disagreement amongst believers.

 

[benedictus2]

I 'm sorry but you are definitely WRONG. How can you say that there was no concept of a coming Messiah before Noah’s time? Even in the book of Genesis there was already a hint of the coming Messiah, and Catholics love to quote that verse (Gen. 3:15).

The hint of the coming messiah is Catholic exegesis. Noah and Abraham or even Moses did not believe in a Messiah during their time. You will not find biblical support for that.

The Jews’ belief in a different Messiah was only of recent times. Isaiah clearly describes the coming “Suffering Servant.”

True. But Isaiah was way after Abraham, Noah and Moses. So back to the point I am making. If you take, Abraham. Noah and Moses, they were not “saved” by their faith in Jesus.

That is why we are not saved by faith. We are saved by grace. Not necessarily just faith but faith working in love. Love is work.
I am not “wiggling out” of anything. What I’m saying is very logical and biblical. You just refuse to see it. Moreover, I did not coin the term “prospective faith,” it has been in usage by theologians for God knows when! It is not originally mine. I encountered it in my theological studies.
Must be a protestant invention. I think it is a term coined to wiggle out of precisely this line of reasoning. Because without such terminology you basically end up saying Abraham and Moses were destined for hell.

On the other hand, we Catholics say Abraham and Moses were saved because Jesus descended to gather them in the three days before His resurrection.

As regards salvtion by baptism, we do not believe that as well.

I know.
We are not saved by works but by grace through faith.
Only half of the story. We are saved by faith working in love. We are not saved by faith alone. The only time faith and alone came together in the Bible was in the phrase “not by faith alone”.

Baptism is a declaration of that faith and a symbol of a person dying to sin and being born again in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). This is out of the topic of this thread though.

Not necessarily since you brought out that we are saved by faith.

Infants and imbecils may still be saved by God’s mercy, providence, and grace. Again, there is a theological term for it but I couldn’t remember it at this time. I think it’s potential something… Anyway, I’ll try to remember it.

So now we have potential faith. I thought one needs conscious faith?? Isn’t that your problem with Mary being sinless because she did not have conscious faith in the womb?

 

[Good_Fella]

True but this is done not just to Mary but to all of us who have faith in God it is counted to them as righteous too. If Mary by her merit of faith was cleansed of original sin at conception I have no problem with it. But to claim that she was perfect or sinless before conception I would say not.

Mary’s predestination to the divine maternity does not depend on any foreseen merits of hers, although God intended to become incarnate by her free consent. If she had merited the divine maternity, then she would have merited the incarnation as well, which is impossible since the incarnation is the principle of all our merits since the fall of Adam and Eve. Thus her immaculate conception was a gratuitous gift resting strictly on the merits of her divine Son so that she would be a worthy mother of our Lord.

“He has looked with favour on his lowly handmaid.”
Luke 1, 48

PAX :heaven:

 

[Dokimas]

You have given many sound arguments on this thread that the term brothers doesn’t neccesarily mean sibling. You have convenced me, thats one of the many things I have learned here. However while you have made the point that Jesus may not have had siblings, you have not proven that as fact from scripture. I’m not bringing this up to say that your position is wrong, only to say that there isn’t enough evidence to say for fact that He didn’t have siblings.

Especially since the same Greek word is used for the relationship between Peter and Andrew and between James and John.

 

[Dokimas]

I agree. In fact, I have attended a seminar series in 2007 by a Catholic priest who is also a salesian seminary professor in the Philippines and in Israel. I posed him the question regarding Jesus’ possible siblings and his answer was that there really is no evidene either way. There are good arguments for both sides but we can never really be sure. Anyway, as I have already said before, it really doesn’t matter whether or not Mary had other children. I would respect and honor her just the same. It doesn’t affect our salvation either. So I think it’s one of those non-essentials in which there could be disagreement amongst believers.

I guess I’d agree with both of you. My concern is more for Mary that she’s possibly been put in a place she doesn’t want to be.

 

[CWBetts]

I guess I’d agree with both of you. My concern is more for Mary that she’s possibly been put in a place she doesn’t want to be.

Typical Protestant hubris. They claim to know the state of other’s souls, have an understanding of the scriptures that renders them infallible, and now they know what Mary does and doesn’t want. Pretty arrogant for someone who sees her as just an incubator.

 

[Dokimas]

Quote:AwGusTeen

How strong is your agrument that your beliefs are correct because my church says they are true and my church has been around for 2000 yrs? Now be honest with yourself.

Would you care to answer my question, or do you prefer to obfuscate?

I don’t mean to be so blunt but I quess you want me to be. So here goes.​

Your church says it’s been around for 2000 yrs and that Peter is the first pope (I guess because your church thinks he started the church in Rome).​

Historical evidence reveals your church as we know it did not strart for many years after Peter. As it’s been shown, the ‘second pope’ was believed to be ordained by Paul not Peter. Paul was in Rome before Peter probably making Paul the first apostle of Rome.​

There is no evidence that Peter took on the title of pope. I’m sure he could care less. The fact your church claims he was the first pope of its church is a weak argument for your church being the correct church and that it goes back to Jesus.​

As been pointed out by some here, some of the teachings of your church can’t be supported by Scripture without really stretching meaning beyond understanding.​

Whenever any one or group tells me I can’t understand the Bible without their understanding (slant) there seems to be a red flag flying in my face. That makes me look even harder and I’d have to say, when I’ve looked harder, often the Bible says something different.​

I was glad to take a better look at Mary’s life. I became to understand she’s a wonderful example of faith, whose faith we all should consider. After a closer look, the wonderfulness of Mary in spite of being a sinner is obvious and equally as obvious is that your church’s believe go way beyond anything the Bible says.

