Protestants honest question about Mary

[rinnie]

There is nothing in the scriptures that says that she wasn’t a perpetual virgin. Once again…When Christ was on the Cross he did what any good Jewish, ONLY SON of Mary would do…he gave her to John to take into his home. Because if he had had brothers it would not have been necessary to give her to anyone because they would have already been taking care of her once Jesus was arrested.

May the peace of Christ be with you!
CC

Goes back to Tradition guys. You can’t understand the N.T. without understanding the O.T. God bless, its Monday night football. Go Steelers! Hope to hear from all you wonderful people tommorow. Have a great night! Sleep wonderful with the Peace of Christ in your hearts.

 

[nlm]

I believe Mary was indeed a very special person who was very obedient. I also believed she suffered greatly during her life as she watched her son be treated the way he was and killed.
My opinion has always been that the Catholic Church placed much emphasis on Mary a long time ago at a time when many people were not very well educated, were unable to understand the latin which played such an important role in mass and other parts of the liturgy so were given someone to focus on as a very real example of how they should live their lives. After all she was a human being like themselves and was called to do a great thing. They also were worthy of doing great things as well.
I also believe praying the rosary was a form of prayer even illiterate individuals were able to learn and use to pray.As a former monk, I know a long time ago there were two categories of members of some religious orders. One of those categories was made up of individuals who were not always well educated. They were unable to participate in the singing of the liturgy of the hours .As a result, they were expected to say the rosary. I do understand how she has and continues to play an important role within the church, and I respect that. Just look at how many churches , cathedrals and basilicas around the world are named in her honor. Religious orders are named after her. many feast days are in her honor.
I come from a city where the cathedral is named in her honor. One of the side altars has a very large marble statue of Mary( probably 10 to 12 feet tall) . She wears a crown of gold and numerous luminaries are placed in front of this altar for people to burn candles in her honor. Pope John Paul ll knelt in front of this altar and prayed.I can remember processions outside the church in honor of Mary during the month of May.Large statues and beautiful ornate banners where carried, flowers were dropped before her etc. When one looks at all this it is easy to see why this “could” be interpreted as a form of worship.
One of my grand mothers could not read or write and had a fierce devotion to Mary. She recited the rosary constantly,even during mass. In her case, it is not an exageration to say she worshiped Mary.
I don’t pray to Mary nor do I pray to the saints but I respect those who do.I also believe we should follow her example and say “yes” when we are called on by the Holy Spirit to participate in God’s work. God Bless. NLM

 

[sckcd]

Wow!** Where did you get that teaching? I know better then to ask for scripture on that one, because its impossible.

According to the teachngs of the Church all are born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin.**

We get it through scripture. I guess you disagree with St Paul also then. He said one mans disbedience many were made sinners.

That’s because I think for myself, I don’t follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yes, we are born with a sinful nature, meaning we will indeed be sinful. But you aren’t a sinner *until *you sin and a newborn baby has yet to sin, although it surely will.

 

[elvisman]

That’s because I think for myself, I don’t follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yes, we are born with a sinful nature, meaning we will indeed be sinful. But you aren’t a sinner *until *you sin and a newborn baby has yet to sin, although it surely will.

Then why are on earth you in RCIA?
If you don’t believe what the Church teaches and reject some of it - why are you trying to join it?

This is a sincere question.

 

[ccolley2]

**What specific **quotes say that she had other children?
No Protestant has ever been able to answer this question.

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.
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).

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.
What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?
Matt. 27:56 says,* “…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph*, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”.
Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").
Finally, John 19:25 tells us, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

A comparison of these accounts of the crucifixion shows the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.
Another Protestant “proof” against the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the word “until”. Matt. 1:25 says: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Did Mary have other children after Jesus? As we have examined – the Bible does not support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until**”.
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.”
Are we to assume that Michal had children after** she died*?*

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): “For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?

The problem here is that the anti-Catholic attempts to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

Game. Set. MATCH.

yes!
cc

 

[DerekD]

I’ve alread proven in post #62 that it cannot be proven by Ccripture that Mary had other children. If you have other verses to back up your claim - please present them. Otherwise, I suggest you use less offensive language when referring to the Catholic position on Mary.

We do not consider her to be a "goddess". that is an anti-Catholic invention.

I have already said that you can ignore the obvious and explain it away, but still does not change the facts or the truth. So go about walking on the path of the blind and try not to fall into a pit along the way; you might get hurt.

