D
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Protestants, who have been around awhile, question about the Virgin Mary
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
K
kellerk
Guest
kellerk;9369357:
I totally agree! I want you to know, we are not taught that you must only be “catholic” to be saved. I believe you can be saved without a church or a bible, that the Truth is written in our hearts. But, that’s for another discussion. I do believe however, that the church established by Jesus was meant to be one church, united. The division, the corruption, the confusion is of the enemy, STARTING FROM DAY ONE!david ruiz;9368266:
This is true.Just because there is division should we change the method of conveyance of knowledge AND it’s interpretation ? There has been division over God’s word from day 1. “Hath God really said” echoes from the Garden of Eden to our dark days. Should God then change the way He communicates ? No .This is the norm and always has been. God speaks . God has it written . Let him who can discern and understand do so, but who can deny that it is by His Spirit that He talks to our spirit. No human being can escape the responsibility of such a divine privelege of discerning what is right. Nothing is automatic .It (righteousness) must be divinely revealed. We are not born with it. We can not earn it. It is a free gift from God, graciously given to those who seek with a broken and contrite heart. No man seeks after this, yet Jesus says seek and ye shall find. …to be cont…No I am not offended at anything you have posted .I enjoy our conversation and sorry if I am a bit gruff.May we continue in His grace on this.Thanks
Now, I can’t help but wonder why my original questions are being avoided.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
QUOTE=kellerk;9369357have you read the books we are speaking of and then dismissed them or have you just decided not to read them at all? And also, have you attended a mass or just believed all the information
you’ve heard about it? /QUOTE I have a catholic bible and read maybe only twenty minutes worth and read brief synopsis of each book also.Have attended Mass.Click on a name(daveruiz) and will contain public history.Attended mass for 15 years or so. Do not have catechism but have read many of it;s answers here and elswhere .Grew up with Baltimore Catechism ,which helped “save” me with it’s answer to , “What is faith…Faith is a gift from God” …to be cont.
B
brumano
Guest
QUOTE=Roy5;9362187]
Mhmm, and Mary is a person who does participate very actively in that working of things for good to those who love the Lord; so you might have found another Scriptural reference to Mary, she even works for good toward those who don’t love the Lord, this is her co redemptive love at work which is greater than any human because her love for God is greater than any other human’s. So those who love her are always more relaxed even when faced with the worst terrors and at the end of the day no matter what just thinking of her can still give us our hope back and a reason to get back up and try again.Code:Keep smiling. We read in scripture that all things work together for good to them that love the Lord. I'm sure our posters here do, with few exceptions. So, we can relax and enjoy the benefits of simple faith without all the massive theological systems that can divide us.
Exactly right, again you describe Mary, the pure and simple virgin mother of the Most High God.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Admittedly the majority are, like Catholics, Christians, and believers, simply following what they best know to be the truth, not intending malice.Attila
Code:I know you will have trouble believing this, but most supporters of Planned Parenthood, most gay activists, and even Dan Brown and such are most likely sincere men and women who honestly believe they are promoting the welfare of humankind. (Well, perhaps Brown is more interested in winning recognition and making money?) One problem with many devoutly religious folks - like some Catholics, some evangelicals, some Muslims, etc. - is that they demonize those who disagree with them. They refuse to respect them as people because they despise their views so much. They are so angry at them that they adopt an attitude quite out of keeping with that of Christ who told us is his Sermon on the Mount to "love our enemies", do good to them who hate you, pray for those who spitefully use us, etc.
I once knew a teacher at my college who was pro-abortion. We talked a bit after classes finished (and she was very polite about it). Her reasons for supporting abortion were, while not always entirely logical, quite respectable.
And I once knew a sapphist who wanted gay marriage to be legalised in my state of Nebraska so she could “marry” her gay lover. The vile vitriol which poured from her mouth about Christianity and the nonsense about stopping people from loving and all that… I don’t think these words were her own. They very much sounded canned. As does the anger she had.
