Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vintage Saints: Mary, Part 1 Mark Driscoll Preaching Pastor at Mars Hill Church
The Resurgence ^ | 2009 | Mark Driscoll

Posted on 11/05/2009 5:25:39 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege

"My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” – Mary worshipping God in Luke 1:46–47

Mary was simply a very godly young woman who loved the Lord and trusted in Him despite great risk to her own reputation. She repeatedly appears as a devout woman who loved God and was a loving mother to Jesus. Contrary to some aberrant teaching, she did not remain a virgin, but mothered other sons such as James and Jude, who visited Jesus with Mary during His ministry (Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31–35; Luke 8:19–21) and later became pastors who penned books of the New Testament bearing their names.

Therefore, the Mary of Scripture greatly differs from the Mary of myth, legend, and folklore.

"The real Mary is a wonderful example for all women of what it truly means to trust God in all things, obey God even when His call is difficult, worship God in faith that He is good for His promises, fellowship with God’s people in the church, and love God, the Lord Jesus Christ."

"Each May it seems curious to me that many Protestant Christians do not focus on Jesus’ mother, Mary, in conjunction with the celebration of Mother’s Day. This may be, in part, an overreaction to the improper emphasis upon and false teachings about Mary among many Catholic and Orthodox Christians." ~ Mark Driscoll

(Excerpt) Read more at theresurgence.com ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: emergingchurch; god; marshill; mary; mother; pastor; religiousleft; theology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 11/05/2009 5:25:40 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

Mary referred to Our Lord has her Savior—but why would a sinless woman need a savior?


2 posted on 11/05/2009 5:26:39 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege (Salvation is by FAITH alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

To make her sinless.


3 posted on 11/05/2009 5:28:31 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Why is this in this forum ? PLEASE!!!


4 posted on 11/05/2009 5:29:51 PM PST by londonfog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

3. How could Mary be sinless if in the words of the Magnificat she said that her soul rejoices in God her savior?

The Church does not hesitate to profess that Mary needed a savior. This should be the first issue to address if this question arises. It was by the grace of God—and not the work of Mary—that she was saved from sin in a most perfect manner. By what is called “preservative redemption,” Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this gift was given to Mary, making her “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

God can “save” a person from a sin by forgiving them, or by providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be saved from a pit in two ways; one can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp


5 posted on 11/05/2009 5:31:07 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege
Mary referred to Our Lord has her Savior—but why would a sinless woman need a savior?

Mary was UNITED with Jesus physically in her womb and Jesus would have imperfection physically in Him if Mary had original sin in her

6 posted on 11/05/2009 5:39:48 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: londonfog

Why don’t you ask the person who posted the thread?


7 posted on 11/05/2009 5:42:15 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Which chromosome carries original sin?

An how united with her could he have been, if he passed through her hymen like light thru a window, to use the phrase of a recently posted article...

And why wasn’t this stuff known by the Apostles? Too many men?


8 posted on 11/05/2009 5:47:48 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: londonfog
Why is this in this forum ? PLEASE!!!

Why ever not?

9 posted on 11/05/2009 5:49:59 PM PST by Lee N. Field (It doesn't take much to be a false prophet these days beyond a WebTV and a blogspot account.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
An how united with her could he have been, if he passed through her hymen like light thru a window, to use the phrase of a recently posted article...

So united that the Blood of Jesus flows thru Mary and Mary's blood flows thru Jesus; both biologically and spiritually. And after His birth He sucked at His Mother's breast for life giving food. The Bread of Life was nursed by the Mother of God. A great mystery to be pondered forever.

10 posted on 11/05/2009 6:02:55 PM PST by frogjerk (Obama Administration: Security thru Absurdity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

AMEN!


