Things We Believe That Aren't In The Bible

[PJM]

=Ralph4454;6242002]I understood it just like fermat did. Not everybody read the same thing in that comment, and fermat did not sound confrontational to me.

Originally Posted by coosa
I do not know of any explaination given in the scriptures that makes Mary’s death different from other followers of Christ. Our lord implied that all that know him are his brother, sister, and mother.

Why of course there is.
**
Luke 1; 26-35**: "[26] In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. …] And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

***So we KNOW Mary is the Mother of God. In order to be such Mary had to be perfected, as God could not be born “in / from sin.”

Because we can know that Mary is Perfect, and that Lordes, Fatima, Graudalupie *are confrmed Miracles of Mary’s actual after her ASSUMPTION Body and Soul into heaven appearances, we can [or at least should if we have FAITH] that MAry did not die in the same way we will. Inded as she “asumed” it is likely that she was still alive. it happened to Elishia, why not the Mother of God?AMEN! **

As an aside: "The mother and “brothers” ARE cousins, NOT actual brothers. They may have even just been close followers.

See Mt. 12:49, Acts 1:14, 1 Cor. 9:5, Acts 9:17, Acts 21:20 and Rom. 14: 13,15 and 21 for examples.

 

[pismopal]

I don’t need to guess about the Blessed Mother’s sinlessness, as the Church brought that understanding to me. My Church had adherants, early fathers, who actually knew Mary during her life and at her death (Tradition)…but if I had to ASSUME anything, I would assume that she was sinless…remained so throughout her life and was assumed into heaven by the same power and will that brought us her Son. Why in the name of all that is Holy would a Christian want to think…even entertain…anything else???
Forget the Bible for 1 second…how would you treat your mother if you were God?

 

[jericho777]

Part 4 Mary being without sin

The first Adam and the first Eve were conceived without sin.

Adam and Eve were created without sin. They were never born.

 

[jericho777]

Part 4 Mary being without sin

Now, some people will say, “Well, if Mary was conceived without Original Sin, and if she never sinned her entire life, then she has no need of Jesus Christ as her Savior. Yet, Mary herself says in Luke 1:47 that God is her Savior; therefore, Mary had to have sinned!” The problem with this line of thinking, though, is that it flows from a limited view of the power of God. These folks seem to think that God can only save someone after that person has sinned, and not before.

So, Mary rightly claims God as her Savior because He saved her, before the fact, from Original Sin, and because He saved her, by His grace, from ever committing an actual sin.

There are also those who say that by claiming Mary was free from the taint of sin, we Catholics are making Mary equal to God. Where is the logic in that? Does that mean Adam and Eve, before they sinned, were equal to God? Of course not! So, Mary being sinless in no way makes her equal to God, just as Adam and Eve being sinless in no way made them equal to God. That argument is based on faulty logic. Besides, how could Mary be equal to God, when it was only by the grace of God that she was immaculately conceived and was able to avoid sin her entire life?

Done…Whew!

Jesus came to save those who have sinned. If as you claim Mary did not sin she would have no need of a savior. But you quote Luke 1:47 saying she needs a Savior. If she needs a savior then she is guilty of sin. Only a sinner need a Savior.

God never says or implies He willsave anyone from sinning before they sin. Do you realize Mary’s name in Hebrew means rebel? Strongs 4813

Adam and Eve were never equal to God because they were created beings.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Jesus came to save those who have sinned. If as you claim Mary did not sin she would have no need of a savior. But you quote Luke 1:47 saying she needs a Savior. If she needs a savior then she is guilty of sin. Only a sinner need a Savior.

God never says or implies He willsave anyone from sinning before they sin. Do you realize Mary’s name in Hebrew means rebel? Strongs 4813

Adam and Eve were never equal to God because they were created beings.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

First of all the name Mary maybe taken from the Old Testament, in Hebrew Miriam is Moses’ sister, her name according to Jewish tradition is due to the bitterness of the Israelites’ enslavement. Jews explain Miriam’s name meaning rebellion is because she rebelled against the slave mentality There are also other possible meaning for the word Mary, others have said its the Aramaic word for Lady, since in Aramaic its almost identical to the word for Lord Mari/Maryah. I have also seen Mary possible means beautiful.

