Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneTrueCathApos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Only the Hebrew word for enmity is “eybah”, which means “hatred”, so the passage reads: “And I will put hatred Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” - the war has been going on ever since.
As Eden was the paradise of creation, Mary is the paradise of the Incarnation, and in her as a garden was celebrated the first nuptials of God and man. The closer one gets to fire, the greater the heat; the closer one is to God, the greater the purity. But since no one was ever closer to God than the woman whose human portals He threw open to walk this earth, then no one could be more pure than she…
To answer your passage here is, the literal sense of this passage is between Satan and his followers on one hand, and Eve and her posterity on the other hand, there is to be constant warfare. The posterity of Eve will achieve a complete and final victory over Satan and his followers, even if it is wounded in the struggle. The posterity of Eve includes the Messiah, in whose power humanity will win a victory over Satan. The passage is indirectly messianic.
The seed of the woman was understood as refering to the Redeemer, and thus the Mother of the Redeemer came to be seen in the woman.
Mary’s victory over Satan would not have been perfect, if she had been under his dominion.
She must have entered this world without the stain of Original Sin.
 
As Eden was the paradise of creation, Mary is the paradise of the Incarnation, and in her as a garden was celebrated the first nuptials of God and man. The closer one gets to fire, the greater the heat; the closer one is to God, the greater the purity. But since no one was ever closer to God than the woman whose human portals He threw open to walk this earth, then no one could be more pure than she…
To answer your passage here is, the literal sense of this passage is between Satan and his followers on one hand, and Eve and her posterity on the other hand, there is to be constant warfare. The posterity of Eve will achieve a complete and final victory over Satan and his followers, even if it is wounded in the struggle. The posterity of Eve includes the Messiah, in whose power humanity will win a victory over Satan. The passage is indirectly messianic.
The seed of the woman was understood as refering to the Redeemer, and thus the Mother of the Redeemer came to be seen in the woman.
Mary’s victory over Satan would not have been perfect, if she had been under his dominion.
She must have entered this world without the stain of Original Sin.
If you believe she was without sin, which is contrary to what God said about all men/women, then only a few possibilities exist. Mary of the Bible is not the Mary of the Roman Catholic church, Mary is actually a goddess without need for a Savior - no sin = no need for Savior… and/or Mary of the Bible and God lies, which God does not lie. No other possibilities exist based on the Biblical account.

Your account sounds very “mystical”.
 
If you believe she was without sin, which is contrary to what God said about all men/women, then only a few possibilities exist. Mary of the Bible is not the Mary of the Roman Catholic church, Mary is actually a goddess without need for a Savior - no sin = no need for Savior… and/or Mary of the Bible and God lies, which God does not lie. No other possibilities exist based on the Biblical account.

Your account sounds very “mystical”.
Mystical or intellectual? :rolleyes:
 
Only the Hebrew word for enmity is “eybah”, which means “hatred”, so the passage reads: “And I will put hatred Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” - the war has been going on ever since.
Just some info on ‘eybah’ (342-340 from Strongs)

342 אֵיבָה ’eybah /ay•baw/] n f. From 340; TWOT 78a; GK 368; Five occurrences; AV translates as “enmity” three times, and “hatred” twice. 1 enmity, hatred.

from roots 340 & 341 (overwhelmingly ‘enemy’)

341 אֹיֵב ’oyeb, or (fully), ’owyeb /o•yabe/] subst. Active participle of 340; TWOT 78; GK 367; 282 occurrences; AV translates as “enemy(s)” 280 times, and “foes” twice. 1 (Qal) enemy. 1A personal. 1B national.

340 אָיַב ’ayab /aw•yab/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 78; GK 366; AV translates as “enemy” once. 1 to be hostile to, to be an enemy to. 1A (Qal). 1A1 to be hostile to. 1A2 to treat as an enemy
Even the NASB translates eybah as ‘enmity’ (all 5 occurrences)

שנא /saw-nay is the usual word for hate/hatred

I don’t think any translation translates eybah in 3:15 as hatred.
 
Only the Hebrew word for enmity is “eybah”, which means “hatred”, so the passage reads: “And I will put hatred Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” - the war has been going on ever since.
What your comments calls for is not a Christian interpretation, and the revelation that Jesus left his church. Your non christian intrpretation to these texts makes for discussion that is not deserving of this topic, but would entail a thread all on its own. If I were to take a non Christian view of the bible as you appear to be taken to justify your argument. We might as well call the bible a beautiful work of mans own literature, that is a good read for fairytales.