11 posted on 11/05/2009 6:03:50 PM PST by frogjerk (Obama Administration: Security thru Absurdity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

“Mary was UNITED with Jesus physically in her womb and Jesus would have imperfection physically in Him if Mary had original sin in her”

Right. Good thing original sin doesn’t exist otherwise an immaculate Mary wouldn’t be a woman and Christ not True Man and that, as we all know, is heresy.


12 posted on 11/05/2009 6:06:56 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

And what about Mary’s other children?

“1 Jesus left that part of the country and returned with his disciples to Nazareth, his hometown. 2 The next Sabbath he began teaching in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. They asked, “Where did he get all this wisdom and the power to perform such miracles?” 3 Then they scoffed, “He’s just a carpenter, the son of Mary and the BROTHER of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his SISTERS live right here among us.” They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him.4 Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.” ~ MARK 6: 1-4


13 posted on 11/05/2009 6:08:29 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege (Salvation is by FAITH alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

No where does it say those people were Mary’s children.

You might want to read this:

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_brothers.html

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp


14 posted on 11/05/2009 6:18:21 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

Mark Driscoll ping for later


15 posted on 11/05/2009 6:18:45 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" - Job 13:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Vladimir, thank you for your respectful responses and sources you post. Here are my issues with what the website describes:

Their main line of defense is not found in the main canon of Scripture, but in a source outside of the Bible called the “Protoevangelium of James.” If affirming Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity was of utmost importance, why did the *original* Church fathers not feel it necessary to include this so-called Protoevangelium in the Bible? The reason: becuase there were lots of false texts and false gospels making their rounds everywhere!

The site does not adequately refute what exactly is meant then by those “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels of the Bible? It does not take a super-theologian or rocket scientist to figure out that in context, BIOLOGICAL relatives from his house and hometown are explicitly implied.

Lastly, the site claims that Protestant Reformers such as John Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary? That could not be further from the truth. Read this excerpt from John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:

Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 2. “The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.”

^ Calvin. “Commentary on Luke 1:34”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words [’How shall this be, since I know not a man?’], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.”


16 posted on 11/05/2009 6:33:07 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege (Salvation is by FAITH alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege; vladimir998

oops to clarify something else:

John Calvin does concede that the word brothers in Hebrew can denote any relatives and that Mary did not necessarily have a TON of other sons like some have overestimated.

but again, Calvin states “...that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd.”...

I am not saying that Calvin’s own expositions should be enough to convince you of course, merely that those Catholic sites are being dishonest in saying that Calvin and the Reformers held to the perpetual virginity of Mary.


17 posted on 11/05/2009 6:42:31 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege (Salvation is by FAITH alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

You wrote:

“Vladimir, thank you for your respectful responses and sources you post.”

No problem.

“Here are my issues with what the website describes: Their main line of defense is not found in the main canon of Scripture, but in a source outside of the Bible called the “Protoevangelium of James.” If affirming Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity was of utmost importance, why did the *original* Church fathers not feel it necessary to include this so-called Protoevangelium in the Bible?”

It was not included because it was not inspired. That does not mean what it relates is untrue. Also, why do you assume this is of the utmost importance?

“The reason: becuase there were lots of false texts and false gospels making their rounds everywhere!”

No. That is not the reason why the text was not included. The number of false books in no way impacts the either the truthfulness of the text in question nor its lack of inspiration. If it is inspired or not is determined solely by whether or not it is inspired or not. That’s all. You are essentially drawing a false conclusion.

“The site does not adequately refute what exactly is meant then by those “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels of the Bible?”

Why the question mark? Are you making a statement or asking a question?

“It does not take a super-theologian or rocket scientist to figure out that in context, BIOLOGICAL relatives from his house and hometown are explicitly implied.”

It takes no super theologian to figure out that the text does not imply that either. Wasn’t Lot described as Abraham’s brother (Genesis 14, twice)? Were they brothers? No.

“Lastly, the site claims that Protestant Reformers such as John Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary? That could not be further from the truth. Read this excerpt from John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of Matthew: Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 2. “The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.”^ Calvin. “Commentary on Luke 1:34”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words [’How shall this be, since I know not a man?’], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.””