But these feelings and positions don’t come from nowhere. Behind every gay activist and abortion rights activist is a source of information and emotion. While not all workers for Planned Parenthood may be hostile to truth, someone must have been. While not all gay activists know that their statistics are skewed, whomever disseminated them does, or does not care.
It is these people who, like Montanus, like the Gnostic leaders, like John Calvin, like Joseph Smith, and like L. Ron Hubbard, who benignly or malignantly, are to blame for the harm which has come to so many souls. And whether they meant well or not, they caused others harm, and caused others to harm others.
And as much as we cannot allow murder, theft, slander, or libel, whether for good or evil reasons, how can we allow heresy, which is slander and libel against God and against the world, to go unpunished, whether done for good or for evil reasons?
I put most of the blame on the leaders, like Margaret Sanger. But heresy must be punished in some respect because it is a grave matter. It’s going to be difficult to determine what is truth since the world has forgotten what truth is. But how can we allow the slander of God yet arrest for the slander of another man?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
True it goes a long way to understand those first 500 years of Orthodoxy also. One begins to see clearer what is and was always important in the Church.I do believe however, that the church established by Jesus was meant to be one church, united. The division, the corruption, the confusion is of the enemy
Peace
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Oh, and another thing, Roy. Might want to check 2nd Peter, chapter 2:
False Prophets and Teachers
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell[a] and committed them to chains** of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;[c] 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials,[d] and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge[e] in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.
Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, 11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. 12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, 13 suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions,[f] while they feast with you. 14 They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! 15 Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, 16 but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.
17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. 18 For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves[g] of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”**
“The pathway to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
R
Roy5
Guest
Hi Attila:Admittedly the majority are, like Catholics, Christians, and believers, simply following what they best know to be the truth, not intending malice.
I once knew a teacher at my college who was pro-abortion. We talked a bit after classes finished (and she was very polite about it). Her reasons for supporting abortion were, while not always entirely logical, quite respectable.
And I once knew a sapphist who wanted gay marriage to be legalised in my state of Nebraska so she could “marry” her gay lover. The vile vitriol which poured from her mouth about Christianity and the nonsense about stopping people from loving and all that… I don’t think these words were her own. They very much sounded canned. As does the anger she had.
But these feelings and positions don’t come from nowhere. Behind every gay activist and abortion rights activist is a source of information and emotion. While not all workers for Planned Parenthood may be hostile to truth, someone must have been. While not all gay activists know that their statistics are skewed, whomever disseminated them does, or does not care.
It is these people who, like Montanus, like the Gnostic leaders, like John Calvin, like Joseph Smith, and like L. Ron Hubbard, who benignly or malignantly, are to blame for the harm which has come to so many souls. And whether they meant well or not, they caused others harm, and caused others to harm others.
And as much as we cannot allow murder, theft, slander, or libel, whether for good or evil reasons, how can we allow heresy, which is slander and libel against God and against the world, to go unpunished, whether done for good or for evil reasons?
I put most of the blame on the leaders, like Margaret Sanger. But heresy must be punished in some respect because it is a grave matter. It’s going to be difficult to determine what is truth since the world has forgotten what truth is. But how can we allow the slander of God yet arrest for the slander of another man?
Code:
You sound like a man from Medieval times. I was just reading again about Jan Hus, He protested some Church policies prior to Luther and Calvin, was guaranteed safe passage to defend his views, then was totally betrayed and burned at the stake. I associate that sort of policy with Hitler and Stalin - and, frankly, with the Church in those days when it murdered dissenters. Even Thomas Aquinas favored turning heretics over to the state to be executed. This attitude was in large part responsible for bitterness toward Catholicism prior to Vatican II when a more tolerant attitude was embraced.
By the way, lumping Calvin in with Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard is ridiculous. Calvin was in most ways an orthodox Christian while Smith and Hubbard created cults far removed from Christian teachings. The Congregational, Presbyterian and Reformed traditions today emanated from Calvinism, although most members of those churches have diverged sharply from Calvinism and are much more liberal than he was. Obama, for example, attended a United Church of Christ, a merger of Congregational and E&R (Evangelical and Reformed) churches that occurred in 1957. I can't imagine Calvin supporting the ordination of gays or performing same-sex weddings, two positions accepted by the UCC in recent years.