By reading your own interpretation of scripture justifies why non catholics having many many conflicting interpretations to the Sacred Scriptures. So, you leave me with the dilema of whether to explain the Christian position, or a Jewish interpretation, or a litteral interpretation to explain the text in question. By you jumping all around from the non christian view, Jewish litteral view, or your personal view does not justify your claims of denying the Christian doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Any one can argue why the sky is blue, grey or black. The point is the sky is the sky and there is no changing that. I read the bible in its original historical context, and its revealed Christian context the way Jesus revealed these texts to his church personally to his apostles. Now I understand you were not there to recieve such revelations from Jesus but his Catholic church was. That is why it may be difficult for you to see these revealed
“Truth’s” by Jesus, because you leave your self open to personal interpretations of the text from the “letters of the page”.

To the Catholic these are not just letters on the page to be entertained with. To the Catholic the Word of God is living and God breathed. Taking mixed views and multiple interpretations of a text only leaves the bible text for your own entertainment, not for instruction, teaching and edifying the body of Jesus Christ.

Now I have said my peace on the Immaculate conception, I can refer you to many more texts that supports the Christian doctrine of the Immaculate conception. But to begin an accademic course from a worldly point of view to explain the spiritual realities that the Holy Spirit himself revealed only conflicts with the Holy Spirit. For what is of the flesh turns to dust, what is of the Spirit is eternal.

Now the Catholic Christian doctrines including the Immaculate Conception are dogmatically proclaimed by the Church and they are “Affirmed” by Sacred Scripture only as illustrations and that the Church is the custodian of “Revelation”, since sacred scripture gives witness to Christian revelation, the church has the “power” given her by Jesus to determine infallibly the meaning of scripture pertaining to faith and morals.

That said, your Exegisis of scripture, the Church gives the liberty to you, and your personal Exegisis of sacred scripture. The Catholic church more times than often has spoken of a particular verse has done so in a negative way, by rejecting certain interpretations of scripture as false when they threat against faith and morals. Now this explanation does not deal with the senses of Scripture taught by the Catholic church. Which your Exegisis only deals with one, and that is not the Spiritual sense.

IF you want to go into the Litteral sense of scripture, I would refer you to the doctrines of the Eucharist, and the Rock of Peter of whom Jesus built his church. To deny the Immaculate Conception of the blessed Mother of God by mixed unchristian views of sacred scriptures is the wrong way of dealing with these revealed mysteries of God describing spiritual realities. God wills to reveal these mysteries to all, but with such a worldly or unchristian view to his word brings pride and shuts out the Holy Spirit from revealing the true things of God to you.

You are at liberty to apply your own exegisis to the scriptures, but I would not go start up another church because of your new founded exegisis 21st century interpretation.

God bless you.
 
Hey non Catholic, I would like to referr you to a Catholic author who takes the same position as you, and yet can explain the scriptures from both a non catholic and catholic position.

Father Brown is one of our greatest scriptural intellectuals in our century. Personally I think he is too ecumenical and too liberal for my tastes. I personally like to read the fathers who can call down fire, and make it thunder and rain. Oh, yes Catholics have these evangelicals also, Just a thought for you.

Peace be with you
 
Just some info on ‘eybah’ (342-340 from Strongs)

342 אֵיבָה ’eybah /ay•baw/] n f. From 340; TWOT 78a; GK 368; Five occurrences; AV translates as “enmity” three times, and “hatred” twice. 1 enmity, hatred.

from roots 340 & 341 (overwhelmingly ‘enemy’)

341 אֹיֵב ’oyeb, or (fully), ’owyeb /o•yabe/] subst. Active participle of 340; TWOT 78; GK 367; 282 occurrences; AV translates as “enemy(s)” 280 times, and “foes” twice. 1 (Qal) enemy. 1A personal. 1B national.