I disagree with the point only sinners need saviors. Before the Deformation theologians debated whether or not Mary was conceived with original sin, the doctrine became largely accepted even so Martin Luther accepted it. One of the problems as to why some did not except it early was Luke 1:47, as to my understanding it was solved by logic. The explanation I heard was that if a person were to walk into sinking sand and they are sinking and someone throws them a rope and pulls them out they saved the person from the quicksand. However, if a person is walking and comes close to the quick sand and says “Hey stop theres quick sand there” then that person is also saved then from the quicksand, so whether or not they were actually sinking in the quicksand is irrelevant as to whether or not they have a savior from the quicksand. The Catholic view is essentially the Virgin Mary in her role to bear His only Son was selected and made holy for the role and as part of her predestination she was saved from the quicksand by not contracting original sin are her conception. The Catholic view of Mary is like that of Eve prior to the Fall of Man, but where Eve was seduced by the Serpent and did not believe God’s words about not eating the fruit, Mary was faithful and believed in God’s word.

I think part of the Protestant difficultly is with a sinless Mary is that some of early Protestants had this bizarre view that Adam by his own power prior to the Fall of man was capable of please God without God’s grace/assistance, that’s not true Adam and Eve both need God’s grace to obey and please God. People cannot be saved solely by their own will, they need God, and in that sense God is the savior of even a sinless person because without His power they could not be sinless.

Also, no one claimed the Blessed Virgin was equal to God, that is blasphemy and apostasy, since ancient times the Church has condemned those who have taken extreme view of Mary, from “she just a good-for-nothing sinner who had lots of kids” to “she is part of the trinity and should be offered cakes” . Both this views are repugnant. Nonetheless you possible explanation of Mary’s name, even if it is true, proves nothing in this regard.

What funny about quoting Romans 5:12 is that people ignore that it is a general statement about man and does not apply to absolutely all. The obvious exception is Christ (who is a sinless man who died), another exception is Enoch and Elijah (people who did not die)

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Is there any part of the scripture that explicity instructs us to pray to Jesus?

Acts 7:59-- As they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

John 14:14–And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.

Ofcourse we can pray to Jesus as He is God, same with the Holy Spirit, however I am not aware of a verse in the Scripture praying to the Holy Spirit, yet by logic that is fine as the Spirit is God

 

[melekali]

The Ever Virgin died as is attested to here:

Gregorian sacramentary Adrian I to Charlemagne: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death…”

Byzantine liturgy: “God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.” (Menaei Totius Anni)

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Adam and Eve were created without sin. They were never born.

God does not create sin. Adam might be said to be born of the earth, his mother in a sense. since He was formed from the soil, and the earth is a feminine word in Hebrew.

Mary was made blessed and graced by God.

Early Christian saw the Earth in its state before the Fall as a Mary figure

“The virgin earth gave birth to that Adam, head of the earth, today the Virgin gave birth to Adam, head of Heaven”(St Ephraim the Syrian 4th century)

If you read Genesis 3:17 you will see God curse the Earth after Adam’s Fall for ADAM’s sake, this is a contrast with the case of Mary who was blessed before the New Adam’s sake, so that He might be born of a Holy Woman. The first Adam was made of a Good father (God) and Good mother (the Earth), and so was the Last Adam (God and Mary).

BTW see God’s blessing to Israel on the condition they are obedient in Deuteronomy 28:4 and see if a phrase resembles anything in Luke 1:42

“Most blessed are you among women, and** blessed is the fruit of your womb.**”-Luke 1:42

“Blessed be the fruit of your womb”-Deuteronomy 28:4

Let’s not forget God’s incarnation was intentional and ordained by God carefully:

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.”—St Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140(A.D. 449),in ULL,97

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.”—St Jacob (James)of Sarug (ante A.D. 521),in CE

 

[jericho777]

First of all the name Mary maybe taken from the Old Testament, in Hebrew Miriam is Moses’ sister, her name according to Jewish tradition is due to the bitterness of the Israelites’ enslavement. Jews explain Miriam’s name meaning rebellion is because she rebelled against the slave mentality There are also other possible meaning for the word Mary, others have said its the Aramaic word for Lady, since in Aramaic its almost identical to the word for Lord Mari/Maryah. I have also seen Mary possible means beautiful.