Did you actually read what you just posted? I’m not so sure you did since it doesn’t say what you think it does.

4.^ Calvin. “Commentary on Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 2. “The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.”

So, there John Calvin is saying that ‘brothers’ doesn’t always mean ‘brothers’. Read the passage again if you don’t believe me.

“5.^ Calvin. “Commentary on Matthew 1:25”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. “Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

And there Calvin rejects they idea that Matthew 1:25 means Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse and children. Calvin also says that Jesus being called ‘first-born’ does not mean that there were other children but that the inspired author was highlighting Mary virginity before Jesus’ birth.

You also might want to take note of the following:

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son’s commands.

{J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary’s Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}


18 posted on 11/05/2009 7:09:42 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

You wrote:

“I am not saying that Calvin’s own expositions should be enough to convince you of course, merely that those Catholic sites are being dishonest in saying that Calvin and the Reformers held to the perpetual virginity of Mary.”

Really? How do you deal with these ‘Reformers’ then?:

Martin Luther (1483-1546):

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph and had more children after that. – Martin Luther, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brand, 1962, Muhlenberg Press, p. 199.

The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, “Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.” Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, “She was found to be with child before they came together,” it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110[:1] reads, “God says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’” Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28[:15], “I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you.” Here God did not leave him after the fulfilment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42[:4], “He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth.” There are many more similar expressions, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. (“That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” pp. 211-13)

Helvidius, that fool, was also willing to credit Mary with more sons after Christ’s birth because of the words of the Evangelist: “And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son” (Matt. 1:25). This had to be understood, as he thought, as though she had more sons after the first-born Son. How stupid he was! He received a fitting answer from Jerome. (“Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi” [1543], St. L. XX:2098; quoted in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. II [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951], p. 308)

Then he [Luther] questioned whether Mary knew [i.e., had sexual relations with] Joseph even after the birth of Christ, as Matthew calls him “the firstborn son” [Matt. 1:25]. He answered, “The church has left this alone and has not determined this. But nevertheless the same consequence is firmly demonstrated because she remained a virgin, but on the other hand she was viewed as the mother of the Son of God. She was not judged to be the mother of human sons and remained in that state.” (Table Talk #4435 [1539], in Luther on Women, p. 56)

Then he [Luther] was asked whether Mary also had intercourse with Joseph after the birth of Christ, for Matthew says that he “knew her not until she had borne a son” [Matt. 1:25]. He replied, “The church leaves this [to us] and has not decided. Nevertheless, what happened afterward shows quite strongly that Mary remained a virgin. For after she had perceived that she was the mother of the Son of God, she didn’t think she should become the mother of a human child and adhered to this vow.” (Table Talk #4435 [same as above], in Luther’s Works, Vol. 54 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967], p. 341)

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531):

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

I give an example: taught by the light of faith the Christ was born of a virgin, we know that it is so, that we have no doubt that those who have been unambiguously in error have tried to make a figure of speech of a real virgin, and we pronounce absurd the things that Helvidius and others have invented about perpetual virginity. – Huldrych Zwingli. “Friendly Exegesis, that is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther, February 1527,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.275.

Then the pious mind finds wonderful delights in searching for the reasons why the lamb chose to be born of a perpetual virgin, but in this other case it finds nothing but a hopeless horror. [The other case that Zwingli here refers to is the Real Presence] – Huldrych Zwingli. “Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist, August 1525,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.217

Last time I checked, Luther and Zwingli and Calvin were all Reformers. Luther and Zwingli emphatically supported the ancient doctrine. Calvin may not have been emphatic, but it is clear he did NOTHING to oppose it. What he did so was oppose what he considered to be excesses in defense of the doctrine.


19 posted on 11/05/2009 7:22:53 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

* Calvin of COURSE held to the Virgin birth of CHRIST, he merely maintained that there is no evidence to suggest Mary REMAINED a virgin.