The meaning of enmity is? Deep-seated, often mutual hatred. Enmity is hatred such as might be felt for an enemy - source Yahoo Dictionary.
340 אָיַב ’ayab /aw•yab/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 78; GK 366; AV translates as “enemy” once. 1 to be hostile to, to be an enemy to. 1A (Qal). 1A1 to be hostile to. 1A2 to treat as an enemy
Even the NASB translates eybah as ‘enmity’ (all 5 occurrences)

שנא /saw-nay is the usual word for hate/hatred

I don’t think any translation translates eybah in 3:15 as hatred.
The meaning of enmity is? Deep-seated, often mutual hatred. Enmity is hatred such as might be felt for an enemy - source Yahoo Dictionary. I was using a SYNONYM for enmity.
 
What your comments calls for is not a Christian interpretation, and the revelation that Jesus left his church. Your non christian intrpretation to these texts makes for discussion that is not deserving of this topic, but would entail a thread all on its own. If I were to take a non Christian view of the bible as you appear to be taken to justify your argument. We might as well call the bible a beautiful work of mans own literature, that is a good read for fairytales.

By reading your own interpretation of scripture justifies why non catholics having many many conflicting interpretations to the Sacred Scriptures. So, you leave me with the dilema of whether to explain the Christian position, or a Jewish interpretation, or a litteral interpretation to explain the text in question. By you jumping all around from the non christian view, Jewish litteral view, or your personal view does not justify your claims of denying the Christian doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Any one can argue why the sky is blue, grey or black. The point is the sky is the sky and there is no changing that. I read the bible in its original historical context, and its revealed Christian context the way Jesus revealed these texts to his church personally to his apostles. Now I understand you were not there to recieve such revelations from Jesus but his Catholic church was. That is why it may be difficult for you to see these revealed
“Truth’s” by Jesus, because you leave your self open to personal interpretations of the text from the “letters of the page”.

To the Catholic these are not just letters on the page to be entertained with. To the Catholic the Word of God is living and God breathed. Taking mixed views and multiple interpretations of a text only leaves the bible text for your own entertainment, not for instruction, teaching and edifying the body of Jesus Christ.

Now I have said my peace on the Immaculate conception, I can refer you to many more texts that supports the Christian doctrine of the Immaculate conception. But to begin an accademic course from a worldly point of view to explain the spiritual realities that the Holy Spirit himself revealed only conflicts with the Holy Spirit. For what is of the flesh turns to dust, what is of the Spirit is eternal.

Now the Catholic Christian doctrines including the Immaculate Conception are dogmatically proclaimed by the Church and they are “Affirmed” by Sacred Scripture only as illustrations and that the Church is the custodian of “Revelation”, since sacred scripture gives witness to Christian revelation, the church has the “power” given her by Jesus to determine infallibly the meaning of scripture pertaining to faith and morals.

That said, your Exegisis of scripture, the Church gives the liberty to you, and your personal Exegisis of sacred scripture. The Catholic church more times than often has spoken of a particular verse has done so in a negative way, by rejecting certain interpretations of scripture as false when they threat against faith and morals. Now this explanation does not deal with the senses of Scripture taught by the Catholic church. Which your Exegisis only deals with one, and that is not the Spiritual sense.

IF you want to go into the Litteral sense of scripture, I would refer you to the doctrines of the Eucharist, and the Rock of Peter of whom Jesus built his church. To deny the Immaculate Conception of the blessed Mother of God by mixed unchristian views of sacred scriptures is the wrong way of dealing with these revealed mysteries of God describing spiritual realities. God wills to reveal these mysteries to all, but with such a worldly or unchristian view to his word brings pride and shuts out the Holy Spirit from revealing the true things of God to you.

You are at liberty to apply your own exegisis to the scriptures, but I would not go start up another church because of your new founded exegisis 21st century interpretation.

God bless you.
We were having a dialogue on the passage as to whether it applies or relates in any way to Mary of the Bible and further to the Immaculate Conception Mary of the Catholic church.

I always love it when one can not make a valid point or reason from a Biblical basis, they start pointing the finger of “your interpretation” versus…what my church says. I always encourage folks to spend more time reading and studying the bible, because this is where the truth of salvation, Jesus, is found.

God bless and peace to you as well.
 
Hey thanks!

So was it necessary for Mary to be sinless?

I mean, if she was not sinless, could Christ still have been born without sin?
Hi Frontline,

The answer to your question is Yes. The Catholic Church has never taught that Mary’s sinlessness was necessary in order for Christ to be sinless.