In Hebrew all names have meanings Jesus means the LORD is Salvation. Miryam is Hebrew and means rebel. It’s no big deal.

I disagree with the point only sinners need saviors. Before the Deformation theologians debated whether or not Mary was conceived with original sin, the doctrine became largely accepted even so Martin Luther accepted it. One of the problems as to why some did not except it early was Luke 1:47, as to my understanding it was solved by logic. The explanation I heard was that if a person were to walk into sinking sand and they are sinking and someone throws them a rope and pulls them out they saved the person from the quicksand. However, if a person is walking and comes close to the quick sand and says “Hey stop theres quick sand there” then that person is also saved then from the quicksand, so whether or not they were actually sinking in the quicksand is irrelevant as to whether or not they have a savior from the quicksand. The Catholic view is essentially the Virgin Mary in her role to bear His only Son was selected and made holy for the role and as part of her predestination she was saved from the quicksand by not contracting original sin are her conception. The Catholic view of Mary is like that of Eve prior to the Fall of Man, but where Eve was seduced by the Serpent and did not believe God’s words about not eating the fruit, Mary was faithful and believed in God’s word.

Jesus came to save us from the penalty of our sin. Only sinners need a Savior. If somebody does not have sin they don’t need to be saved. And their righteousness is equal to God’s. Luke 1:47 says otherwise.

I think part of the Protestant difficultly is with a sinless Mary is that some of early Protestants had this bizarre view that Adam by his own power prior to the Fall of man was capable of please God without God’s grace/assistance, that’s not true Adam and Eve both need God’s grace to obey and please God. People cannot be saved solely by their own will, they need God, and in that sense God is the savior of even a sinless person because without His power they could not be sinless.

I don’t know what protestants believe pre say but all people need God’s grace and are incapable of pleasing God without it.

Also, no one claimed the Blessed Virgin was equal to God, that is blasphemy and apostasy, since ancient times the Church has condemned those who have taken extreme view of Mary, from “she just a good-for-nothing sinner who had lots of kids” to “she is part of the trinity and should be offered cakes” . Both this views are repugnant. Nonetheless you possible explanation of Mary’s name, even if it is true, proves nothing in this regard.

Any sinless person would have the right to enter God’s presence and by nature be equal to God . All in Adam have a sin nature and need to be saved from the penalty of sin.

What funny about quoting Romans 5:12 is that people ignore that it is a general statement about man and does not apply to absolutely all. The obvious exception is Christ (who is a sinless man who died), another exception is Enoch and Elijah (people who did not die)

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

Elijah and Enoch may be future destined to die a human death as the two witnesses in Rev. But rest assured all born in Adam have original sin. The bible declares no exemption for this. Jesus did not have a human father so he had no original sin.

 

[coosa]

Coosa, I find it interesting that you overlooked ALL of Chuey55’s comments and did not address any of them at all. Is this because you are stumped? Do you not have any answers, other than to quote that one verse, out of context, from Ecclesiastes?/QUOT
Rainman I admit, I’m stumped. Chuey is focused on Mary being without sin. I can’t explain God’s grace. I believe that anything is possible with it. I believe with all certainty that Mary died sinless. As do all who give their sin to Christ. Tell what I quoted out of context.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

In Hebrew all names have meanings Jesus means the LORD is Salvation. Miryam is Hebrew and means rebel. It’s no big deal.

I don’t understand are you trying to prove Mary is a sinner due to her name?

Jesus came to save us from the penalty of our sin. Only sinners need a Savior. If somebody does not have sin they don’t need to be saved. And their righteousness is equal to God’s. Luke 1:47 says otherwise.