* I do not know much about Zwingli to tell you the truth, but I do know that Luther was a devout Catholic before unearthing the truth of Scripture. He maintained a lot of Catholic practices and did not challenge Rome’s teachings on side issues of doctrine for quite awhile. He became more “progressively” Protestant as time went on and searched the Scriptures more deeply though, and this is true with regard to his views on Mary.

In **1532** he preached:

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person. [36]

In **1534** Luther explained that Christ was “born of a young maiden, as you and I are born of our mothers. The only difference is that the Holy Spirit engineered this conception and birth, while in contrast we mortals are conceived and born in sin.”[37] Mary functioned in Luther’s theology as “the guarantee of the reality of the incarnation and of the human nature of Christ.”[38]

Pay attention to the dates of his writings and his evolving views.

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luthers%20Theology%20of%20Mary.htm


20 posted on 11/05/2009 7:46:20 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege (Salvation is by FAITH alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

SO anyways, as close as his views remained to the Catholic Church, you can sense his views pointed to a trend among Christians to bring the centrality of the faith back to Christ and away from the Maryolatry that dominated the Middle Ages. It wouldn’t be until much later that Reformers such as Calvin would take their challenges against Roman dogma further through deeper expositions of Scripture from their original texts and languages.

Also, Luther was not revolutionary because of his views for or against the Catholic version of Mary. Luther was revolutionary for re-establishing the central doctrine of Biblical Christianity: the doctrine of justification by faith alone. He derided the papacy referring to the pope as the Antichrist, he held to the supreme authority of Scripture, and he diminished the myth of Purgatory—which was the cornerstone on which the Catholic system functioned.


21 posted on 11/05/2009 7:53:15 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege (Salvation is by FAITH alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege
It does not take a super-theologian or rocket scientist to figure out that in context, BIOLOGICAL relatives from his house and hometown are explicitly implied.

  1. You can't "explicitly imply" something. It's a contradiction in terms.
  2. Scripture never refers to anyone except Jesus as a son of Mary. Insisting that anyone else is a son or daughter of Mary is going beyond the written words of Scripture and adding tradition to it (something that Protestants reject when Catholics do it). Not any tradition, either, but a tradition which contradicts scripture (see my next point).
  3. Scripture proves that Mary had no other children, because Jesus gave her to John, son of Zebedee, at the Crucifixion. This would have been a sin if he had had living siblings, and we know Jesus did not sin.
  4. In fact, we know that James the less was the son of Alphaeus, not Joseph. Jude was probably James' son, but may have been his blood brother. That's in Scripture.

22 posted on 11/05/2009 8:32:32 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege
As a former Catholic, I can understand the depth that traditions hold upon us and the deep pain in having those traditions questioned by those outside of our faith. If the questions we pose to persons of other faiths have at their core a deep concern for others and they are guided by a true love for God, then we can ask them. We must question our motives for what we do in all things, mindful always of how Christ would have conducted Himself. I am convinced that to do less is to make a mockery of what we believe and will most certainly offend those we profess to care about.

I am not sure why I feel compelled to make a point of saying this but I will make it anyway: I believe that there will be many believers in heaven who have followed the Catholic faith. It is an unquestionable teaching of the Church that Mary lived a life without sin and that she remained a virgin, despite being married to Joseph. That, however, is a teaching of the Church and is not found in scripture. Catholics, under penalty of of losing their immortal souls, must adhere to these teachings.

While I can respect the reverence for authority, I can only believe in the inerrant word of God. There are no other authorities. There are no other sources. There are no extra-biblical teachings that can add to the Truth of God's word. It is the only the word of God. It is His only message to us. It is sufficient and it is final.