On the other hand, I believe in an open hearts, open minds and open doors. Christ told us to beware of judging - "judge not that ye be not judged'. I'll let God do the judging. We're dealing with decent people here. So, be kind.
B
BornAgainRN
Guest
Having been raised Catholic & having studied the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that ‘the Word of the Lord’ (the Bible) supports the belief that the ‘brothers & sisters’ of Jesus in Matthew 12:46-50 & Matthew 13:54-57 are Jesus’ half-brothers & sisters, & NOT referring to His disciples, cousins, step-brothers & step-sisters, or ‘spiritual’ brothers & sisters:This is for the Protestants who never knew much about our faith, and the true teaching’s of what our faith teaches on the Blessed Mother.
Has you changed your opinion any from the first time you started on this site, until now your feeling’s about her.
Is your understanding of what we really teach and what you thought we taught alot different?
First, Matthew 13:54-57 gives us their names: James, Joses (Joseph), Simon, & Judas (Jude). They are clearly brothers, since they are part of a family unit, along with their father, ‘the carpenter’ (Joseph) & Mary, their mother.
Second, at the cross, Mary the wife of Alphaeus (aka: Clopas), who is the mother of James the Less & Joses (Joseph) are mentioned (Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25-27). James is the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3). However, James & Joseph are never paired in Scripture as ‘brothers’ of Simon & Judas (Jude). So, they are ‘not’ the ‘James & Joseph’ in Matthew 13:54-57.
Third, at the cross Salome (Mark 15:40) is the sister of Jesus’ mother (Mary) (John 19:25-27) & the mother of Zebedee’s sons (Matthew 27:55-56). Zebedee’s sons are James & John (Mark 10:35). However, James & John are never paired in Scripture as ‘brothers’ of Simon & Judas (Jude). So, this ‘James’ is ‘not’ the same ‘James’ in Matthew 13:54-57.
Third, since the ‘James’ who is the ‘son of Mary & Zebedee’ & since the ‘James & Joses (Joseph)’ who are the sons of ‘Mary & Alphaeus (Clopas)’ are NOT the same ‘James & Joses (Joseph)’ who are the brothers of Simon & Judas (Jude) in Matthew 13:54-57, then these ‘brothers’ in this verse are sons of Mary & Joseph, & are Jesus’ half-brothers.
Fourth, in Matthew 12:46-50, Jesus compares His ‘believing brothers’ by pointing to his disciples INSIDE, with His ‘non-believing brothers’ OUTSIDE (compare to John 7:3-5 & Psalm 69:8).
Fifth, Jesus makes a distinction between His brothers & His BELIEVING disciples (John 2:12).
Sixth, in Acts 1:13-14, Luke names the remaining 11 disciples along with Jesus’ brothers, who are with Mary & the women. Collectively, they are all ‘part’ of the ‘120 brethren’ at Pentecost.
Seventh, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Jesus appears to Cephas (aka: Peter) & then to ‘The 12’ (Disciples)(v.5), then Jesus appears to James, then to all the apostles (v.7). ‘Apostles’ does not refer to ‘The 12,’ because ‘apostles’ simply mean ‘messengers’ or ‘sent ones,’ & can refer to people other than ‘The 12,’ such as Barnabas & Paul (Acts 14:14). Therefore, since this ‘James’ does not refer to ‘The 12,’ but ‘another James,’ then this ‘James’ is the brother of Joseph, Simon, & Judas (Jude) in Matthew 13:54-57.
Eighth, these ‘brothers’ in Matthew 13:54-57 aren’t Jesus’ cousins, because the Greek words for ‘cousins’ (‘synggenes’ & ‘anepsios’) used in Luke 1:36 & Colossians 4:10 are not used in Matthew 13:54-57, or anywhere else by Jesus to give us the impression that His ‘brothers’ in this verse are actually His cousins.
Ninth, the Greek word for ‘brothers’ & ‘sisters’ (adelphos & adelphe) can mean LITERAL blood brothers & sisters, such as James the BROTHER (adelphos) of John, & Martha & Mary the SISTERS (adelphe) of Lazarus.