Simple repeating what you said before does not make it anymore persuasive. Consider Joseph in the Old Testament, sure he was not a savior like Christ was, but he was still called the “savior of the world” why? Because he interpreted the Pharoah dream’s and was able to save Egypt from famine, not because he some them WHILE in a famine but he told them how to avoid the famine by saving up food for those hard years, Joseph was a savior by PREVENTING them from dying in the famine.

I don’t know what protestants believe pre say but all people need God’s grace and are incapable of pleasing God without it.

Good’s grace is always necessary

Any sinless person would have the right to enter God’s presence and by nature be equal to God . All in Adam have a sin nature and need to be saved from the penalty of sin.

By nature? where do you get this from? Adam and Eve were sinless before the Fall and they were not equal to God. The only way one can be equal to God is by being Almighty. Our nature itself is good and holy in its God given state, original sin is like a disease that infects us. We simply believe God ordained it that Mary be an exception to having original sin because of her mission to bear and raise His Son.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

Elijah and Enoch may be future destined to die a human death as the two witnesses in Rev. But rest assured all born in Adam have original sin. The bible declares no exemption for this. Jesus did not have a human father so he had no original sin.

Elijah and Enoch being the two is just one interpretation, others see the two witnesses as Peter and Paul, or Elijah and Moses. Romans 5:12 doesn’t say anything about whose your father, it only speaks about who is everyone’s ‘father’ the ‘one man’, ADAM. BTW scientists have allegedly already created animals without the use of males (and this is not parthenogenesis), they turned stem cells into what is the same as a male’s seed , no real male needed. Chances are if it worked in other mammals its only a matter of time before they use it for IVF in human, God forbid, but should this happen you will have people born without fathers, only mothers, should we then supposed these children are born without original sin because they have no father? Also, BTW yes Romans 5 has an exception since it says “in THIS way death came to all men”.

 

[Frankk]

The bible is a book of facts. I do not even try to interpret it.

I suppose this depends on what you mean by ‘facts’.

Gen 1:26-31 God made man on the 6th day [after the fowl on day 5 and the beast on day 6]

Gen 2:7 God made man
Gen 2:19 God formed every beast and every fowl [after Adam].
Gen 2:21-24 God made Eve

The order of creation in the Bible, then, has two versions. Which of these is ‘fact’ and which is not. If both are facts why are they different?

 

[chuey55]

Jesus came to save those who have sinned. If as you claim Mary did not sin she would have no need of a savior. But you quote Luke 1:47 saying she needs a Savior. If she needs a savior then she is guilty of sin. Only a sinner need a Savior.

God never says or implies He willsave anyone from sinning before they sin. Do you realize Mary’s name in Hebrew means rebel? Strongs 4813

Adam and Eve were never equal to God because they were created beings.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

Whats up brother! With all due respect, your comments are not worth debating. You’ll ignore everything and continue to throw a passage or two over and over again proving nothing but yourself. Can someone please refute my previous post.

In response to the comments earlier about us all being one body, disagreeing, but what matters most is that we’re united in Christ is utter nonsense. This is the old we’re united in spirit with Christ but our flesh is bad so regardless if we disagree, we’re still one family.

Listen, protestantism was formed to make man feel secure without having to participate in anything Christ calls us to do, grace given of course, we are too selfish to take up the cross on our own. Man is lazy, selfish, prideful, hateful, judgemental and so on(I’m all of these by the way) so he needs to create a Gospel for himself to wipe away guilt, insecurities, so he can continue to live out his selfish/lazy life.

If you continue to pick and choose a passage here and there to absolutely prove nothing, you’re not believing in the Gospel but yourself.

Protestantism splits and breaks us into many parts. How many churches have to be built before you admit this? I find it funny when preachers like Rick Warren talk about unity, it’s a joke.

I remember growing up Catholic as a child and my family literally tore apart because of this. My whole family was Catholic and this self proclaimed preacher came into our home and started this single passage nonsense and split us up. It got so bad that alot of them stopped hanging out and talking to one another. The preacher himself stopped talking to us out of the Church once we refuted some of his teachings. Before you know it, we’re all in seperate churches, and everyone has the truth! No offense to Jehovahs but man, these family members were the worst, any contact with them they’d send us to hell!

