Split: Another Marian Debate

[Mannyfit75]

rr1213,

Through God’s grace she’s been saved and preserved from sin. The Gospel Writers in the light of the Old Testament can see the parallel of Mary. You probably read that Christians (Catholics) made a comparison that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant (not literally), because she became the Mother of God. The Ark we know is pure. Nothing impure can touch it. In OT, men who touch the Ark will die.

We both acknowledge that Jesus is both God and Man. To prepare for his coming, God wanted a woman who would be preserved from the stain of original sin, and preserve from commiting actual sin. So when the Archangel Gabriel said, “The Power of the Most High will Overshadow you; therefore the child to be born, will be called holy, the Son of God.” Mary carried the Word made flesh in her womb. Just as the Ark is Holy, so is the Mother of Jesus.

The pit analogy is interesting but, again, without any Scriptural support. As humans we can be filled with the Holy Spirit and full of grace, and the Spirit and the grace can leave us. After you confess your sins at the Sacrament of Reconciliation, are not you in a state of grace? You are until you sin again. With Mary, we are not given enough grounds in Scripture to believe that she has been made an exception to the rule that applies to every other of the billions of human being born into this world, with the exception of Christ.

I acknowledge that after I repent, God have cleanse me from my sins. I regain the grace but if I sin again, I will have to reconcil myself to God. The Catholic Church teachings on Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Mary remaining a Virgin All her Life & Assumption is an ancient belief held by the ECF and the Apostles.

If you wonder why Scripture is silent about Mary during Jesus minister, its because Mary lived amongst the Apostles after the resurrection. She was taken care by John, the Apostle. The belief of Mary was never challenged until the Protestant Reformation. That is why the Catholic Church dogmatic statement on Mary.

Many Protestant fail to look at the real picture why the CC held such belief. It’s Jesus Christ. Jesus is God, God made flesh. Mary’s is immaculate because God, the Father see to it that his Son would have a mother who is pure and preserved from sin. Mary consectrated herself to God all her life and remain a virgin. She did not have other children after Jesus. She may have half son, from Joseph, since Joseph was a widower.

The Catholic Church is silent whether Joseph was a widower or not, but a Catholic is free to believe. If you read Luke, when Jesus was twelve, his parents went to the temple. If he did have brothers and sisters, they were not with them, or they never exist.

How do you explain the brothers and sisters of Jesus? They are cousins. There is no word for Aramaic or Hebrew for cousin; so they use brother and sisters.

The Assumption of Mary is ancient belief though it was profess in 1950 by the Pope. The closest thing to the Assumption is the Dormation of Mary, or falling sleep. Eastern Christians held a tradition that all the Apostles were mystically transported to Mary’s dwelling upon her death. There after, Jesus took his mother into heaven. The feast day is celebrated on Aug 15, the same day as the Assumption of Mary.

All have sin is not very accurate either. If that were the case, then why would Elijah assumed into Heaven, since nothing impure enters heaven. Time and time again, there are saints assumed into heaven. Assuming into Heaven is Scriptural. The belief that Mary assume into heaven is not against it. Scripture support holy saints assuming into heaven.

Second, there are no tombs of Mary, or relics of her. Her body is no where to be found. Jesus love his mother so much so he took her body and soul into heaven. He is grateful for his mother because she gave him a body. She said “Be it Done Unto me, according to your word.” If she had said, that there would be no Jesus.

 

[Eireann]

Cuz she knew he ruled! that’s all!

She is your mother, and yes Mary your mother did know He ruled. and the point ?
She didn’t seek attention, attention has since been attached to her.

Do you honestly think Mary changed the will of God? ARGHH.
P.S. I’d feel better if you called Christ “Our Saviour” instead of her son.

OK I will, Mary never changed the will of God, Mary was obedient to the will of God.

Jesus calls her Woman, never calls her Mother.
Prioritize!

Ok, I’ll do as you say, is/was your mother a woman ?

Plus he does call her mother, 26 When Jesus therefore had seen** his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to His mother Woman**, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother.

So unless I’m a total idiot, the woman was Mary.