The Church holds the Holy family up as an example of marriage for us to follow. Mary and Joseph had a real marriage, which most assuredly included a normal physical relationship and probably children. Why emulate a fake, hollow, unconsumated relationship? Mary was a virgin only until she gave birth to our Savior. She and Joseph would have been sinning had they withheld the normal and completely natural aspects of a true marriage. The Torah is quite explicit on marriage and the sexual aspects of those who are married. To neglect these things are in fact grounds for divorce in Judaism.

No part of Mary's genetic makeup was given to Jesus. Not one cell, not one chromosome. He was fully God and fully God's child. He was fully human by virtue of the fact that he took on flesh and blood. Here, then, lies a mystery, but it a mystery which faith demands we accept. Mary, at the tender of age of about 12-14 years of age, was “blessed among women” because she said YES to God's request. “Be it done according to Thy will.” These are the words of a young girl whose heart was so turned to God's will that she accepted without question the burden of being an unwed mother at time when death by stoning was the punishment. Blessed she was indeed. She had to know that God would carry her through an unbelievable trial and preserve her for the delivery of the most important life to have ever been born. She recognized her need of a savior in a more profound way than we can imagine. Scripture tells us she was warned in advance that a “sword would pierce her own heart” as a result of her obedience.

So, should we reverence the person of Mary? No, not the person but rather, the obedient spirit of Mary. I think she would find it strange if we did otherwise. She was remarkably humble and indeed to be emulated in many ways. What trials and heartache she suffered after saying yes to God! Her soul magnified God and her life sets an example for us to do the same. I believe she would encourage us to look always in obedience to God and to recognize the gift of salvation is through Jesus Christ alone, not through her own life. She was blessed not because she was perfect but because she was made perfect by her savior.

She was given the grace to watch her little boy grow in His earthly life in wisdom and and strength. She was blessed because at the end, she would see this most precious child, the boy she had raised, suffer the death He was to born to suffer on a cross.

How, we must ask, did she endure this horror? The only answer is that God gave her the grace and that was sufficient. For us, that poses another mystery of faith, but faith demands we must accept it.

No, Mary was not without sin while she lived on earth, otherwise we never would never have needed the sacrifice of God's only son. Mary's life of perfection would have satisfied the debt. To believe she was perfect is folly and makes a mockery of the agony and atonement of Christ.

23 posted on 11/05/2009 8:52:27 PM PST by scottiemom ("If it came in a bottle, he would be out of the oval office by now ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

You wrote:

“Calvin of COURSE held to the Virgin birth of CHRIST, he merely maintained that there is no evidence to suggest Mary REMAINED a virgin.”

But that isn’t what the two quotes in question say. Neither one of them says Calvin DID NOT believe her perpetual virginity. He criticized what was put forward as evidence of it, but did not deny it there. We have to work with the evidence we have. Do you have evidence that actually says what you are claiming? So far you have not provided it.

“I do not know much about Zwingli to tell you the truth, but I do know that Luther was a devout Catholic before unearthing the truth of Scripture.”

Zwingli was a Reformer and you denied the Reformers supported Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Zwingli was extremely important and influential in his day. If you don’t even know much about him, how can you speak about what the Reformers believed? Also, Luther was NOT a devout Catholic for some years before his apostasy. His own admissions show that he was a psychologically tortured man who had given up the proper practice of his faith years before his apostasy. It seems he invented Protestantism to ease his conscience.

“He maintained a lot of Catholic practices and did not challenge Rome’s teachings on side issues of doctrine for quite awhile.”

He did maintain many Catholic practices in his new sect, but that’s completely irrelevant. He was a Reformer. He maintained a belief in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. You denied that the Reformers did so. Doesn’t this mean you were inaccurate?

“He became more “progressively” Protestant as time went on and searched the Scriptures more deeply though, and this is true with regard to his views on Mary.”

That’s your view. On this point - Mary’s sinlessness - is that what we actually see in Luther’s writings?

