The Protestant Reformers View Of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
3- Mark 6:3: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?”:
- First, Jesus is called “the son of Mary”, not the “oldest son”, nor “the youngest son”, there was not possibility of confusion, Mary had only one Son!.. never the Bible even mention “the children of Mary” not “the other son or daughter of Mary”… never!.
- The four brothers of Jesus mentioned are not “flesh brothers”, but “cousins”:
  • James and Joseph were children of Mary the wife of Clopas, the Virgin Mary’s sister:
    - If you read Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph”. We know that the father of James the younger was Clopas, the husband of Mary of Clopas (Alphaeus) (Mk.3:18), making Mary of Clopas also the mother of Joseph (Joses).
    - Similar statement is made in Mat.27:56, “Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses (Joseph), and the mother of Zebedee’s sons”.
    In both cases Mary the mother of James and Joseph, was not Virgin Mary who is usually called in the gospels “the mother of Jesus” or “his mother”.
    • Jude and Simon were also not “brothers” of Jesus but “cousins”:
      • Jude also was a son of Clopas and the Virgin Mary’s sister, as Scripture speaks of him as a brother of James the younger: “James son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James” (Acts 1:13).
      • Jude, in his Letter, introduces himself as “brother of James”, the child of Mary Clopas (Jude 1).
    4- In Matthew 13:55: Similar statement is made as in Mark 6:3, “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”, being James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude in fact the same James, Joseph, Simon and Jude just determined to be cousins of Jesus, not His “flesh-brothers”.

    5- Matthew 1:25: “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus”.
    This word “until” in Greek is “heos”, translates for “until or before”, and does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated.
    Please read these brief quotations:
    • “As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child till the day of her death” (2Sam.6:23 YLT)… does it mean that Michael had children after the day of her death?
    • “I am till you grow old” (Is.46:4)… Does it mean that when they grow old God ceases to be?..`
    • “The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” (Psalm 110:1)… Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued?”
      This verse 25, the last one of Matthew 1, is Matthews’s summary, or corollary, or bottom line, of all the previous verses 18-24, on how the conception of Jesus happened, without any intervention of Joseph… to interpret it other way, and specially as that Joseph had sexual relations with Virgin Mary after the birth of Jesus, is to change the whole meaning of the chapter, it is nothing but a false interpretation of Satan.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Either answer is non-Catholic and your anti-Catholic sentiments are showing…
Click to expand...
You know better, ProdigalSon. I’m not anti-catholic any more than you are anti-protestant. Well, maybe you are anti-protestant, then I’m simply not anti-catholic.
 
6- Luke 2:7: “And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths”
The term “first-born” was a legal term under the Mosaic Law referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not… Hence when Jesus is called the “first-born” of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.
The Jewish Law required every “first-born” to be consecrated to God forty days after their birth, it was a great privilege to be the “first-born”!: “Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.” (Exodus 13:2).
Further, the Greek word “prototokos”, “first-born”, is used of Christ as born of Mary in Lk.2:7, and of Christ’s relationship to His Father in Col 1:15… As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary… except, of course, many spiritual children of God the Father, and many spiritual children of Mother Mary, praise the Lord!.
Code: 
This last sentence is a good reminder that Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, is also your Mother, because, in fact, she has many millions of spiritual children... she is your Mother, know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not... it is a fact revealed by God Himself!... if you have an important, but unsolvable problem, Try Her!... you will see wonders in your life!, praise the Lord!.

7- At Calvary is obvious that Jesus had not any natural brother or sister, that's why he had to commend his Mother to a relative and friend, to John, who received her at his own home, as testified by the same John (Jn19:27)... for a Jewish mother it would have been unthinkable to go to live at the home of a friend after her son's death if she had another natural child... simple impossible!... but Virgin Mary had only one child, and now he was death. Mary, ever Virgin.