But hey, we’re all united in Christ right? We all believe everything in the Gospels right? Please…

One body(matter), One spirit all united in Christ!

And brothers, if your gonna respond by saying something like well, Jesus said not everyone will be saved when hearing the truth, please save it to argue amongst yourselves.

And all of this could have been prevented if the family would have learned their Faith, studied themselves, and not gave in to their itching ears.

 

[mo3]

I’m not sure the OP meant that we should restrict ourselves to dogmatic teachings of the Church. There are many things that Catholics and non-Catholics believe which aren’t directly mentioned in the bible.

Maybe not but this is where Catholics must accurately state where their beliefs come from and whether or not it is a required dogmatic teaching.

For example, one of our Stations of the Cross – #6 – is Jesus’ face being wiped by Veronica with the ensuing impression of his face on her veil. Where does the Bible mention this? It doesn’t. That comes from contemporaneous writings.

This is a good example. Catholics are not required to believe Veronica wiped the face of Jesus. This is not a dogmatic teaching. It is OK to believe it but there is nothing wrong with rejecting it either.

God bless.

 

[chuey55]

In Hebrew all names have meanings Jesus means the LORD is Salvation. Miryam is Hebrew and means rebel. It’s no big deal.

One explanation of the name Mary, based on its derivation from the Egyptian mer or mar, to love, and the Hebrew Divine name Yam or Yahweh (Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 1906, pp. 356 sqq.). Thus explained the name denotes “one loving Yahweh” or “one beloved by Yahweh”. We have already pointed out the difficulty implied in an Egyptian origin of the name Mary. Probably it is safer to adhere to Bardenhewer’s conclusions (l. c., pp. 154 sq.): Mariam and Maria are the later forms of the Hebrew miryam; miryam is not a compound word consisting of two nouns, or a noun and an adjective, or a noun and a pronominal suffix, but it is a simple though derivative noun; the noun is not formed by means of a prefix (m), but by the addition of a suffix (am). Presupposing these principles, the name miryam may be derived either from marah, to be rebellious, or from mara, to be well nourished. Etymology does not decide which of these derivations is to be preferred; but it is hardly probable that the name of a young girl should be connected with the idea of rebellion, while Orientals consider the idea of being well nourished as synonymous with beauty and bodily perfection, so that they would be apt to give their daughters a name derived from mara Mary means therefore The beautiful or The perfect one.

There are complex meanings of the name Mary, don’t assume something to prove nothing. And yes, it is a big deal.

 

[PJM]

=jericho777;6243372]Jesus came to save those who have sinned. If as you claim Mary did not sin she would have no need of a savior. But you quote Luke 1:47 saying she needs a Savior. If she needs a savior then she is guilty of sin. Only a sinner need a Savior.

God never says or implies He willsave anyone from sinning before they sin. Do you realize Mary’s name in Hebrew means rebel? Strongs 4813

Adam and Eve were never equal to God because they were created beings.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

***Dear friend in Christ; you’re attempting [logically] to apply human thought and understanding to what requires GRACE and spiritual insight. “Isa.55 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.”

Mary in order to become the Mother of God [through the furture merits of her Son Jesus, as time has no releverance fo God] HAD T BE BE [no option here] PERFECTED in order to give Birth to a Perfect God / man! who too HAD to be [no option here either] Perfect and could not issue forth from a sinful human being. The Divne Nature of God requires a perfect human nature, which had to [no option] to comr from a sinless Mother.

Jesus is the Redeemer of Mary in that it is ONLY through His Merit that such a perfection could take place.

Certainly it is within God’s power and perview to accomplish this.***

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[chuey55]

Jesus came to save us from the penalty of our sin. Only sinners need a Savior. If somebody does not have sin they don’t need to be saved. And their righteousness is equal to God’s. Luke 1:47 says otherwise.

Are you serious?!? I mean what does this nonsense prove? Only sinners need a saviour?

