Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Yeshua1, Jul 18, 2012.
or is it fully based upon traditions of men only?
Catholics believe that Mary was a virgin before and at the time of the birth of her son Jesus.
The virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us." When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary.
Well, conservative non cathics hold to that also!
What about the other RCC dogmas concerning her, any scriptures for them?
We are likely to be all over the place with a thread like this but one of the most debated teachings of the CC takes place when discussing the 'perpetual virginity' of Mary. Since you asked for biblical evidence I won't list the Reformers who affirmed this doctrine but stick to evidence in scripture. There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. The first considers the "brothers" of Jesus from the Gospels.
Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31; Lk 8:19
'While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers (adelphoi) appeared outside, wishing to speak with him. (Someone told him, "Your mother and your brothers (adelphoi) are standing outside, asking to speak with you.") But he said in reply to the one who told him, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers (adelphoi)?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers (adelphoi). For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother (adelphos), and sister (adelpha), and mother."
Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother (adelphos) of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters (adelphai) here with us?
First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary.
My second point would be that the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. I have read that Aramaic and other Semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called "a brother (adelphos) of Jesus." In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)
Another objection to Mary's virginity arises from the use of the word, heos (until) in Matthew's gospel.
He (Joseph) had no relations with her until (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.
A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word, prototokos, translated "first-born" in Luke's gospel.
(Mary) gave birth to her firstborn son (prototokos). She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger ...
The Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary. The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) 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.
Yeshua, I also believe that Jesus handing care of His mother to John while on the cross gives scriptural support to Jesus not having full brothers and sisters. You would probably have to conclude that if Jesus had full brothers and sisters at the time of His crucifixion, then they would have been in hiding for fear of what might happen to them. Otherwise the custom was that those brothers and sister would have cared for their mother if Joseph was already dead. If Joseph was living there would have been no need for Jesus to give the care of Mary to anyone, but I would think if He had full brothers and sisters He would have communicated that one or more of them would care for Mary and not John.
I will just mention another doctrine that I believe is biblically based for now as I won't be able to discuss this more until later. The teaching of The 'Immaculate Conception'. belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary can be found in the Biblical revelation of holiness and the opposite of that state, sinfulness. God is revealed as perfect interior holiness.
"Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!" they (the Seraphim) cried one to the other.
Would you agree that no sin or anything tainted with sin can stand in the face of the holiness of God.
Then we have Gen 3:15 where "Enmity" is mutual hatred between Mary and sin, between Christ and sin.
I will put enmity between you (the serpent, Satan) and the woman (Mary), and between your offspring (minions of Satan) and hers (Jesus); He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.
Yeshua, would you also agree that for the birth of God as a human being, God was interested in the condition of the mother's womb? Are there other examples in scripture? Look at Samson. Even a great, but imperfect, judge of Israel, Samson, God was directive about the state of his mother during the pregnancy. We find that the request for the mother to be pure is repeated for emphasis.
An angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, "Though you are barren and have had no children, yet you will conceive and bear a son. Now, then, be careful to take no wine or strong drink and to eat nothing unclean." They probably had no clue about fetal alchohol syndrome at that time but the Lord did!
"But he (the angel) said to me, 'You will be with child and will bear a son. So take neither wine nor strong drink, and eat nothing unclean. For the boy shall be consecrated to God from the womb, until the day of his death.' "
The angel of the LORD answered Manoah, "Your wife is to abstain from all the things of which I spoke to her. She must not eat anything that comes from the vine, nor take wine or strong drink, nor eat anything unclean. Let her observe all that I have commanded her."
Yeshua, don't you think that the Lord would have much stricter requirement for the woman in who's womb His only Son would be carried? I do.
Now I think DHK and others have disagreed with the following interpretation of Gabriel salutation and what it implies on other threads but the salutation of the Angel Gabriel is different from the usual angelic greeting. "It indicates that Mary was exceptionally "highly favored with grace" (Greek: charitoo, used twice in the New Testament, in Lk 1:28 for Mary - before Christ's redemption; and Eph 1:6 for Christ's grace to us - after Christ's redemption)."