Tenth, Paul names James as ‘the Lord’s brother’ (Galatians 1:19), who is with the other 2 ‘Pillars’ of the Church – Cephas (Peter) & John (Galatians 2:9). This ‘James’ is the brother of Jude (Jude 1:1), who wrote the Epistle of Jude. This ‘James’ went on to write the Epistle of James (James 1:1). This ‘James’ was the leader of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15:13), but was not James, the brother of John, because he was already martyred (Acts 12:2). Therefore, this ‘James & Jude (Judas)’ are the same ‘James & Judas (Jude)’ in Matthew 13:54-57, who were also brothers of Joses (Joseph) & Simon, & half-brothers of Jesus.
So, using the Word of the Lord (the Bible), which cannot be wrong, & comparing it to church tradition (which ‘can’ be wrong), the most correct understanding of Jesus’ ‘brothers & sisters’ in Matthew 13:54-57 is that they were his LITERAL half-brothers & sisters. Therefore, Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25), & then had at least 6 children together (4 sons & at least 2 ‘unnamed’ daughters).
Also, Mary tells us that she needed a Savior WHILE she was pregnant with Jesus (Luke 1:46-47). People who need a Savior need at Savior from their sins, so Mary was NOT sinless. Scripture also doesn’t support that she was ‘Immaculately Conceived’ - meaning that God saved her before she was conceived, because Paul tells us that since she was born under the Law, that she needed redemption for the forgiveness of her sins (Galatians 4:4-5; Colossians 1:13-14). Think about it, if God has the ability to protect Mary from her parents sins, why couldn’t He have the power to protect Himself from Mary’s sins? The concept of the ‘Immaculate Conception’ of Mary is neither Biblical nor necessary.
Hope this helps.
In Christ ALONE,
Steve.
P
Patavium
Guest
See arguments here
catholic.com/quickquestions/why-does-the-bible-refer-to-elizabeth-as-marys-cousin-but-not-use-that-term-when-refe
catholic.com/quickquestions/why-does-the-bible-refer-to-elizabeth-as-marys-cousin-but-not-use-that-term-when-refe
“The Catholic position” does not hold that when the Bible refers to the brethren of Christ that they are his cousins. The Church holds only that Mary did not have any other children besides Christ. Who the brethren were is debatable–they might have been cousins (this is the most common view today), they might have been stepbrothers via Joseph (this was the common view before St. Jerome), or they might have been adoptive children.
The premise of the argument–that the New Testament says Elizabeth is Mary’s cousin–is wrong. The translation being quoted does not accurately reflect the Greek.
The New Testament does not say that Elizabeth is Mary’s cousin, the Greek word for which is anepsios. The word used in Luke 1:36 to describe Elizabeth is suggenes (pronounced su-gen-ace), which simply means kinswoman or relative. It tells us nothing about her exact relation within the extended family. All we can tell from the word suggenes is that Elizabeth was some kind of female relative of Mary’s. But whether she was an aunt, a cousin, or a more distant relation cannot be determined from the word.
catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-use-of-this-greek-word-for-sibling-indicate-that-jesus-had-brothersIn a few places the New Testament does use anepsios, but this does little to argue that the brethren of the Lord were sons of Mary. Arguments from word choice (i.e., “Why this word instead of this other word?”) are rarely decisive. New Testament word choice is especially difficult to build arguments from since it involves a mixture of Jewish and non-Jewish word preferences. The brethren of the Lord may have been brethren of a different kind (e.g., adoptive brothers or stepbrothers) without being half-brothers through Mary.
The pastor is half right and half wrong. He’s right about the fact that the Greek word for brother (adelphos; plural adelphoi) does mean sibling and about the fact that Greek has precise words for cousin, nephew, and other close relations. He’s also correct in pointing out that adelphos is the word used whenever there’s a mention of Jesus’ “brothers” (Mt 12:46; 13:55-56; Mk 6:3; Jn 7:5; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor 9:5).