(Sorry I didn’t answer sooner. This is the first time in a couple days that I read this thread.)
 
We were having a dialogue on the passage as to whether it applies or relates in any way to Mary of the Bible and further to the Immaculate Conception Mary of the Catholic church.

I always love it when one can not make a valid point or reason from a Biblical basis, they start pointing the finger of “your interpretation” versus…what my church says. I always encourage folks to spend more time reading and studying the bible, because this is where the truth of salvation, Jesus, is found.

God bless and peace to you as well.
I think you miss my point, my points were very clear from scripture, but you dont relate scripture to the contents or the revelation from Jesus Christ. The word Enmity as describe from a dictionary does not carry the Hebrew expression of seperation, or to be an enemy of by not having no part of, to derive at your own secondary meaning to “hate” carries alot more hebrew expression and meaning, from how you try to force the English thought into these ancient text, it is not happening.

The meaning you wish to derive from does not equate from the Hebrew intention nor the Christian revelation. My point is you derive your meaningful selective interpretation of biblical words that do not discredit the Catholic christian interpretation. To take a word from scripture and believe it to mean what you want it to mean is not dialogue it is your own exegisis that keep you from seeing the Truth from Genesis 3:15. To put it bluntly, I can not force you to drink from the Living Waters, I can only lead you to them.

I felt you left the dialogue, when you removed yourself from the proven text of the Immaculate conception from the prophet, and look for words elswhere to mean something not relating to the text from Genisis 3:15.

Peace be with you
 
Verse 17 reads "So the dragon was enraged with the woman (Israel), and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus". We know that during the tribulation, which is what this whole scenario is engaged in., there is the 144,000 Jews which are what?..testifying about Jesus. Also, there are going to be a lot of believers that they have reached, so when the dragon goes after “rest of her children”, because they couldn’t get the one’s that are hidden and protected in the hills, then the dragon goes for all of the rest of the believers…could refer to Jews only, but I suspect the dragon is going more after all sons of Abraham by faith, which would be all believers, which would make more sense given the time, the tribulation…this is very fascinating and I’m glad I will be raptured prior to all of this…praise God!
The number 144,000 (Rev 7: 4-8) is the square of the number of Israel’s tribes (12) multiplied by a thousand symbolizing the new Israel, which is the Church. The equation signifies a remnant of the Jews who will be converted together with the Gentiles forming a body consisting of " a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue" (Rev 7:9).

By the way, the rapture is a Protestant myth. So I wouldn’t count on it if I were you.
 
If you believe she was without sin, which is contrary to what God said about all men/women, then only a few possibilities exist. Mary of the Bible is not the Mary of the Roman Catholic church, Mary is actually a goddess without need for a Savior - no sin = no need for Savior… and/or Mary of the Bible and God lies, which God does not lie. No other possibilities exist based on the Biblical account.

Your account sounds very “mystical”.
When did God say MARY actually sinned?

Mary of the scriputres is not the Mary of the Catholic Church - says who ?

Mary is a godess - since when ?
no sin = no need for Savior
Where’s that in the Bible?

Are you saying that God cannot save a woman from all sin?

If God can save a woman from all sin, is he not saving her, hence he becomes her sav(e)iour ?
 
I think you miss my point, my points were very clear from scripture, but you dont relate scripture to the contents or the revelation from Jesus Christ. The word Enmity as describe from a dictionary does not carry the Hebrew expression of seperation, or to be an enemy of by not having no part of, to derive at your own secondary meaning to “hate” carries alot more hebrew expression and meaning, from how you try to force the English thought into these ancient text, it is not happening.

The meaning you wish to derive from does not equate from the Hebrew intention nor the Christian revelation. My point is you derive your meaningful selective interpretation of biblical words that do not discredit the Catholic christian interpretation. To take a word from scripture and believe it to mean what you want it to mean is not dialogue it is your own exegisis that keep you from seeing the Truth from Genesis 3:15. To put it bluntly, I can not force you to drink from the Living Waters, I can only lead you to them.

I felt you left the dialogue, when you removed yourself from the proven text of the Immaculate conception from the prophet, and look for words elswhere to mean something not relating to the text from Genisis 3:15.