If someone does not have sin they don’t need to be saved, geez man… Do you even think about your comments before you post?

I mean seriously, is it that hard to put the pride down and believe that God could prepare St. Anne’s womb to immaculately conceive her daughter?!? To believe that he’d want to bring himself into the world without the stain of orginal sin. I mean after all sin is from the evil one right?

Maybe I’m dumb, I don’t know, God created the world from nothing, but man, there is no way he could have immaculately conceive His mother.

He created Adam and Eve from soil without sin, hmmmm…so you Catholics are telling me He created His mother without sin?!? What?!? No way! Thats not what my bible says!!!

“”"“Elijah and Enoch may be future destined to die a human death as the two witnesses in Rev. But rest assured all born in Adam have original sin. The bible declares no exemption for this. Jesus did not have a human father so he had no original sin. “””""

I’m not gonna touch this one, it’s not worth anyones time. The next thing you’ll do is pull a rabbit out of your Bible. Save this one for your pastor, sorry.

 

[chuey55]

Some more spiritual food for ya:thumbsup: Part One

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. She was not only a virgin before Jesus was born, but remained so after Jesus was born. Yet, as many Protestants point out, the Bible does indeed mention the “brothers” of Jesus. For example, Mark 6:3, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon…”

The “brothers” of Jesus are clearly mentioned, and even named, in the Bible. So, Mary did indeed have other children and, therefore, the Catholic Church is wrong when it dogmatically teaches that she was a perpetual virgin, right? Well, not so fast.

First of all, one needs to realize that there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic – the words that the Jews used in all those instances were “brother” or “sister”. An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, is called his “brother.” Some Bible translations might say “kinsman” because the translator knows that Lot was not Abram’s brother, but the actual word used in the Hebrew is “brother”. Lot, however, is clearly identified as Abram’s nephew in Gen 11:27, “Terah was the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran was the father of Lot.” So, Lot was Abram’s, or Abraham’s, nephew. Yet, Scripture refers to him as Abraha m’s brother.

Second, let’s get the “big picture” regarding Jesus’ “brothers” by looking at some verses that describe the scene at the Crucifixion:

1. Matthew 27:55–56, “There were also many women there, looking on from afar…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
2. Mark 15:40, “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome…”
3. John 19:25, “But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

What do we see in these three passages that pertains to the perpetual virginity of Mary? Well, we see that Mary, the mother of James and Joseph (or Joses), is specifically mentioned in the passages from Matthe w and Mark. Isn’t that interesting? Where else do we see James and Joses mentioned? In Mark 6:3, which is the verse mentioned above that contains the reference to Jesus’ “brothers.” And who are two of those brothers? James and Joses. But wait a minute, I thought James and Joses were sons of Mary the mother of Jesus? Not according to Scripture. Plus, when we look at the passage from John, it seems that Mary the mother of James and Joses is further identified as Mary the wife of Clopas, and she is also further identified as the “sister” of Jesus’ mother. Which means, that James and Joses, the “brothers” of Jesus, would actually have been the cousins of Jesus. Which makes perfect sense because the Jews referred to all close male relatives as their “brothers.”

In other words, it seems that the James and Joses identified in Mark 6:3 as th e “brothers” of Jesus, indeed had a mother named Mary, but it was not the same Mary who was the mother of Jesus. This scriptural fact would tend to negate Mark 6:3 as “proof” that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had other children. It would, in fact, add to the argument for her perpetual virginity.

There are only two possible arguments someone could make to counter this line of reasoning: 1) The James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27 and Mark 15 are not the same James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3; or 2) To concede that James and Joses were not the “brothers” of Christ, they were instead close relatives, but to still argue that the other “brothers” named in Mark 6:3 – Judas and Simon – and the “sisters” mentioned there, really were the sons and daughters of Mary the mother of Jesus…really!