 

[crazzeto]

There is nothing in the scriptures that says that she wasn’t a perpetual virgin. Once again…When Christ was on the Cross he did what any good Jewish, ONLY SON of Mary would do…he gave her to John to take into his home. Because if he had had brothers it would not have been necessary to give her to anyone because they would have already been taking care of her once Jesus was arrested.

May the peace of Christ be with you!
CC

Yeah, I asked this question with scripture and explanation on pg 5 (at least in my system, don’t know if there are variable # posts per page). I’d love to see how this is explained otherwise.

 

[DerekD]

There is nothing in the scriptures that says that she wasn’t a perpetual virgin. Once again…When Christ was on the Cross he did what any good Jewish, ONLY SON of Mary would do…he gave her to John to take into his home. Because if he had had brothers it would not have been necessary to give her to anyone because they would have already been taking care of her once Jesus was arrested.

May the peace of Christ be with you!
CC

Unfortuanately you do not understand the significance of Jesus telling John that this is your mother. You missed the entire point and context, but any explanation will not be sufficient for you, but I will tell you that Jesus did not have any believing brothers at that time and if you recall Jesus told us who His real family is; and it isn’t unbelievers.

 

[Nominefili]

I don’t really understand why these different arguments within Mariology are so important. Catholics ferociously defend them, and many Protestants go out of their way to argue against them. Luther’s position was this: “I believe in the immaculate conception and the semper virgo, but there isn’t enough scriptural evidence to bind people’s salvation to a belief in these doctrines.”

The immaculate conception: It’s certainly not impossible (although it does seem to require a lineage of immaculately conceived individuals.) I find it interesting that people believe that God could intervene with Mary’s conception to prevent the stain of original sin but couldn’t skip that step and just do the same directly for Jesus. This begs the question: if God made Mary, a mere mortal, to be born without original sin, why doesn’t he just do the same for all of us?

Regarding the semper virgo, why is it so critical that Mary had not slept with her husband? Even taking into account a belief in the immaculate conception, it’s not a sin to have children with one’s husband, so why exactly is it the subject of so much anger and frustration? I don’t think the scriptures are clear one way or the other. Both sides of the argument are convincing in my opinion. What I haven’t heard is a rationale as to why Mary had to be ever-virgin after Jesus’ birth.

Assumption of Mary: This one is a little much. The earliest recorded accounts of this doctrine as far as I know (provided to me by a Catholic member on this forum) was from 390 AD.That’s pretty late to be developing ideas this radical. If anyone has earlier accounts of this, please do share, as I’m curious to learn more about it.

I hope this did not come across as judgmental. I’m open to belief in these doctrines of Mary, but I do find it a bit challenging given my Lutheran upbringing. I have just been somewhat flustered with how critical these beliefs seem to both sides of the debate.

 

[elvisman]

I have already said that you can ignore the obvious and explain it away, but still does not change the facts or the truth. So go about walking on the path of the blind and try not to fall into a pit along the way; you might get hurt.

So, in short - you can’t prove a thing about Mary having other children.
Just what I thought - discussion over.

Game. Set. MATCH.

 

[DerekD]

So, in short - you can’t prove a thing about Mary having other children.
Just what I thought - discussion over.

Game. Set. MATCH.

Only in the mind of the ignorant of Scripture; so on that rule you win and will always win, but on God’s you lose…game…set…match!

 

[crazzeto]

I don’t really understand why these different arguments within Mariology are so important. Catholics ferociously defend them, and many Protestants go out of their way to argue against them.

And with that last part, you hit on why we defend them, because they are attacked. We hold them because they are true

Luther’s position was this: “I believe in the immaculate conception and the semper virgo, but there isn’t enough scriptural evidence to bind people’s salvation to a belief in these doctrines.”

The immaculate conception: It’s certainly not impossible (although it does seem to require a lineage of immaculately conceived individuals.)

No offence, but your suggestion here is an attempt to look past the miricle. In order to believe this, you might as well start suggesting that Jesus being born god/man would have required a liniage of god/men.

I find it interesting that people believe that God could intervene with Mary’s conception to prevent the stain of original sin but couldn’t skip that step and just do the same directly for Jesus.

The question isn’t that God couldn’t have done this. It’s that if he didn’t God and sin would co-exist for a period of 9 months at least. More over it would bring up the question of how, exactly, God would go about inheriting his human nature from Mary with out inheriting sin in anyway. Could God have done it as you describe? Well with God all things are possible. But is it rational that God would choose a completly miraculas means to put Jesus on earth? If God is going to go as far as you describe, why not just have him suddenly appear on earth as an adult? But then, at least in our minds, would we be able to accept that he was fully and truely human?