In the four gospels there are a total of four women listed as being at the foot of the cross:
Mary – mother of Jesus
Mary Magdalene – listed in all four gospels.
Mary (the wife of Clopas), the mother of James (the younger), Joseph (Joses), and Salome.
Joanne, the sister of Jesus’s mother (Jesus’s aunt) who was the mother of James and John, the sons’ of Zebedee.
8- “Christians” and “brothers of Jesus”: “Christians” were not called “Christians” until Antioch, in the times of St. Paul , The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch (Acts 11:26)… until then they were called the “brothers of Jesus”. In Acts 1:14 the “brothers of Jesus” are also mentioned, and in the next verse, 1:15, Peter states that at that time there were about 120 brothers of Jesus, not 120 natural children of Mary!, as some wrongly believe. After Acts 11 never appears the expression “brothers of Jesus” in the New Testament but “Christians”
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Let me keep this simple, there is no “what if situation.” The truth is what it is. The doctrines of Mary (4 of them) are part of Divine Revelation (God’s Revealed Truth as professed by his Bride, the Church). To deny any core Marian doctrines would be to heresy.

For instance, to deny that Mary is the Mother of God, would imply that Jesus is not God but only human. Jesus would be view as a “regular Jewish man” who live 2,000 yrs ago. Jesus isn’t no ordinary Jew. He is the Word of God made flesh. The image of the invisible God.
Click to expand...
Have it your way. Take care.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
They came to circumcised the child whom they were about to called Zachariah. Of course as the passage goes, Zecharias name him John. Elizabeth is Mary’s cousin. Mary had sister as mention in John’s Gospel. In John 19:25, it states, "So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

There is no evidence whatever that James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon were Mary’s children. Adelphoi will not carry the burden of this departure from traditional Christian doctrine.

Now let me say a few words about each of these four men. James “the Little” or “the Younger” is often called “brother [adelphos] of the Lord” (Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3, Gal. 1:19, and elsewhere by implication).

Twice he is named in series with Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon. Their “sisters” (adelphai) are also mentioned, but not named (Matt. 13:56, Mark 6:3). James is mentioned with Joses at the time of our Lord’s death. They are there called the sons of Mary, the wife of Clopas, a Mary different from our Blessed Mother (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25).

This “other” Mary (Matt. 27:61, 28:1) is called our Lady’s “sister” (adelphe) in John 19:25. It is unlikely that two girls of the same parents were given the same name “Mary.” So our Lady and the other Mary were related in a wider sense of adelphai. James, the son of the other Mary, a relative of Jesus, but not his uterine brother, became the first bishop of Jerusalem.

Joses (Joseph) is several times mentioned with his brother James and is mentioned alone as the son of the other Mary at the burial of Jesus (Mark 15:47).

Judas, not the Iscariot, nicknamed Thaddeus and Lebbeus, was an apostle of Christ and the author of the Epistle of Jude, in which he says that he is the “brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Tertullian, Origen, and other early Christian writers witness to an ancient tradition that this Judas is the one mentioned in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 as one of the adelphoi of Christ.

It is possible that he is the Judas Barsabbas (son of Sabbas) of Acts 15:22-33 and the brother of Joseph Barsabbas, a nominee with Matthias in the apostolic election of Acts 1:23-26. If this Sabbas was the father of the Joseph and Judas of Mark 6:3, he was possibly also the father of James and Simon of the same verse. James and Judas were apostles, then, and Joseph just missed becoming an apostle by the fall of the dice (Acts 1:26).

Simon was also one of these adelphoi of Jesus, and he was an apostle. Except for his nicknames, Zealot and Cananean, nothing is known of him for sure. Next, I want to cite a passage from Keating, then give Kilmon’s reaction to it. I beg the reader’s careful attention to these two passages:

"At the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, she asked, ‘How can that be, since I have no knowledge of man?’ (Luke1:34). From the earliest interpretations of the Bible we see that this was taken to mean that she had made a vow of life-long virginity, even in marriage. If she had taken no such vow, the question would make no sense at all.

"There is no reason to assume Mary was wholly ignorant of the rudiments of biology. She presumably knew the normal way in which children are conceived. If she anticipated having children and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask ‘how’ she was to have a child, since having a child the ‘normal’ way would be expected by a newlywed.