The problem with the former argument is that there is absolutely nothi ng in the Bible that would suggest the James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27 and Mark 15 are not the same ones mentioned in Mark 6:3. People who have the same name are clearly distinguished in the New Testament. For example, we see that there were several women named Mary amongst Jesus’ followers. We also see that they are clearly identified as separate individuals when they are mentioned in the Scriptures so that there is no confusion as to which Mary is being talked about. In Matt 27:61, it even mentions the “other” Mary to distinguish Mary, the mother of James and Joses, from Mary Magdalen. It didn’t just say, “Mary and Mary,” or, “The two Mary’s.”

So why would anyone think that the James and Joses in Matt 27 and Mark 15 are anyone other than the James and Joses of Mark 6:3? In none of the verses that mention these two names does it have any other identifier that would distinguish one pair of James and Joses from another pair of James and Joses. It seems that there was but one pair of brothers named James and Joses who were apparently well known by the early Christian community.

to be continued…

 

[chuey55]

Perpetual Virginity Part Two

In the latter argument above, to concede James and Joses as being close relatives, and not brothers, of Jesus, yet to try and still argue that Judas and Simon were indeed Jesus’ brothers – sons of Mary – is a very weak argument. If two of the four “brothers” of Jesus listed in that verse are actually cousins of Jesus, then doesn’t it make perfect sense that the other brothers listed there are cousins as well, and that the “sisters” are also cousins? Think about it. First of all, if Judas and Simon were also sons of Mary, wouldn’t they have been listed first instead of James and Joses? After all, wouldn’t you list the actual “brothers” of Jesus ahead of the cousins of Jesus in a list of “brothers” of Jesus? Secondly, the fact that it has been shown the word “brothers” is referring to at least two “cousins,” not blood brothers, proves that you cannot automatically assume the word “brothers,” as used in Mark 6:3, absolutely refers to sons of the same mother. The word “brothers” in Mark 6:3 has lost its clout in trying to prove that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

Furthermore, let’s look at Galatians 1:19. Paul is talking about when he went to Jerusalem to consult with the chief of the Apostles, Peter, and while there, “I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.” So, we have James, the “brother” of Jesus as mentioned in Mark 6:3, and James, the “Lord’s brother,” as mentioned in Gal 1:19. And this time James, the Lord’s brother, is identified a s an apostle. So, if I’m a Bible–only believer – in other words, if the Bible is my sole rule of faith when it comes to all things related to the Christian Faith – then I have to admit that the James in Mark 6:3 and the James in Gal 1:19 are the same James. There is nothing in Scripture to tell me otherwise.

But there’s a problem for those who would say this James is the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus. You see, this James is clearly identified as an apostle. Yet, of the two apostles named James that we find in the list of the twelve apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:1–4), one of them had a father named Zebedee and the other had a father named Alphaeus – neither one of them had a father named Joseph! So, the Apostle James, who is one of the “brothers of the Lord” from Mark 6:3, cannot actually be a blood brother of Jesus, because he is either the son of Alphaeus or the son of Zebedee, not the son of Joseph. He has to be a cousin or some similar relation to Jesus, not his brother.

Now, there is one line of Catholic tradition (small “t” tradition), that identifies the James in Galatians 1:19 as not being one of the original twelve apostles. However, someone who goes by the Bible alone and who does not put any stock in “tradition” cannot use the argument from tradition, because they only accept the Bible as the authority in matters Christian. So, using the Bible alone, one cannot argue that the James in Gal 1:19 is a “third” James who had at some point been named an apostle, because the Bible nowhere mentions such a thing.

So, when we look at the “brothers” of Jesus in the broader context of Scripture, rather than just focusing on Mark 6:3, we see that the argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary has no foundation in the Bible. We also see that Mark 6:3, when taken in a broader scriptural context, tends to actually strengthen the argument for Mary as having been a perpetual virgin.

Another point to consider: If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26–27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother! In Jewish society, when the father died, the care of the mother would pass to the eldest son. If he died, then the care of the mother would pass to the next eldest son, and so on. The fact that Jesus gave the care of His mother over to the Apostle John provides strong evidence that there were no other “brothers” of Jesus. If there had been, then one of them w ould have naturally assumed care for their mother at Jesus’ death.