This begs the question: if God made Mary, a mere mortal, to be born without original sin, why doesn’t he just do the same for all of us?

Because we inherit our nature from Adam, to erase original sin for everyone would require erasing all consequence (which we still live with) of Adam’s sin. To do that would mean erasing Adam’s free will, and our free will.

Regarding the semper virgo, why is it so critical that Mary had not slept with her husband? Even taking into account a belief in the immaculate conception, it’s not a sin to have children with one’s husband, so why exactly is it the subject of so much anger and frustration? I don’t think the scriptures are clear one way or the other. Both sides of the argument are convincing in my opinion. What I haven’t heard is a rationale as to why Mary had to be ever-virgin after Jesus’ birth.

Quite simply she did not, in fact there is actually little basis to believe that she did other than some folks just have a very hard time wrapping their minds around the idea that some people could be married and not have relations. Well this was already common in Mary’s time, there were a host of consecrated virgins who married for protection, and never had relations.

It was the tradition of the early Church that those Priests who were married at ordenation stopped having relations (permentently) with their spouse and lived as “brother and sister”. This is because such a tradition was already in place in Jeudism, where the preist would stop having relations durring the period of time which he was actually serving as Preist. The difference for our Priests was, quite simply, that you never cease to be fuctioning as a preist.

Assumption of Mary: This one is a little much. The earliest recorded accounts of this doctrine as far as I know (provided to me by a Catholic member on this forum) was from 390 AD.That’s pretty late to be developing ideas this radical. If anyone has earlier accounts of this, please do share, as I’m curious to learn more about it.

Probably the most difficult doctrine to accept, but as has been posted:

The most compelling reason is the lack of evidence. Christians from the start had an affinity for holy relics. When Constantine converted he sent his mother on a quest to locate as many holy relecs as could be found. She found the actual cross of the crusifixion, the lance that perices his side among other artifacts. Why has the Holy Mother been missing all this time? She lived with St. John, if she simply died St. John certainly would know where she was burried, as would St. Ireanus who was a direct deciple of John.

Why did no one think to take a relec of the Mother of God?

I hope this did not come across as judgmental. I’m open to belief in these doctrines of Mary, but I do find it a bit challenging given my Lutheran upbringing. I have just been somewhat flustered with how critical these beliefs seem to both sides of the debate.

Not at all, it came across as genuine.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I believe Mary was indeed a very special person who was very obedient. I also believed she suffered greatly during her life as she watched her son be treated the way he was and killed.
My opinion has always been that the Catholic Church placed much emphasis on Mary a [SIGN]long time ago at a time when many people were not very well educated[/SIGN], were unable to understand the latin which played such an important role in mass and other parts of the liturgy so were given someone to focus on as a very real example of how they should live their lives. After all she was a human being like themselves and was called to do a great thing. They also were worthy of doing great things as well.
I also believe praying the rosary was a form of prayer even illiterate individuals were able to learn and use to pray.As a former monk, I know a long time ago there were two categories of members of some religious orders. One of those categories was made up of individuals who were not always well educated. They were unable to participate in the singing of the liturgy of the hours .As a result, they were expected to say the rosary. I do understand how she has and continues to play an important role within the church, and I respect that. Just look at how many churches , cathedrals and basilicas around the world are named in her honor. Religious orders are named after her. many feast days are in her honor.
I come from a city where the cathedral is named in her honor. One of the side altars has a very large marble statue of Mary( probably 10 to 12 feet tall) . She wears a crown of gold and numerous luminaries are placed in front of this altar for people to burn candles in her honor. Pope John Paul ll knelt in front of this altar and prayed.I can remember processions outside the church in honor of Mary during the month of May.Large statues and beautiful ornate banners where carried, flowers were dropped before her etc. When one looks at all this it is easy to see why this “could” be interpreted as a form of worship.
One of my grand mothers could not read or write and had a fierce devotion to Mary. She recited the rosary constantly,even during mass. In her case, it is not an exageration to say she worshiped Mary.
I don’t pray to Mary nor do I pray to the saints but I respect those who do.I also believe we should follow her example and say “yes” when we are called on by the Holy Spirit to participate in God’s work. God Bless. NLM

Oh my low blow. So a long time ago when people were not very educated. Well its these people who you feel that were not very educated that taught that Mary was blessed with outstanding gifts of Grace. It was because of this special grace that she played a central role in her sons work of redemption.

In the Magnificant Mary acknowledges that God is that source of all the blessings she received and in it she was coved to acknowledge prophetically. Henceforth all generations will call me blessed precicely because God freely chose to do great things in her.