He’s wrong, though, to infer from that bit of grammatical truth that Mary had children other than Jesus, mainly because he’s wrong in claiming that adelphos can only mean sibling in the New Testament. In Matthew 13:55-56 four men are named as brothers (adelphoi) of the Lord: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. Your former pastor concludes wrongly that these are at least some of Mary’s other children. The New Testament proves otherwise.
In John 19:25 we read, “Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala.” Cross reference this with Matthew 27:56: “Among them [at the cross] were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” We see that at least two of the men mentioned in Matthew 13 were definitely not siblings of Jesus (although they’re called adelphoi); they were Jesus’ cousins–sons of their mother’s sister.
The Bible is simply silent on the exact relationship between Jesus and the other two men, Simon and Jude, mentioned in Matthew 13. This proves two important things. First, it proves that the Greek word for brother is sometimes used to mean something other than sibling, and it proves that Matthew 13:55-56 in no way demonstrates that Mary had other children.
P
Patavium
Guest
catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her “spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.
Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).
We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.
The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.
Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.
P
Patavium
Guest
You can read more at catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Welcome BornAgain RN . You come out all guns a blazin’. Good points, thank-you.I pretty much started blogging on Mary convictions also . Be prepared for plenty of good rebuttal. Hey, it’s been going on for milennia. BlessingsHaving been raised Catholic & having studied the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that ‘the Word of the Lord’ (the Bible) supports the belief that the ‘brothers & sisters’ of Jesus in Matthew 12:46-50 & Matthew 13:54-57 are Jesus’ half-brothers & sisters, & NOT referring to His disciples, cousins, step-brothers & step-sisters, or ‘spiritual’ brothers & sisters:
First, Matthew 13:54-57 gives us their names: James, Joses (Joseph), Simon, & Judas (Jude). They are clearly brothers, since they are part of a family unit, along with their father, ‘the carpenter’ (Joseph) & Mary, their mother.
Second, at the cross, Mary the wife of Alphaeus (aka: Clopas), who is the mother of James the Less & Joses (Joseph) are mentioned (Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25-27). James is the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3). However, James & Joseph are never paired in Scripture as ‘brothers’ of Simon & Judas (Jude). So, they are ‘not’ the ‘James & Joseph’ in Matthew 13:54-57.
Third, at the cross Salome (Mark 15:40) is the sister of Jesus’ mother (Mary) (John 19:25-27) & the mother of Zebedee’s sons (Matthew 27:55-56). Zebedee’s sons are James & John (Mark 10:35). However, James & John are never paired in Scripture as ‘brothers’ of Simon & Judas (Jude). So, this ‘James’ is ‘not’ the same ‘James’ in Matthew 13:54-57.
Third, since the ‘James’ who is the ‘son of Mary & Zebedee’ & since the ‘James & Joses (Joseph)’ who are the sons of ‘Mary & Alphaeus (Clopas)’ are NOT the same ‘James & Joses (Joseph)’ who are the brothers of Simon & Judas (Jude) in Matthew 13:54-57, then these ‘brothers’ in this verse are sons of Mary & Joseph, & are Jesus’ half-brothers.
Fourth, in Matthew 12:46-50, Jesus compares His ‘believing brothers’ by pointing to his disciples INSIDE, with His ‘non-believing brothers’ OUTSIDE (compare to John 7:3-5 & Psalm 69:8).
Fifth, Jesus makes a distinction between His brothers & His BELIEVING disciples (John 2:12).
Sixth, in Acts 1:13-14, Luke names the remaining 11 disciples along with Jesus’ brothers, who are with Mary & the women. Collectively, they are all ‘part’ of the ‘120 brethren’ at Pentecost.
Seventh, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Jesus appears to Cephas (aka: Peter) & then to ‘The 12’ (Disciples)(v.5), then Jesus appears to James, then to all the apostles (v.7). ‘Apostles’ does not refer to ‘The 12,’ because ‘apostles’ simply mean ‘messengers’ or ‘sent ones,’ & can refer to people other than ‘The 12,’ such as Barnabas & Paul (Acts 14:14). Therefore, since this ‘James’ does not refer to ‘The 12,’ but ‘another James,’ then this ‘James’ is the brother of Joseph, Simon, & Judas (Jude) in Matthew 13:54-57.