Peace be with you
Click link, then on the word enmity and see the original Hebrew for yourself, then apply the reality of the definition to the reality of history and the word stands as “Hatred” as for one’s enemy.

searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ge+3:15&translation=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en
 
By the way, the rapture is a Protestant myth. So I wouldn’t count on it if I were you.
Historic Protestantism rejects this novel idea of a secret rapture. The Historic Protestant and Reformed Faith has from the beginning been predominately Amillenial. This rapture doctrine in no more than a 150 years old, and is a carnal American eschatology that has no support in the Scriptures, nor in Church History. Just thought I would throw that in there! 👍
 
  • for your consideration*
extracted from: monkallover.blogspot.com/2006_12_03_archive.html

The Book of Genesis begins with the words, “In the beginning”. In that book, the first woman has no name until after sin. She, like the first man, was created Immaculate.

The Gospel of John also begins with the words, “In the beginning”-- thus telling us that a new “Genesis” has come. In the Gospel of John, the personal name of the mother of Jesus never appears. Jesus simply calls her “Woman” pure and simple. The Gospel refers to her as “the mother of Jesus,” never as “Mary.” No sin, no name.

The first time Jesus calls her “Woman” is “in the beginning” of his public ministry, his first miracle. It happens at a wedding. The mother of Jesus tells those who would serve to do whatever her Son tells them. This reverses what happenen in Eden: the first woman tells the first man, the first servant of God, to do what the Serpent says, rather than what God says.

The other time that Jesus calls his mother “Woman” is at the cross. It is the sixth day of the week, the same day that the first man was created. In Genesis, the first woman meets and obeys the deceiver, the serpent, at the Tree. Her obedience to the serpent brings her death. In the Gospel of John, the Woman meets and obeys the Son of God at his “tree”, the Cross. Her obedience to him brings new life-- a renewal of motherhood and of childhood: “Woman, there is your son.”

Just as the first man in the first garden was cast into a deep sleep and his side was opened for the birth of the first woman, so the new Man, Christ, falls asleep in death next to a garden, and his side is open, and out comes a flow of blood and water-- a sign of birth. In the Book of Genesis, after the Lord makes the first man, the Lord then makes a garden and puts the living man in the garden. In the Gospel of John, the dead body of Jesus is taken to the garden that is right there by the cross and is laid in a tomb in that garden.

In short (and cutting this short) the Gospel of John presents itself as the New Genesis, Mary as the new and sinless Woman, and Jesus as the New Man. The human race no longer descends from Adam and Eve. Instead, it receives new birth from Jesus by Marian-style obedience-- as the Gospel puts it, Jesus looks at his disciple and tells the disciple to be “born” from being like Mary: “There is your mother.” “From that hour, the disciple took her to his own home.” Into his life. Into his own way of life. He took into his life that Woman and her holy obedience, that Woman whose only two utterances in the Gospel of John are:

(1) an intercession voiced to her Son at Cana in recognition of the poverty and misery of man and woman “In the Beginning” of their marriage, “They have no wine”;

(2) an exhortation voiced to the servants of her Son at Cana so that the wedding of man and woman can have a different, new, joyous, abundant and good “In the Beginning”-- “Do whatever he tells you.”

The Gospel of Luke also affirms realities about Mary that point to her already sharing beforehand in the salvation that would come in the eventual death and resurrection of Jesus.

First of all, in the Gospel of Luke (1:28) the messenger (“angel”) of God addresses Mary in Nazareth as already kecharitomene, already “filled through with grace” … already “filled up with grace” … already “graced thorougly”-- even though Jesus has not yet so much as been conceived and born, not yet died for sin and not yet risen in glory. Only God is actively “Full of Grace”-- he is the one who “thoroughly graced” Mary, making her kecharitomene.

The Gospel of Luke goes on a short while later (1:46-55) to have Mary speak as having ALREADY experienced the FULLNESS and FULFILLMENT of salvation-- decades BEFORE Jesus would die and rise to save humanity from sin and give humanity holiness.

My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he HAS REGARDED the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty HAS DONE great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation.
He HAS SHOWN strength with his arm,
he HAS SCATTERED the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
he HAS PUT DOWN the mighty from their thrones,
and EXALTED those of low degree;
he HAS FILLED the hungry with good things,
and the rich he HAS SENT empty away.
He HAS HELPED his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.