OK I will, Mary never changed the will of God, Mary was obedient to the will of God.

So if you look up your non-catholic bible, and if it hasn’t been manipulated, then you will see very clearly, that Mary at the wedding feast at Cana, was able to get Jesus to manifest Himself before His time.

PS. Lets all remember her birthday! when was it?

Marys birthday ?

What is your problem with Mary’s birthday ?

Can you enlighten me ?

Prove it!

Prove what ? if it is that Mary moved Jesus before His time, then I will.

Mary went to Jesus at the wedding feat at Cana and said to Jesus, " they have no wine"

Ok, Jesus was troubled, why ? because he knew his time had come.

So when was the first miracle ? and who protested about it ?

If you see a different explanation in your Bible, then get back to me, chapter and verse, thanks.

 

[Eireann]

WOW! Last I checked th Bible was about the Lord Jesus Christ and we should be wholeheartedly devoted to Him.

Yes, maybe, but how do you explain, 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.

If as you say, we should be wholeheartedly be devoted to Him, then why did Jesus say, behold thy mother, son behold thy mother, why not behold ME ?

 

[Zooey]

I have to leave for choir, & can’t say all I want to right now. However:

I do want to comment on the question of “where in the Bible does it say anything about Mary’s Assumption?”

We had a thread on this a while back, & I did some hard thinking, praying & Bible study…I came up with something I was amazed by!!
At one point when Jesus is speaking w/His disciples, he says that “there are those present who will not see death, before they see the kingdom of Heaven”…I have heard all kinds of attempts at explaining this away, BUT:

Let’s take it literally here:

1. Whose grave is missing? Mary.
2. Who is present with Jesus & the disciples throughout His ministry here? Mary.
   3.Of whom do the ECFs speak, as having been taken up into Heaven body & soul? Mary.

So, there is the Biblical mention that people are looking for. I know some will try to walk out of this, but I think it will be up to those folks to explain why, if the LOrd meant someone else, that everybody else has a grave, a story of their death, etc.
The only exception is the Blessed Mother.

OK, gotta fly now!!

 

[maryj]

Original quote; rr1213
Could of been, sure. Could not have been either. There are numerous references to Jesus’ siblings in Scripture. Obviously, every one of these references must be read to mean something other than natural brother or sister in order for the Catholic understanding to be correct. Jesus’ neighbors, who should have known whether he had brothers and sisters, reference Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, whose brothers and sisters are here among us. If we were to use the same phraseology today in reference to our own families, we would understand the comments to refer to our natural family unless specifically stated otherwise. Ultimately, however, this is one of those issues that you can not prove, or disprove, simply from Scripture.

Matthew 15 and John 19:27…In Matthew 15, Jesus vehemently condemns the Pharisees because they have a proceedure, the Korban rule, that allowed children to avoid taking care of their parents. In the OT, children had an obligation to care for their elderly parents. This is why the Pharisees scheme to let people shirk this responsibility made Jesus so angry. If Jesus had siblings, as Protestants claim, His behavior would make no sense. He had condemend the Pharisees for not taking responsibility for their elderly parents. Why would He then dispense His own siblings from this important obligation? such inconsistency is inconceivable. Proven from scripture? Believe so!!

 

[rr1213]

Original quote; rr1213
Could of been, sure. Could not have been either. There are numerous references to Jesus’ siblings in Scripture. Obviously, every one of these references must be read to mean something other than natural brother or sister in order for the Catholic understanding to be correct. Jesus’ neighbors, who should have known whether he had brothers and sisters, reference Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, whose brothers and sisters are here among us. If we were to use the same phraseology today in reference to our own families, we would understand the comments to refer to our natural family unless specifically stated otherwise. Ultimately, however, this is one of those issues that you can not prove, or disprove, simply from Scripture.