“No, her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows Mary kept her vow and never had any children other than Jesus.”
Click to expand...

Hold on. All of this doesn’t make sense in context to the question I was making.​

Please just answer the question. I was told scholor say Joseph most likely wasn’t Joseph’s son because Jewish men don’t name sons after themsleves. It that’s a fair understanding of what I was told then what is going on in Luke 1:59?
 
Dokimas said:
You know better, ProdigalSon. I’m not anti-catholic any more than you are anti-protestant. Well, maybe you are anti-protestant, then I’m simply not anti-catholic.
Click to expand...
So we view both hypothetical answers, neither of which gives a possibility of the Catholic view being right, and we’re to choose one? :rolleyes:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
So we view both hypothetical answers, neither of which gives a possibility of the Catholic view being right, and we’re to choose one? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Make one what you believe and then answer the question, please.​

Please show me where I improperly represented your belief in the one that I obviously meant to be the CC position.
 
Dokimas said:
You know better, ProdigalSon. I’m not anti-catholic any more than you are anti-protestant. Well, maybe you are anti-protestant, then I’m simply not anti-catholic.
Click to expand...
Prodigal Son,it you read any of Dokimas post you will see all his post are anti-catholic,I have never seen any of his post that agree with any Cathliclic teaching and he may have over 1<000 post
 
Bill_Pick said:
Prodigal Son,it you read any of Dokimas post you will see all his post are anti-catholic,I have never seen any of his post that agree with any Cathliclic teaching and he may have over 1<000 post
Click to expand...

I believe Jesus was raise bodily from the dead.​

I believe Jesus is God in Human form.​

I believe Jesus died for the sins of the whole world because He loves us.​

I believe Jesus was born to the virgin Mary.​

I believe when Jesus left this earth He gave the Holy Spirit to live with and in believers.​

I believe the Bible is the Word of God.​

I believe Jesus started His church, the Body of and Bride of Christ.​

I believe Jesus is returning one day.​

I believe Jesus did many miracles while He walked on this earth ministring to all He came in contact with.​

I believe Jesus is the King of kings, Lord of lords, the Prince of Peace, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world.​

Bill, how am I doing? Anything anti-catholic there?
 
Dokimas said:

I believe Jesus was raise bodily from the dead.​

I believe Jesus is God in Human form.​

I believe Jesus died for the sins of the whole world because He loves us.​

I believe Jesus was born to the virgin Mary.​

I believe when Jesus left this earth He gave the Holy Spirit to live with and in believers.​

I believe the Bible is the Word of God.​

I believe Jesus started His church, the Body of and Bride of Christ.​

I believe Jesus is returning one day.​

I believe Jesus did many miracles while He walked on this earth ministring to all He came in contact with.​

I believe Jesus is the King of kings, Lord of lords, the Prince of Peace, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world.​

Bill, how am I doing? Anything anti-catholic there?
Click to expand...
You are doing a very good job by your self and do not need my help.
PS do you know what religion he belong to, He just said Christian just saying Christiam covers a lot of space
 
Bill_Pick said:
You are doing a very good job by your self and do not need my help.
PS do you know what religion he belong to, He just said Christian just saying Christiam covers a lot of space
Click to expand...
I hope I belong to Jesus.
 
Dokimas said:

Make one what you believe and then answer the question, please.​

Please show me where I improperly represented your belief in the one that I obviously meant to be the CC position.
Click to expand...
Situation #1
Click to expand...

Mary is not perpetually a virgin; not without sin; not the mother of God but the mother of Jesus’ human body, not immaculately conceived. How would you feel if a group of people believed about you as the CC people do?​

Situation #2
Mary is as the CC teaches and non-catholic Christians believe as we do, that God used a wonderful young woman to bear His Son; she was faithful; she was obedient, but did n’t believe as the CC teaches.
Click to expand...
Situation #3
Mary is as the CC teaches. She was perpetually a virgin, without sin, the mother of God the Son, full of grace as the Angel proclaimed her to be, and realized her role when she said, ‘All generations will call me blessed’ and she believed as the Catholic Church teaches because she lived it and spoke about it.