 

[crazzeto]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Oh my low blow. So a long time ago when people were not very educated. Well its these people who you feel that were not very educated that taught that Mary was blessed with outstanding gifts of Grace. It was because of this special grace that she played a central role in her sons work of redemption.

In the Magnificant Mary acknowledges that God is that source of all the blessings she received and in it she was coved to acknowledge prophetically. Henceforth all generations will call me blessed precicely because God freely chose to do great things in her.

That is a complete fabrication… A long time ago people were every bit as brilliant as they were today. Do students still not struggel to understand Aristotle? Socrates? And yet this poster (responding to the same one you’re responding to) is going to suggest that “we believe error because people weren’t very bright back then”? Hogwash. Christendom was made up of the highly educated, people who studied all the acient religions and philosophies and understood them, something most modern people have no concept of.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Oh my low blow. So a long time ago when people were not very educated. Well its these people who you feel that were not very educated that taught that Mary was blessed with outstanding gifts of Grace. It was because of this special grace that she played a central role in her sons work of redemption.

In the Magnificant Mary acknowledges that God is that source of all the blessings she re[SIGN]c[/SIGN]eived and in it she was coved to acknowledge prophetically. Henceforth all generations will call me blessed precicely because God freely chose to do great things in her.

May I stress this point. Now if Mary acknowledges that God is the Source of all the blessings she receives, and this is Catholic teaching how in the world could that mean that she over powers Christ? Or Replaces him in some way.

Now easy question easy answer. Why do we believe that God listens to Marys prayers. Luke tells us. Hail Mary FULL OF GRACE the Lord IS WITH YOU.

Cardinal Newman observes that the glories of Mary were always for the Sake of her Son. To insist on the sublimity of Marys role was a way of glorifying Jesus. Efforts to minimize Marys role seemed to flow from lack of faith in Jesus.

 

[rinnie]

That is a complete fabrication… A long time ago people were every bit as brilliant as they were today. Do students still not struggel to understand Aristotle? Socrates? And yet this poster (responding to the same one you’re responding to) is going to suggest that “we believe error because people weren’t very bright back then”? Hogwash. Christendom was made up of the highly educated, people who studied all the acient religions and philosophies and understood them, something most modern people have no concept of.

I agree, I take that to mean that the Holy Spirit did not lead the Church back then. No one can understand the word of God without the power of the Holy Spirit to guide them. Jesus promised the Power of the Holy Spirit to the Church back then the same as today. Same Holy Spirit guideing the Church.

I am very disapointed in one thing though, Did he say he was a monk? I have to go back and see, If so I am very disapointed in the understanding of the dear Blessed Mother.

 

[rinnie]

I believe Mary was indeed a very special person who was very obedient. I also believed she suffered greatly during her life as she watched her son be treated the way he was and killed.
My opinion has always been that the Catholic Church placed much emphasis on Mary a long time ago at a time when many people were not very well educated, were unable to understand the latin which played such an important role in mass and other parts of the liturgy so were given someone to focus on as a very real example of how they should live their lives. After all she was a human being like themselves and was called to do a great thing. They also were worthy of doing great things as well.
I also believe praying the rosary was a form of prayer even illiterate individuals were able to learn and use to pray.[SIGN]As a former monk, I[/SIGN] know a long time ago there were two categories of members of some religious orders. One of those categories was made up of individuals who were not always well educated. They were unable to participate in the singing of the liturgy of the hours .As a result, they were expected to say the rosary. I do understand how she has and continues to play an important role within the church, and I respect that. Just look at how many churches , cathedrals and basilicas around the world are named in her honor. Religious orders are named after her. many feast days are in her honor.
I come from a city where the cathedral is named in her honor. One of the side altars has a very large marble statue of Mary( probably 10 to 12 feet tall) . She wears a crown of gold and numerous luminaries are placed in front of this altar for people to burn candles in her honor. Pope John Paul ll knelt in front of this altar and prayed.I can remember processions outside the church in honor of Mary during the month of May.Large statues and beautiful ornate banners where carried, flowers were dropped before her etc. When one looks at all this it is easy to see why this “could” be interpreted as a form of worship.
One of my grand mothers could not read or write and had a fierce devotion to Mary. She recited the rosary constantly,even during mass. In her case, it is not an exageration to say she worshiped Mary.
I don’t pray to Mary nor do I pray to the saints but I respect those who do.I also believe we should follow her example and say “yes” when we are called on by the Holy Spirit to participate in God’s work. God Bless. NLM

This really makes me sad to hear this.