“In **1532** he preached:”

That’s 15 years AFTER the Reformation began...and notice he is still maintaining Mary’s sinlessness (”Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood”)

“In **1534**”

And the 1534 statement in no way denies the 1532 statement on the issue of Mary’s sinlessness. The 1534 says nothing about Mary’s sinlessness, and it certainly doesn’t deny it.

This is the second time you have posted quotes that don’t say what you claim they say. Do you actually read this stuff before you post it?

“Pay attention to the dates of his writings and his evolving views.”

There’s no evolution of views there on Mary’s sinlessness.

Also, citing a notoriously flawed anti-Catholic website is probably not a good idea. MOst anti-Catholics simply don’t do their homework.


24 posted on 11/06/2009 4:39:34 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

You wrote:

“SO anyways, as close as his views remained to the Catholic Church, you can sense his views pointed to a trend among Christians to bring the centrality of the faith back to Christ and away from the Maryolatry that dominated the Middle Ages.”

That’s a lot of wishful thinking on your part and it isn’t backed up by the evidence in the least. 1) His views varied wildly. In some (such as on the Trinity) he remained close to the orthodox Catholic teaching. On salvation he invented a novel doctrine never before expressed in the history of Christianity. 2) Christianity was always focused on Christ including in the Middle Ages. 3) If you’re going to make erroneous statement about what “Mariolatry” is, I suggest you learn to spell it correctly. At least that way someone might think you actually know what you’re talking about.

“It wouldn’t be until much later that Reformers such as Calvin would take their challenges against Roman dogma further through deeper expositions of Scripture from their original texts and languages.”

And yet you have failed to show that Calvin believed what you have claimed. Why is that?

“Also, Luther was not revolutionary because of his views for or against the Catholic version of Mary. Luther was revolutionary for re-establishing the central doctrine of Biblical Christianity: the doctrine of justification by faith alone.”

Which is not supported by the Bible in any way and is even denied by it in James 2. Luther knew this and contemplated destroying the book to hide his shame. And that’s your inventor of Sola scriptura? A man who would burn Biblical books to cover up his own unbiblical views? Lovely.

“He derided the papacy referring to the pope as the Antichrist,”

Yes, he did. And now his followers admit he was wrong.

“he held to the supreme authority of Scripture,”

Only his view of it. And he cut books from the Bible that diagreed with him. So much for supreme authority.

“and he diminished the myth of Purgatory—which was the cornerstone on which the Catholic system functioned.”

What? Cornerstone? You seem to know even less about the Catholic faith than you do about the Reformers.

1) You were wrong about what the Reformers believed on Mary’s sinlessness.

2) You admitted you know little about one of the most influential of the early Reformers.

3)You posted four quotes - none of which actually say or show what you claimed they showed.

4) You incorrectly characterize beliefs of Christians in the Middle Ages.

5) You can’t even spell Mariolatry but seem to assume it existed.

6) You talk about Purgatory in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone to take you seriously regarding to its standing in the Catholic faith.

In this debate, your worst enemy is your apparent lack of knowledge about the issues you are discussing.


25 posted on 11/06/2009 4:53:48 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Vladimir, I think it’s great and vital that everyone, like you, digs as deeply as possible into the history of Christendom—but I hope people do so with as healthy a skepticism and with as little bias as possible. Even I, as an ex-Catholic, will admit that the Reformation had flaws and that some of my own favorite theologians were not without error or mistakes in judgment particularly with regard to some of the physical, vengeful actions taken against Catholics. By the same token, I will give Catholics credit where it’s due in terms of the contributions some of its members have made to important developments in theological thought—St. Augustine for example , who was among Calvin’s greatest influences, or THomas Aquinas’ Just War Theory.

* As for the Catholic system being based on purgatory: Yes. It was. You are denying plain history to say otherwise. I went to Catholic school my whole life and even as a committed Opus Dei, traditionalist Catholic, I had to admit that the period of papal indulgence scandals—which involved forcing even the poorest of people to pay money to the Church in exchange for a false remission of sins or less time in Purgatory—when in fact the money was paying for corrupt popes’ own luxurious lifestyles and massive buildling projects—was one of the most shameful dents in Roman Church Abuse History.