Luk 1:46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luk 1:48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Luk 1:49 Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name.
Luk 1:50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
Luk 1:51 He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
Luk 1:52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble.
Luk 1:53 He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
Luk 1:54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy.
Luk 1:55 As he spoke to our fathers: to Abraham and to his seed for ever.
 
Bill_Pick said:
Calvin,Luther and Zwingli, The three fathers of the Reeformation each affirmed the Cathloic doctrines that Mary is the Mother of God and Perpetual Virgin.
We need to ask all protestants ,to honor Mary as much as the founders of their own tradition did .
Click to expand...
  1. Lutherans do embrace the view of Mary as the Mother of God in this sense: Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God incarnate in the flesh. Ergo, Mary is the mother of God.
  2. While it’s generally true that Luther embraced the Marian views OF HIS DAY, he taught none of them as dogma. Protestants have a concept that I think Catholics could benefit from, it’s called “pious opinion.” It is a view or spiritually - perhaps passionately and intensively embraced - that has a strong, historic, ecumenical embrace - but is neither confirmed or rejected by Scripture. It is thus not doctrine, and generally not required. I understand there were Lutheran pastors in Luther’s day that did NOT share the same Marian views that Luther did - and while Luther disagreed with them, they were not excommunicated or defrocked. You will find Lutherans who voted for Obama and Lutherans who voted for McCain - but you’ll find no dogma among us about either.
  3. As a Lutheran now, I find it - well, amusing - how Catholics will at times quote Luther as if he was some infallible vicar of Christ or at least a divine Prophet whose words are like Scripture. “Luther said - it’s GOTTA be true!” And then, two sentences later, denounce him as a satanic, heretical, mentally insane man who is to be rejected at every point. Amusing. As a Lutheran, I reject both of those views of him. He was just a man. He put his pants on one leg at a time. Nothin’ holy or satanic about him. A sinner, saved by Christ. Like me. Like you. That’s it.
Thank you.

Pax
  • Josiah
.
 
AmericanJosiah said:
  1. Lutherans do embrace the view of Mary as the Mother of God in this sense: Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God incarnate in the flesh. Ergo, Mary is the mother of God.
Click to expand...
How is that different from the Catholic view?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Situation #3
Mary is as the CC teaches. She was perpetually a virgin, without sin, the mother of God the Son, full of grace as the Angel proclaimed her to be, and realized her role when she said, ‘All generations will call me blessed’ and she believed as the Catholic Church teaches because she lived it and spoke about it.

Luk 1:46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luk 1:48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Luk 1:49 Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name.
Luk 1:50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
Luk 1:51 He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
Luk 1:52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble.
Luk 1:53 He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
Luk 1:54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy.
Luk 1:55 As he spoke to our fathers: to Abraham and to his seed for ever.
Click to expand...

In situation two I said Mary is as the CC believes (I didn’t say what that is so how did I make a mistake or misrepresent what they teach?)​

The question remains: Would it bother Mary more if she has those believe things not true and those beliefs are far more than she really is OR would it bother Mary more to have people believe she was a wonderful ‘Christian’ example of obedience and faith but doesn’t believe Mary is as the CC teaches assuming it is true?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
How is that different from the Catholic view?
Click to expand...
In THAT matter, it’s not.

Lutherans and Catholics agree on Mary’s virginity at the birth of Our Lord and that Our Lady is The Mother of God. Those are doctrines for us both.

SOME Lutherans embrace SOME (and maybe all) modern Catholic Marian views AS PIOUS OPINION. But they are not dogmas for Lutherans. Nor do we regard them as heresies.

For example, my Lutheran pastor (a former Catholic, BTW) embraces the PVM. He told me that some of his fellow pastors do not. I (also a former Catholic) have no position at all on the matter. We’re all Lutherans.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top