 

[sckcd]

Then why are on earth you in RCIA?
If you don’t believe what the Church teaches and reject some of it - why are you trying to join it?

This is a sincere question.

My husband is Catholic and he has recently returned to regular church attendance at my urging and prayers. No, I am not Catholic and I am perfectly happy with the church I attend (I still go to mine, too), but in order for us to worship as a family, I also attend the CC with him and our 2 children (because he is not comfortable attending anywhere else since he grew up Catholic). I like it okay and I am thrilled he is interested in church again, even if it not the church I would choose for myself. I started RCIA so I can know what mass is about and what the CC stands for. And no, I *don’t *feel comfortable with every teaching, but I am going to finish RCIA and see if it ever makes sense to me. I have not decided to convert or anything, but it is a possibility. I have a lot to learn and to discuss with our priest, but I am not going to “just accept things” to join the CC. It seems so far that the CC is an “all or nothing” kind of thing. There is probably nothing on earth that I can accept 100%. Not my current church, not the political candidate of my choice, not the town I live in, nothing. There is always something that I am not in total agreement with, and if the CC can’t handle that then maybe it’s not for me. But I am making an honest effort to learn more. So does that answer your question? I am not trying to join, just seeing what it’s all about. I really would like to be able to belong to the same church as my husband but I’m not going to join if I have to accept certain ideas just because someone “said so”.

 

[rinnie]

My husband is Catholic and he has recently returned to regular church attendance at my urging and prayers. No, I am not Catholic and I am perfectly happy with the church I attend (I still go to mine, too), bu[SIGN]in order for us to worship as a family, I [/SIGN]t also attend the CC with him and our 2 children (because he is not comfortable attending anywhere else since he grew up Catholic). I like it okay and I am thrilled he is interested in church again, even if it not the church I would choose for myself. I started RCIA so I can know what mass is about and what the CC stands for. And no, I *don’t *feel comfortable with every teaching, but I am going to finish RCIA and see if it ever makes sense to me. I have not decided to convert or anything, but it is a possibility. I have a lot to learn and to discuss with our priest, but I am not going to “just accept things” to join the CC. It seems so far that the CC is an “all or nothing” kind of thing. There is probably nothing on earth that I can accept 100%. Not my current church, not the political candidate of my choice, not the town I live in, nothing. There is always something that I am not in total agreement with, and if the CC can’t handle that then maybe it’s not for me. But I am making an honest effort to learn more. So does that answer your question? I am not trying to join, just seeing what it’s all about. I really would like to be able to belong to the same church as my husband but I’m not going to join if I have to accept certain ideas just because someone “said so”.

Good for you. I think this is great. And I do not think you should be forced to convert to anything, When my husband and I got married we were like you two just the opposite. I did not agree with his faith, and would never change, he knew that going in and we were fine with it. He started out with his church me mine. Then he eventually became Catholic. But it was his choice, I could not imagne someone ever taking away my Church and faith and could not do that to him. But God brought him into the faith when God felt he was ready. THe same with you. You will learn alot of our faith, and should because your Kids will be Catholic some day. And you are right its all or nothing in our faith. But I have alot of faith in our Church and feel you will someday be at home with it too. For now I will keep you in my prayers. And someday maybe I can say Welcome to our faith.

 

[DerekD]

My husband is Catholic and he has recently returned to regular church attendance at my urging and prayers. No, I am not Catholic and I am perfectly happy with the church I attend (I still go to mine, too), but in order for us to worship as a family, I also attend the CC with him and our 2 children (because he is not comfortable attending anywhere else since he grew up Catholic). I like it okay and I am thrilled he is interested in church again, even if it not the church I would choose for myself. I started RCIA so I can know what mass is about and what the CC stands for. And no, I *don’t *feel comfortable with every teaching, but I am going to finish RCIA and see if it ever makes sense to me. I have not decided to convert or anything, but it is a possibility. I have a lot to learn and to discuss with our priest, but I am not going to “just accept things” to join the CC. It seems so far that the CC is an “all or nothing” kind of thing. There is probably nothing on earth that I can accept 100%. Not my current church, not the political candidate of my choice, not the town I live in, nothing. There is always something that I am not in total agreement with, and if the CC can’t handle that then maybe it’s not for me. But I am making an honest effort to learn more. So does that answer your question? I am not trying to join, just seeing what it’s all about. I really would like to be able to belong to the same church as my husband but I’m not going to join if I have to accept certain ideas just because someone “said so”.

What church do you attend now? Are you being fed the Word of God? I find it fasinating that you prayed for your husband to attend church regularly; is the Catholic church what you were praying for?