Matthew 15 and John 19:27…In Matthew 15, Jesus vehemently condemns the Pharisees because they have a proceedure, the Korban rule, that allowed children to avoid taking care of their parents. In the OT, children had an obligation to care for their elderly parents. This is why the Pharisees scheme to let people shirk this responsibility made Jesus so angry. If Jesus had siblings, as Protestants claim, His behavior would make no sense. He had condemend the Pharisees for not taking responsibility for their elderly parents. Why would He then dispense His own siblings from this important obligation? such inconsistency is inconceivable. Proven from scripture? Believe so!!

No, that’s an **inference **that you can draw from scripture. A reasonable inference, yes, but not more than an inference. In response, I might point out that Jesus entrusted his beloved mother to John, the disciple whom Jesus loved. We know that Jesus loves everyone so, if the scripture makes a point to emphasize that John is the particular disciple whom Jesus loved, then the two must have been very close and the best of friends. It is not unheard of to trust a close friend more than a sibling. So, what did I just draw here? An inference, nothing more nothing less. But also no less reasonable than the one you suggest.

 

[Redbandito]

No, that’s an **inference **that you can draw from scripture. A reasonable inference, yes, but not more than an inference. In response, I might point out that Jesus entrusted his beloved mother to John, the disciple whom Jesus loved. We know that Jesus loves everyone so, if the scripture makes a point to emphasize that John is the particular disciple whom Jesus loved, then the two must have been very close and the best of friends. It is not unheard of to trust a close friend more than a sibling. So, what did I just draw here? An inference, nothing more nothing less. But also no less reasonable than the one you suggest.

The problem with your inference is that it contradicts Jewish law and is therefore unBiblical. Jesus would not have done such a thing.

And while you are correct that her’s is an inference, it is a necessary inference to draw when you understand the cultural that Jesus was raised in. Christianity was not created in a vacuum.

 

[lak611]

rr1213,
How do you explain the brothers and sisters of Jesus? They are cousins. There is no word for Aramaic or Hebrew for cousin; so they use brother and sisters.

Brother is also used in the Bible to describe a nephew. Lot was Abraham’s nephew, not his brother, yet in Genesis 14:16, it says “his brother Lot”(KJV).

 

[mikeledes]

The Trinity is not as clearly found in Scripture as Protestants like to think. If someone were given the Bible to read for the first time, would they conclude that God is three persons or three manifestations or masks (Oneness Pentecostalism, modalism)? Would they easily conclude that Jesus has two natures or one (Monophytism, eutycharianism)? Would they easily conclude that Jesus has two wills or one (Monotheletiam)? All of these issues were defined by the Catholic Church and Protestants are presently enjoying the benefits.

Similarly, based on Scripture and Tradition (Mary as the New Eve, etc.), the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has conlcuded that Mary was immaculately conceived.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[rr1213]

How do you explain the brothers and sisters of Jesus? They are cousins. There is no word for Aramaic or Hebrew for cousin; so they use brother and sisters.

I’m no linguist, but my understanding from my readings is that most, if not all, of the New Testament was written in Greek and that Greek does have different words for “cousin” and “brother”. Anyone who knows ancient Greek may feel free to correct me if I am wrong here…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

**She **is your mother,.

No she isn’t my mother’s name starts with an A!

26 When Jesus therefore had seen** his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to His mother Woman**, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother.

So unless I’m a total idiot, the woman was Mary.
.

Did you read this before you posted it?
He is not calling her mother, dont twist the words, he is telling John to take her as his mother. sheesh

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The use of the word “Woman” in the gospels is not disrespectful. It is in fact, quite respectful. And it appears that Jesus was concerned enough about His mother to make sure she had someone to protect her–and not just as a burden, but as a ‘mother’. (Behold thy mother).

If she was so unsatisfactory, and sinful, why would He have instructed John to care for Mary as a son would for a mother? Why, in fact, would He have John being more respectful of His mother than you picture HIM being?

 

[6glargento]

I’m no linguist, but my understanding from my readings is that most, if not all, of the New Testament was written in Greek and that Greek does have different words for “cousin” and “brother”. Anyone who knows ancient Greek may feel free to correct me if I am wrong here…

no, there is no word for “cousin.” there are places where the word “relative” is replaced with “cousin” as in luke ch 1-2 where mary visits elizibeth but that word means “relative” or “kinswoman.” besides john crysostom and john calvin both excellent greek scholars excepted the perpetual virginity of mary

 

[Eireann]

No she isn’t my mother’s name starts with an A!