That being said, Purgatory is not a myth simply because of how its been used by Rome to take advantage of people. It’s a myth because it is blatantly unBiblical and completely contradicts Christ’s most basic and clearest teachings on eternal judgment as laid out in the Gospels. It is arguably the most dangerous doctrine Rome teaches and is a worse deviation from the Word than any teaching it may have on Mary.

The desperate efforts I observed Catholics (some who are notable Ex-Protestants) making to defend Purgatory on Biblical grounds was the last straw before my permanent departure from Rome. As basic and elementary as this sounds, my thought was simple: “Jesus wanted to save souls. Jesus talked about hell more than anyone in the Bible. He always talked about two paths. Two roads. Two ways. To destinations. In matters of eternal judgment, Jesus would not dare leave anything vague. He would have mentioned Purgatory plain and clear, considering the weight of the matter with regard to the state of our souls and our eternal destination.”

* John Calvin did establish very clearly that he thought the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin was unfounded. He merely challenged the idea that she had as many children as some had overestimated, not that she did not have other children at all:

^ Calvin. “Commentary on Luke 1:34”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words [’How shall this be, since I know not a man?’], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.”


26 posted on 11/06/2009 9:15:35 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege (Salvation is by FAITH alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

You wrote:

“Vladimir, I think it’s great and vital that everyone, like you, digs as deeply as possible into the history of Christendom—but I hope people do so with as healthy a skepticism and with as little bias as possible.”

Either Calvin said what you claimed or he didn’t. He didn’t. My skepticism, therefore, is with you and not with Calvin’s quotes.

“Even I, as an ex-Catholic, will admit that the Reformation had flaws and that some of my own favorite theologians were not without error or mistakes in judgment particularly with regard to some of the physical, vengeful actions taken against Catholics. By the same token, I will give Catholics credit where it’s due in terms of the contributions some of its members have made to important developments in theological thought—St. Augustine for example , who was among Calvin’s greatest influences, or THomas Aquinas’ Just War Theory.”

I understand, although I think your statement is inherently illogical. If St. Augustine is worthy of your respect, and Calvin’s, and yet he was a Catholic, as you admit, then where was Reformed theology? Doesn’t that just lend credence to the idea that Protestant thought was not the original Christianity?

*”As for the Catholic system being based on purgatory: Yes. It was.”

No, it was not.

“You are denying plain history to say otherwise.”

No, I am not denying history in the least - and history I know very well.

“I went to Catholic school my whole life and even as a committed Opus Dei, traditionalist Catholic, I had to admit that the period of papal indulgence scandals—which involved forcing even the poorest of people to pay money to the Church in exchange for a false remission of sins or less time in Purgatory—when in fact the money was paying for corrupt popes’ own luxurious lifestyles and massive buildling projects—was one of the most shameful dents in Roman Church Abuse History.”

The above statement contains the following errors:
1) Your experiences tell us nothing about Catholic theology for no matter how Catholic you claim to have been, I neither have any proof of those claims, nor do I see any reason to believe them because of your errors.

2) No one was EVER forced to buy an indulgence.

3) Donations were made for indulgences of a certain kind. They were never to be sold and any such sales violated canon law.

4) If someone was poor, he could receive the indulgence without a donation of any kind - as is expressly shown in the authorization letter to Johann Tetzel from Archbishop Albrecht. In other words, if someone could not make a donation, he got the indulgence anyway.

“That being said, Purgatory is not a myth simply because of how its been used by Rome to take advantage of people.”

There is no way to take advantage of people with Purgatory. Logically it is not anymore possible to take advantage of people with Purgatory than it is anything else. Notice how you do not document a single case of the Church actually taking advantage of anyone in this regard? No one?!