Eighth, these ‘brothers’ in Matthew 13:54-57 aren’t Jesus’ cousins, because the Greek words for ‘cousins’ (‘synggenes’ & ‘anepsios’) used in Luke 1:36 & Colossians 4:10 are not used in Matthew 13:54-57, or anywhere else by Jesus to give us the impression that His ‘brothers’ in this verse are actually His cousins.
Ninth, the Greek word for ‘brothers’ & ‘sisters’ (adelphos & adelphe) can mean LITERAL blood brothers & sisters, such as James the BROTHER (adelphos) of John, & Martha & Mary the SISTERS (adelphe) of Lazarus.
Tenth, Paul names James as ‘the Lord’s brother’ (Galatians 1:19), who is with the other 2 ‘Pillars’ of the Church – Cephas (Peter) & John (Galatians 2:9). This ‘James’ is the brother of Jude (Jude 1:1), who wrote the Epistle of Jude. This ‘James’ went on to write the Epistle of James (James 1:1). This ‘James’ was the leader of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15:13), but was not James, the brother of John, because he was already martyred (Acts 12:2). Therefore, this ‘James & Jude (Judas)’ are the same ‘James & Judas (Jude)’ in Matthew 13:54-57, who were also brothers of Joses (Joseph) & Simon, & half-brothers of Jesus.
So, using the Word of the Lord (the Bible), which cannot be wrong, & comparing it to church tradition (which ‘can’ be wrong), the most correct understanding of Jesus’ ‘brothers & sisters’ in Matthew 13:54-57 is that they were his LITERAL half-brothers & sisters. Therefore, Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25), & then had at least 6 children together (4 sons & at least 2 ‘unnamed’ daughters).
Also, Mary tells us that she needed a Savior WHILE she was pregnant with Jesus (Luke 1:46-47). People who need a Savior need at Savior from their sins, so Mary was NOT sinless. Scripture also doesn’t support that she was ‘Immaculately Conceived’ - meaning that God saved her before she was conceived, because Paul tells us that since she was born under the Law, that she needed redemption for the forgiveness of her sins (Galatians 4:4-5; Colossians 1:13-14). Think about it, if God has the ability to protect Mary from her parents sins, why couldn’t He have the power to protect Himself from Mary’s sins? The concept of the ‘Immaculate Conception’ of Mary is neither Biblical nor necessary.
Hope this helps.
In Christ ALONE,
Steve.
B
brumano
Guest
This is all pretty much par for the course stuff, born agains almost always come out guns a blazin, I remember in the early 70’s they were blazin away about literal interpretation of the bible only so we had to listen patiently for about the 15yrs. or so that it took for them to calm down long enough to realize for themselves by actually reading and meditating on the scriptures that parts of the bible are meant literally, others are meant figuratively, metaphorically, symbolically, parabolically, and still others create sacred mystery that only the original and true church can, and has understood in order to teach true doctrines for the faithful to live by in every time.Welcome BornAgain RN . You come out all guns a blazin’. Good points, thank-you.I pretty much started blogging on Mary convictions also . Be prepared for plenty of good rebuttal. Hey, it’s been going on for milennia. Blessings
I know you were’nt trying to get into this issue, but one thing I would point out from this has to do with this fact; the people who lived in the days of the Lord’s days incarnate on earth listened to Him first of all because " He taught not as the scribes and the pharisees taught but as one having authority". This is why we believe the Marian Doctrines, because they are taught by the Church having His authority to truly teach.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Thank-you.Understood. Not sure what you mean by 70’s, yet I have been guilty of probably much. Sacred mysteries ,well only in the Pauline sense ,that evrything is a mystery that must be understood by the spirit and HIs revelation.That is , it is not a mystery to those whom believe and have been illumined by His Truth and Grace. As faras Marian doctrines, we are both in good company .for Catholics have been debating this stuff for centuries ,even more.Hope you realize that ,It was not till 1850 .1950 that the official debate ended and all Catholics must stand in line with CC revelation/declaration. ThanksThis is all pretty much par for the course stuff, born agains almost always come out guns a blazin, I remember in the early 70’s they were blazin away about literal interpretation of the bible only so we had to listen patiently for about the 15yrs. or so that it took for them to calm down long enough to realize for themselves by actually reading and meditating on the scriptures that parts of the bible are meant literally, others are meant figuratively, metaphorically, symbolically, parabolically, and still others create sacred mystery that only the original and true church can, and has understood in order to teach true doctrines for the faithful to live by in every time.