Notice there the past tense!
 
and

blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=24774131&postID=3132657780434388077

OnionBoy! You somewhat answered your own question. The merits of the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ were necessary for Mary to be conceived without sin. We might say they were applied to her before they happened in time (after all, the person of the Son of God existed from all eternity without beginning, even though his human life on earth had a beginning in time).

The Opening Prayer of the Mass on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception puts it this way.

Father,
you prepared the Virgin Mary
to be the worthy mother of your Son.
You let her share beforehand
in the salvation Christ would bring by his death,
and kept her sinless from the first moment of her conception.

She was not the only person who “got to be saved beforehand”. In the Gospels (Matthew 22 and parallels) Jesus refutes the Sadducees (who reject the existence of the afterlife, heaven, hell, resurrection). Jesus tells them that God identified himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Jewish faith of the Sadducees is, correctly, that God is God of the living, and not of the dead. However, Jesus points out that since the God of the living calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, those three men must be alive, risen from the dead. Jesus argument simply asserts the resurrection of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Since Jesus who is the Resurrection and the Life had not yet died and risen when he asserted this to the Sadducees, the understanding would be that God let Abraham, Isaac and Jacob “share beforehand in the salvation Christ would bring by his death” (as the Opening Prayer of the Immaculate Conception says of Mary).
 
The number 144,000 (Rev 7: 4-8) is the square of the number of Israel’s tribes (12) multiplied by a thousand symbolizing the new Israel…never seen that term in all of Scripture??..I’m that you can do math word problem 12k*12k=144k, which is the Church. The equation signifies a remnant of the Jews who will be converted together with the Gentiles forming a body consisting of " a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue" (Rev 7:9).

By the way, the rapture is a Protestant myth. Please don’t push your lack of understanding on me; it can be shown from Scripture…thank you. So I wouldn’t count on it if I were you.
 
Has anyone ever thought about Joseph, would God prevent him from his Holy Matrimony duties as a husband and the command to procreate?
I never did until I started getting exposed to people who have been separated from the Apostolic faith through Protestant traditions. I was taught that Joseph was an older man, that he already had a family of grown kids, and that Mary was given to him as a custodian. This was the custom when temple virgins reached puberty.

However, even if this is not the case, if Jesus did not take a wife and have children, and those other eunuchs for the kingdom did not, such as Paul, how is it God is not able to confirm people in the gift of celibacy? Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Joseph was well familiar with the consequences of those who touched the Ark without being authorized by God.
Matthew 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, **do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife;
**
So God sent an angel and told Joseph to take her as his wife; thus changing his mind about putting her away…and oh by the way…you can’t have any children with her I need to keep her a virgin.
Whatever else God imparted to Joseph is not documented here, but it is clear that he understood that God had created the life within her. She had been set aside for His special vessel. Just like the sacred vessels in the temple were set aside, never again used for profane purposes.
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
Isn’t this wonderful!? God is willing to bring all those who obey Him into the intimate relationship of family! However, these children are not the children of His mother, but near relatives.
Matthew 13:5-56
54 And when He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 **Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? **Where then did this Man get all these things?”
This is a good place for you to start, NC. See these names? At least two of these persons are clearly stated to be the offsrping of “another Mary” in scripture. James, the brother of the Lord, has been traditionally taught to be a son of Joseph from his first marriage. In any case, it would have been very improper for a younger brother to attempt to correct of chastize an elder, especially an elder brother who had become the head of the household after his father died.
The problem of the identity of the four brothers and sisters of Jesus, mentioned in this place, did not exist in ancient times. Helvidius, the most ancient commentator on this passage, said that they were all the children of Mary and Joseph, born after Jesus was born.
This is only a problem for a person that gives more credence to Helvidius than to the NT, and who considers a secular source more valid than the Apostolic Teaching.
Code:
It was only in ages after men had invented religious doctrines incompatible with the obvious truth of Matthew's words, that ingenious interpretations were devised to relieve the embarrassment.
I think you will find that, when you read the early fathers lf the church, that you are in error on this point. It may be you will need to relieve your own embarrassment! 😉

One of my favorite Abe Lincoln quotes. “it is better to be silent, and thought a fool, than to speak, and remove all doubt”.