 

[Dokimas]

Typical Protestant hubris. They claim to know the state of other’s souls, have an understanding of the scriptures that renders them infallible, and now they know what Mary does and doesn’t want. Pretty arrogant for someone who sees her as just an incubator.

You continue to spout foolishness. Out of your own keyboard you reveal something about yourself (“They claim to know the state of other’s souls, have an understanding of the scriptures that renders them infallible”)​

The Bible has many instances that people were elevated (or tried to be elevated) to places that are not theirs. Godly people reject the position (Johnathan, for example); some people welcome the position to their destruction and the pain of others (Saul: first king of Israel)​

Mary, a godly woman, would not want a place not given her. She would be sad that people keep putting her wrongly in a place not hers to be in.

 

[Good_Fella]

I guess I’d agree with both of you. My concern is more for Mary that she’s possibly been put in a place she doesn’t want to be.

Modern day Protestants, who can’t even agree whether an infant ought to be baptized, have placed Mary where our Lord doesn’t want her to be: in an unmarked grave. :sad_yes:

PAX :heaven:

 

[CWBetts]

I don’t mean to be so blunt but I quess you want me to be. So here goes.​

Your church says it’s been around for 2000 yrs and that Peter is the first pope (I guess because your church thinks he started the church in Rome).​

Historical evidence reveals your church as we know it did not strart for many years after Peter. As it’s been shown, the ‘second pope’ was believed to be ordained by Paul not Peter. Paul was in Rome before Peter probably making Paul the first apostle of Rome.​

There is no evidence that Peter took on the title of pope. I’m sure he could care less. The fact your church claims he was the first pope of its church is a weak argument for your church being the correct church and that it goes back to Jesus.​

As been pointed out by some here, some of the teachings of your church can’t be supported by Scripture without really stretching meaning beyond understanding.​

Whenever any one or group tells me I can’t understand the Bible without their understanding (slant) there seems to be a red flag flying in my face. That makes me look even harder and I’d have to say, when I’ve looked harder, often the Bible says something different.​

I was glad to take a better look at Mary’s life. I became to understand she’s a wonderful example of faith, whose faith we all should consider. After a closer look, the wonderfulness of Mary in spite of being a sinner is obvious and equally as obvious is that your church’s believe go way beyond anything the Bible says.

Your problem is that you are using things that are irrelevant (like whether or not Pater actually called himself “pope”) and you are relying on the Scriptures for you only Authority, which Scripture itself does not imply. In fact you are going directly against Scripture in one very important aspect: you rely on your own reason and understanding and you do not trust God, nor do you trust the Church He founded. If you read the early Church Fathers, you will see that the practice of the Early CHurch was very much Like the Catholic Church. Depending on the Scripture alone, you have no idea waht practice was like, because it is not discussed. As far as St. Peter using the word “pope” why does it matter. The important thing is that Peter had primacy over the other Apostles, a fact which is irrefutable.

 

[Dokimas]

Modern day Protestants, who can’t even agree whether an infant ought to be baptized, have placed Mary where our Lord doesn’t want her to be: in an unmarked grave. :sad_yes:

PAX :heaven:

As for infant baptism, doesn’t seem a good case can be made that anyone in the NT baptised anyone but those who chose to put faith in Jesus, thus old enough to decide for themselves.​

 

[Dokimas]

Your problem is that you are using things that are irrelevant (like whether or not Pater actually called himself “pope”) and you are relying on the Scriptures for you only Authority, which Scripture itself does not imply. In fact you are going directly against Scripture in one very important aspect: you rely on your own reason and understanding and you do not trust God, nor do you trust the Church He founded. If you read the early Church Fathers, you will see that the practice of the Early CHurch was very much Like the Catholic Church. Depending on the Scripture alone, you have no idea waht practice was like, because it is not discussed. As far as St. Peter using the word “pope” why does it matter. The important thing is that Peter had primacy over the other Apostles, a fact which is irrefutable.

I use the word ‘imply’ because I realize my understanding could be wrong. You seem to think your church can’t be wrong. IMO, a very dangerous position.​

God created us with the ability to reason. We are told to study the Word by the Word itself.​

Calling Peter pope if he doesn’t see himself as such, would be man made, not God made. God would have let him know his place in church history if it was so important as to be the first of a list of most important catholics of their time.​

If I remember correctly, you’ve been shown (if you’ve seen the posts and read) that the Bible does not put Peter as the leader of the early church: James was and Paul gained prominence as time went on.

 

[CWBetts]

As for infant baptism, doesn’t seem a good case can be made that anyone in the NT baptised anyone but those who chose to put faith in Jesus, thus old enough to decide for themselves.​

In Acts entire household were Baptized. Jesus said we were not to refuse children. The Early Fathers baptized children.

 

[centurion210]

I use the word ‘imply’ because I realize my understanding could be wrong. You seem to think your church can’t be wrong. IMO, a very dangerous position.​

God created us with the ability to reason. We are told to study the Word by the Word itself.​

Calling Peter pope if he doesn’t see himself as such, would be man made, not God made. God would have let him know his place in church history if it was so important as to be the first of a list of most important catholics of their time.​

If I remember correctly, you’ve been shown (if you’ve seen the posts and read) that the Bible does not put Peter as the leader of the early church: James was and Paul gained prominence as time went on.

Please answer this question: WHY was scripture compiled and who did the compiling ?