And coming to her (Mary), he (the angel Gabriel) said, "Hail, favored one (kecharitomene)"
(God) chose us in him (Jesus), before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, for the praise of the glory of his grace (echaritosen) that he granted us in the beloved.
"Look at the angel's salutation preceded Mary's acquiescence. Mary was already highly favored. God's grace was not given in time after Mary accepted the angel's word. The Church believes that this grace was given from the very beginning of Mary's life. It is clearly grace because at the time of Mary's conception she could have done nothing to earn it." (Bread From Heaven).
I just wanted to add that many Protestants are confused as to what is doctrine or dogma concerning the Blessed Virgin. Many Protestants think that Catholics must accept and believe in the different apparitions (Lourdes, Fatima, etc.) The dogma of the Church MUST be believed by all faithful Catholics but they are not required believe in any of the apparitions or pray the rosary, etc.
Mary had no other children after Jesus was born. She remained a virgin her entire life. I came to this conclusion in the 7th decade of my life after a careful search of the Scriptures. However, I was unable to reach this conclusion until I opened my mind to the possibility and actually looked at the overwhelming evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Here are some of the things I found.
1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord. However, in the narrative of Jesus being left behind in Jerusalem at age 12, there is no mention of any other children.
2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by language such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.
3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations with Joseph, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how this birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly reasonable.
4. None of the early church fathers advocated that Mary had other children. On the other hand, many of them advocated her perpetual virginity. Of particular note among this group were Athanasius (d. 373), Jerome (d. 420), Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).
5. The early reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley all advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary.
6. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. Not only would it have been highly insulting, it would have been impossible. Jesus the man would have had no right to do this. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.
The only difficult Scripture for those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary is Matthew 1:25 ("but [Joseph] kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son"). The implication is that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus. But the language of the Bible does not bear this out. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 15:25, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." Should we infer that He ceases to reign after He has put all His enemies under His feet? Likewise, we need not infer that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus.
The Assumption of Mary, that Mary reigns in Heaven as Queen of Angels and Saints, and that Mary is the spiritual mother of all believers.
See Revelation 12. She is in Heaven, higher than the moon. She wears a crown (which is what queens do). She gives birth to a man child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (only Mary did this). The serpent makes war with the remnant of her seed (showing she is our mother).
The language conveys this naturally if we had no other bias controlling our view of that language. It is the very same language used of other women and their children in scripture. You admit this in the next paragraph.
This is completely unnatural because of the context in which these terms are found. Why would any writer place these brothers and sisters in the context of Mary and Joseph and not in the context of the sister or brother of Mary or Joseph:
Mt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us?
How in the world can you draw such an implication from this langauge? The natural implication was that she was still unmmarried and had remained faithful to Joseph in regard to her betrothal to him. It is perfectly reasonable for this statement to be understood considering any betrothed woman of Israel as there was to be no sexual relationships before the betrothal was consummated in the marriage bed.
Traditions cannot be used to deny the words of scriptures. I believe these are the records of apostasy
These are merely Reformed Catholics taught this all their lives.
We know that all his brothers rejected him as the Messiah. His mother was a believer and it would be unthinkable for Christ the Son of God to commit his mother into the hands of unbelievers. As the eldest in the family it was his right as firstborn to see to the welfare of his mother and he did so admirably by committing her into the hands of the apostle of love, a Christian man.
If you would have continued reading in 1 Corinthians it was indeed the end of his earthly millennial reign where he hands the reign over to His Father:
1 Cor. 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
This where there is NO biblical support, just cathoic dogma!
Immaculate Conception dogma held by failing to see that there was NO need for mary to not be a sinner, as jesus was Virgin Born, conceived by the Holy Spirit, so he "by passed" inheiriting the sin nature of mary!
Think the catholic supporters hereare bring up th e"little doctrines" on mary, as ALL christians see her as a virgin at birth of jesus, some even hold to her not having secual realtions, but NO support can be found for those dogmas held by RCC of immaculaye conception and her being the Co metrix/mediator Queen of heaven etc!