I know you were’nt trying to get into this issue, but one thing I would point out from this has to do with this fact; the people who lived in the days of the Lord’s days incarnate on earth listened to Him first of all because " He taught not as the scribes and the pharisees taught but as one having authority". This is why we believe the Marian Doctrines, because they are taught by the Church having His authority to truly teach.
B
BornAgainRN
Guest
What a ‘literal’ interpretation means is that in order to understand Scripture, we must allow Scripture to explain Scripture, based on the original Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek languages. Yes, there specific books that are poetic, but not everything in the Bible is poetic. Yes, there is symbolism in the Bible, but not everything in the Bible is symbolic. Yes, there is literal things in the Bible, but not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literal. This requires discernment & a disciplined understanding of the meaning of Scripture. For instance, we know Jesus is both fully God & fully man, because Scripture tells us that. We know that Jesus is the Son of God, because Scripture tells us that. We know that Mary was NOT sinless, because Scripture tells us that. Anytime we add or take away from Scripture, we are changing what God has revealed to us, so we must compare what is being taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11), which tells us that Jesus had half-brothers & sisters, which is supported by Scripture, by comparing it to the original Greek.Thank-you.Understood. Not sure what you mean by 70’s, yet I have been guilty of probably much. Sacred mysteries ,well only in the Pauline sense ,that evrything is a mystery that must be understood by the spirit and HIs revelation.That is , it is not a mystery to those whom believe and have been illumined by His Truth and Grace. As faras Marian doctrines, we are both in good company .for Catholics have been debating this stuff for centuries ,even more.Hope you realize that ,It was not till 1850 .1950 that the official debate ended and all Catholics must stand in line with CC revelation/declaration. Thanks
In Christ,
Steve.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" Jesus is not an exception to this rule. He is the God that we all come short of because of sin.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus
P
Patavium
Guest
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" Jesus is not an exception to this rule. He is the God that we all come short of because of sin.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Hi Attila:
**Was it not one heretic king who executed one Lord Chancellor because this Chancellor would not assent to what he saw as a lie? And then were not thousands more persecuted by this king, and later by his daughter - an even stronger heretic - even being tortured and executed because they believed not the Queen of England, but the Gatekeeper of Heaven, was head of the Church?Code:You sound like a man from Medieval times. I was just reading again about Jan Hus, He protested some Church policies prior to Luther and Calvin, was guaranteed safe passage to defend his views, then was totally betrayed and burned at the stake. I associate that sort of policy with Hitler and Stalin - and, frankly, with the Church in those days when it murdered dissenters.
I wish people cared as much about the truth today that they would be willing to kill for it. Or die for it. (Even though they might not do either.)
You and a lot like you don’t seem to care what truth is, so long as everyone thinks they’re right, even if they contradict each other. When it comes to religious claims, I loathe relativism of any kind. And if you follow He who is “The Way, The Truth and the Life”, you ought to, too.
Am I saying it is wrong to ask questions? Did Thomas Aquinas or the Popes of Old mean that questions are unacceptable? To ponder what this Scripture or that Apologist meant by these or those words? By no means.
It’s when you take these questions as a cue to rebel against the Church Christ founded that we have problems. Now what is the Church Christ founded? God knows the bickering Protestants have been doing over that has created a catastrophic mess, incomparable to that between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, or between Traditional Catholics and regular Catholics.