Of course, men have invented religious doctrines. All of them were called heresies from the beginning. A great many of these were invented or resurfaced during the Protestant Reformation, such as that Mary had sex with Joseph and made more children. These falsehoods are the result of separation from the Apostolic Teaching.
All such efforts fail in the light of the simple, obvious, and necessary meaning of Matthew 13:55,56. The truth was built into the passage by the Holy Spirit and is incapable of destruction.
Well, I agree with you, however it is indeed possible for people to misunderstand what is written. One must keep in mind that Matt. was written first in Aramaic, then translated to the Gk. There is no Aramaic word for “cousin” or near relative such as “stepbrother”. All in one’s close clan (not eligible for marriage) are called brother and sister.
Source: Coffman’s commentary on the NT
A “teacher” outside of scripture.
Summary: The Mary of the RCC is not the Mary in Holy Scripture.:hammering:
I am sure it does not seem that way to you, because you don’t recieve the Apostolic teaching. However, I will throw out a challenge for you. Check into al the ancient apostolic comminities that were built from the Apostles. You will find that they all, most of whom have no love for “Rome” believe what the Apostles taught the Roman Church also about Mary. She remained a virgin. Start with the Orthodox, and see if you can figure out where they started “inventing doctrine”. 😉
 
We were having a dialogue on the passage as to whether it applies or relates in any way to Mary of the Bible and further to the Immaculate Conception Mary of the Catholic church.
Personally I find the scriptural testimony about most of the Marian doctrines in Scripture to be quite thin. This does not concern me, because the faith comes to me from the Apostles, and was complete before a word of the NT was written. Thereby do I know that Jesus is the Source of the Apostolic message. About a millenia and a half later, some people came along and tried to redistill that Apostolic message by separating themselves form the Apostolic succession,and deriving what they beleived to be the right doctrine by “scripture alone”. At that point, it semed to become necessary to see everything in scripture, or it was not to be believed. 🤷

Those who have received and retained the Apostolic faith know that everything was never intended to be contained in scripture.
I always love it when one can not make a valid point or reason from a Biblical basis,
I think this is one of the main differences between persons who have recieved their faith from an Apostolic Source, and those whose faith is a new invention that is “bible based”. It is the Source from which the faith springs that is the basis of the reasoning. For Catholics, all doctrine comes from Christ(revelation). For Protestants, it often comes from a “biblical basis”, which means it is derived by human reason through the reading.
they start pointing the finger of “your interpretation” versus…what my church says. I always encourage folks to spend more time reading and studying the bible, because this is where the truth of salvation, Jesus, is found.
It is true that the Holy Writings point ot Christ, but He is found in Person in His Body, the Church. The Scriptures do testify to the Truth, but if one separates that testimony from the Living Presence of Him in the Church then one can easily misunderstand the Scripture.
 
If you believe she was without sin, which is contrary to what God said about all men/women,
Actually, God did not say this. People who think that God did usually misunderstand what is written in the Scriptures. People also do not understand the difference between original and personal sins. Jesus Himself spoke of the “rightous” - that He did not come for them, but for the sinners.
then only a few possibilities exist.
Such a premise seems to indicate a reliance upon the finite human mind, rather than the revelation and omnipotence of God, which is infinite. Why can God not do whatever He wants?
Mary of the Bible is not the Mary of the Roman Catholic church,
Again you will have to demonstrate that this Mary, also understood according to the Apostolic Teaching existent in non-Roman communities, is the same. The very fact that these beliefs persist in communities founded by Apostles is proof that they are not a later “Roman” invention. This is not just some curious historical artifact but a real wrench in your “Roman invention” theory.
Code:
Mary is actually a goddess without need for a Savior - no sin = no need for Savior.
I think you misunderstand the nature of sin, and preservation from sin. The fact that God saves a person from sin does not make them a goddess. God desires that all of us choose not to sin, and makes this possible by His grace. He does allow us to partake of His divine nature, but that does not make our nature inhuman.
. and/or Mary of the Bible and God lies, which God does not lie. No other possibilities exist based on the Biblical account.
Again, it is not so much the biblical account as it is your filters, the manner in which you read and understand it. This is clear based on some of your other posts. You even admitted that Luther misunderstood the Gospel of James, which is why he wanted to take it out. You know it is possible for a person who is seeking the HS, however well intentioned, to misunderstand what is written through their own fallible perceptions.

Your account sounds very “mystical”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top