She is but you don’t accept Her.

Did you read this before you posted it?
He is not calling her mother, don’t twist the words, he is telling John to take her as his mother. sheesh

Anyway are you saying that Mary wasn’t the mother of Jesus ?

Early Christians associated the word “woman” to be the woman in Genesis, some agree, some don’t, I do.

The Bible says to honour your Father and your mother, we honour are earthly fathers and mothers, and no less honour is applied to Mary our Heavenly mother, given to us at the foot of the Cross.

 

[Redbandito]

I’m no linguist, but my understanding from my readings is that most, if not all, of the New Testament was written in Greek and that Greek does have different words for “cousin” and “brother”. Anyone who knows ancient Greek may feel free to correct me if I am wrong here…

No, you are correct about that. There are words to distinguish between biological brother and cousin in Greek. However, in the Hebrew culture which is the one in question, a close cousin or friend was basically synonomous with brother or sister. One might even say that this understanding was transliterated, rather than just merely translated into the Greek. Therefore, we must look past the mere fact that the Greek language had other possible words to use, and see what the intent of the author was. And clearly, in the NT, the use of the word brother and sister (just as it was in the OT) is used on other people than just biological brothers.

In fact, this extends to our culture today. For many people refer to people that are not there biological brothers, as brother. We see this is also the case in the NT, when James and Joseph as said to be Jesus’ brothers in Mark 6:3. Yet, we know very clearly that James and Joseph were not Mary’s (Jesus’ mother) children, but rather Mary of Zebedee (Mt 27:56, Mk 15:40).

Also, it is important to point out that while the Scripture talks about brothers and sisters of Christ, it never once refers to them as the children of Mary, OTHER than Christ.

I really think a good, easy article to read is linked below. Just check it out and see what you think.

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

 

[Redbandito]

no, there is no word for “cousin.” there are places where the word “relative” is replaced with “cousin” as in luke ch 1-2 where mary visits elizibeth but that word means “relative” or “kinswoman.” besides john crysostom and john calvin both excellent greek scholars excepted the perpetual virginity of mary

That is actually incorrect. The Greek language does have two separate words to distinguish between. Brother= adelphos, while Cousin= *anepsios. *However, since the Israelites grew up in a culture calling cousins, brothers and sisters, this really does not prove much.

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

 

[Redbandito]

No she isn’t my mother’s name starts with an A!

Did you read this before you posted it?
He is not calling her mother, dont twist the words, he is telling John to take her as his mother. sheesh

If she was good enough to be Jesus’ mother, she is good enough to be mine. Since I am in Jesus, and He is in me, and I am part of the Body of Christ, AND since Mary is Jesus’ mother, I accept that she is mine as well. God bless!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

She is but you don’t accept Her.

NOT! Isn’t and never will be.

Anyway are you saying that Mary wasn’t the mother of Jesus ?

Never said that, please don’t put words in my mouth.

The Bible says to honour your Father and your mother, we honour are earthly fathers and mothers, and no less honour is applied to Mary our Heavenly mother, given to us at the foot of the Cross.

You may wish to feel this way about our Saviours mother, but in my opinion it is a very paganistic view, but then again I subscribe to some pretty fundamental views theologically speaking.

 

[mikeledes]

Honoring Mary is a paganistic view because we honor and love her as a mother given to us by Christ Himself? I don’t see Mary as some Mother Goddess, but as a revered and loved Christian in Heaven who intercedes with her Son on our behalf.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Eireann]

NOT! Isn’t and never will be.

Never said that, please don’t put words in my mouth.

You may wish to feel this way about our Saviours mother, but in my opinion it is a very paganistic view, but then again I subscribe to some pretty fundamental views theologically speaking.

So if Mary wasn’t Johns mother, and Jesus said to him behold your mother, then Jesus must have been wrong.

Jesus held a paganistic view ?