But one thing all heretics have in common is the thread of rebellion. Of a refusal to assent to authority. Now you, dear Protestant brother, you have never known any authority other than the Bible, and possibly your pastor(s), so I can’t blame you for not accepting the Pope’s authority. That is why we no longer hold a lot of the animosity we once did for Protestants. You’re no longer the fiery rebels your forefathers were.
However, I can blame Luther and the German princes (especially the latter). I can blame Zwingli and Calvin. I can blame Henry VIII, and every other Protestant founder because they knew that when it comes to religion, the teaching authority of the bishops and the Pope have primacy over secular rulers. The Pope has no right to attack the politics of a King in his own Kingdom, for sure - EXCEPT when those politics deal with religion.**
**While I’ll admit Smith and Hubbard are far more outrageous than Calvin, Calvin’s heresies were nonetheless… pronounced. I know of no other kind of Christian but a Calvinist who makes the claim that God, “who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4), predestines people to Hell. Another oddity is the “dynamic presence” of Christ with the bread and wine - saying that He is only received by the believer and not the unbeliever.Code:By the way, lumping Calvin in with Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard is ridiculous. Calvin was in most ways an orthodox Christian while Smith and Hubbard created cults far removed from Christian teachings.
Yet even more radical and outrageous was Zwingli’s assertion that Christ is not present at all in the bread and wine, comparable to the JW’s claim that Jesus is not the Son of God. Yet that is what most Protestants hold true to this day.**
The Congregational, Presbyterian and Reformed traditions today emanated from Calvinism, although most members of those churches have diverged sharply from Calvinism and are much more liberal than he was. Obama, for example, attended a United Church of Christ, a merger of Congregational and E&R (Evangelical and Reformed) churches that occurred in 1957. I can’t imagine Calvin supporting the ordination of gays or performing same-sex weddings, two positions accepted by the UCC in recent years.
Oh, I don’t know. I think it possible liberalism, and fundamentalism, are natural reactions to the increase in scientific knowledge which has challenged sola scriptura in recent centuries.
Kind, yes. Honest, yes. Open to questioning, yes. But not permissive of lies, including the lie of human pride and its practical form, rebellion.Code:On the other hand, I believe in an open hearts, open minds and open doors. Christ told us to beware of judging - "judge not that ye be not judged'. I'll let God do the judging. We're dealing with decent people here. So, be kind.
Do you think God will tolerate rebels on the last day? What did God do with that first rebel, the most beautiful of angels? This angel was cast out of Heaven, and became the ugliest abomination in Creation. And he lives on borrowed time. So does every proud rebel.
Once again, though, asking questions without assuming you must be right is a good way to understand the situation at hand better - especially when talking to a higher authority.
The young, rich man was not rebuked when he asked Jesus how to gain eternal life, because he sought the truth with a listening and obedient heart. However, the Pharisees and Sadducees were constantly rebuked because they had no interest in learning, and sought to make the Son of God to look like a fool.
B
BornAgainRN
Guest
david ruiz;9375228:
Although a child is innocent in a way that we’re not, King David tells us that in his mother’s womb he was conceived in sin. So, children, even babies are sinful, because through one man (Adam) all have sinned, which would include babies. However, since babies don’t have the mental capability to actively ‘choose’ to accept nor reject God, even though they are sinful, if they die, they go straight into the arms of God. There is too much Scripture to back this up, but this is supported by both the Old & the New Testaments.But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).
Romans 3:23 is not referring to Jesus, otherwise, Paul contradicts himself in 2 Corinthians 5:21 when He said that Jesus was sinless, but then ‘became’ sin for us. Plus, Jesus is God, Who is sinless. ‘All’ is referring to all human beings, which would include Mary. Jesus is called ‘the second Adam’ is Scripture because Jesus is a ‘life-giver’, but Mary is not called ‘the second Eve.’ That is a nonbiblical religious belief to try to get around passages like Luke 1:46-47 & Galatians 4:4-5 which clearly tell us that Mary was sinful.We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
As previously mentioned, ‘all’ refers to all human beings, including Mary & babies, but not Jesus.Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.
Scripture tells us that if anyone says that he is without sin, then he makes God out to be a liar. This would include Mary & babies as well.The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.