One other passage to consider is Acts 1:14–15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was several dozen or so, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 80 or 90 or so. Which leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 30 or 40! Do you think Mary had 30 or 40 children? We would have to have a dogma that proclaimed the perpetual labor of Mary! No, Scripture does not contradic t the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, not when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

[to be continued…]

 

[chuey55]

Perpetual Virginity of Mary (cont’d) Part 3

There are two other passages from Scripture that I wish to mention to support the biblical argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary – Ezek 44:1–2 and Luke 1:34.

“Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. And he said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.”

If a gate of the temple which has been used by the Lord is so holy that no one else shall enter through that gate, then how much moreso the gate by which the Lord entered into this life to bring salvation to all mankind? Mary is the gate through which the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered, and therefore it (her womb) shall remain shut and no one else will enter by it.

Luke 1:34, “Then said Mary unto the angel, ‘How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’” Mary, after being told by an angel she was going to conceive a child in her womb, asks the angel, “How shall this be?” If Mary was planning on having normal marital relations with Joseph, then this has to be one of the dumbest questions of all time. Think of a woman, any woman, who is engaged to a man. This woman is hoping to have many children with her soon–to–be husband. An angel appears to her and says, “You shall conceive a child in your womb.” What would the woman say? She would say, “Great!” “Wonderful!” “Awesome!” She would not say, “How can this be?” She would know that once she got married, and she and her husband engaged in the marital act, that the natural result would be a child. So, again, if Mary was planning on having normal marital relations with Joseph, then this was a really dumb question.

But, if Mary had taken a vow of perpetual virginity, if she had made a vow to God to remain a virgin for her entire lifetime, then this question makes perfect sense. Why else ask that question? Now, someone might say, “Well, Mary simply had never had the birds and the bees talk with her mom, so she simply didn’t understand the physical process involved.” Sorry, by her own words, we see that Mary clearly knows that one has a child by “knowing” a man. This was a Jewish euphemism for engaging in the marital act. So, if it is not out of ignorance that Mary asks that question, what then? Mary asks that question because she knew that she and Joseph were not going to have physical relations. That is the only thing that makes this question make sense. Ask someone who does not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary the question of why Mary asked this question, and see what they say. I’ll bet it doesn’t make a whole lotta sense.

So, we see that the Bible actually presents some pretty strong evidence – Old Testament and New – for Mary being a perpetual virgin. There is no direct “proof” of that from the Bible, but there is a strong case to be made using the Bible. What objections are raised then, by those who say the Bible proves Mary was not a perpetual virgin? Outside of the passages like Mark 6:3 which refer to Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters,” which I have already shown are not referring to other children of Mary, there is one Bible passage that is usually laid down as the trump card by folks who object to the Church’s teaching on this matter. That passage is Matthew 1:24–25, which says, “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son…”

“See,” they say, “It says Joseph knew her not UNTIL she had borne a son. Which means that he did “know” her after she had borne a son. Therefore, Mary was not a perpetual virgin.”

Does the use of the word “until” automatically mean that something was true up to a certain point of time and then it was no longer true? Absolutely not. Let’s look at 1 Tim 4:13. Paul writes to Timothy and says, “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” Does that mean that Timothy, after Paul visited him, never again publicly read the scripture or preached or taught? It does if “until” automatically means things change after the “until” condition is met. So, ask those who throw Matthew 1:25 at you if Timothy stopped the public reading of scripture, stopped preaching, and stopped teaching after Paul arrived.

Also, ask them if Jesus is to reign forever or not. They will undoubtedly say, “Yes, Jesus will reign forever.” Then simply take them to 1 Cor 15:25 which says, “For He [Christ] must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” Which means, using the same interpretative model they used for Matt 1:24–25, that Jesus is not going to reign forever. He only reigns “until” He puts all His enemies under His feet, then He no longer reigns. After all, the word “until” means that things change after the “until” condition is fulfilled.

Yet, Scripture tells us very plainly that Jesus will reign forever: Luke 1:33, “and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there w ill be no end.” Rev 22:5, “And night shall be no more; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they [Father and Son] shall reign for ever and ever.”

to be continued…