“It’s a myth because it is blatantly unBiblical and completely contradicts Christ’s most basic and clearest teachings on eternal judgment as laid out in the Gospels.”

Completely incorrect. The existence of Purgatory in no way effects eternal judgment. Since it cannot effect eternal judgment in any way, shape or form it cannot contradict Christ’s teachings about the same.

“It is arguably the most dangerous doctrine Rome teaches and is a worse deviation from the Word than any teaching it may have on Mary.”

It is not in the least dangerous, nor do you even attempt to demonstrate how it is so. Gee, I wonder why?

“The desperate efforts I observed Catholics (some who are notable Ex-Protestants) making to defend Purgatory on Biblical grounds was the last straw before my permanent departure from Rome.”

Your claimed “departure from Rome” may have happened for many reasons, but I don’t care what they are in this regard. I have no reason to believe you are a reasonable judge of these things.

“As basic and elementary as this sounds, my thought was simple: “Jesus wanted to save souls. Jesus talked about hell more than anyone in the Bible. He always talked about two paths. Two roads. Two ways. To destinations. In matters of eternal judgment, Jesus would not dare leave anything vague. He would have mentioned Purgatory plain and clear, considering the weight of the matter with regard to the state of our souls and our eternal destination.””

Jesus sent the Church to teach. Jesus did not teach about many things clearly. He never once taught clearly about the Trinity, nor did He ever use that word. He never once taught clearly about the later inspiration of scripture. He used parables not to make sure everyone understood, but because he knew many people would NOT understand.

“John Calvin did establish very clearly that he thought the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin was unfounded.”

Show me the text that says that. I would not find it shocking that he did such a thing, but so far you have utterly failed to provide a single scrap of evidence for it.

“He merely challenged the idea that she had as many children as some had overestimated, not that she did not have other children at all:”

You post the same quote again, and it still doesn’t say what you claim. No where in the quote does Calvin say Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was UNTRUE.

Example. You cite:

Calvin: “that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd.”

He is saying the vow idea is absurd. He is NOT saying that she was a perpetual virgin.


27 posted on 11/06/2009 10:58:46 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: scottiemom
"If the questions we pose to persons of other faiths have at their core a deep concern for others and they are guided by a true love for God, then we can ask them." scottiemom, thank you and I pray that God graciously holds me accountable to that standard. If I am not motivated by love for God and love for neighbor in anything I do, I am sinning regardless of whatever valid points I make. I am not sure why I feel compelled to make a point of saying this but I will make it anyway: I believe that there will be many believers in heaven who have followed the Catholic faith I agree with this as well and obviously only GOD is ultimately the judge of souls and it is an absolute waste of time to speculate on the state of a dead person's soul. As the apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Corinthians: "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many children Mary may have had or whether or not we are Arminian or Calvinist, and what the name of our church is. What matters is that we've left the ways of this world, turned away from our sin, and placed our faith in Jesus Christ, his death, and his resurrection alone for salvation from the eternal damnation we deserve from a just God. We live in a time of great apostasy--not just in Rome, but all throughout America in churches that identify as "Evangelical" or "Protestant." I think it is worthwhile to have challenging discussions on matters of faith. And we need to re-evaluate our priorities no? I'm intrigued by how people get drawn in by Glen Beck's apocalyptic attitude toward big government, but Christians are not supposed to have a fear of socialism. We are not called to be immersed and entangled in the affairs of the kingdom of darkness and this dying world. Rather, we are to have a fear of GOD and Judgment Day when Christ makes his second and final return. And even if Christ doesn't come back for another millenium, 150,000 people DO die a day and souls hang in the balance. Glen Beck, as a Mormon, has his energies and worries misplaced in my opinion. Christ will not judge us on how we voted at the ballot box. He will judge us by whether we have surrendered our lives and souls to him.
28 posted on 11/06/2009 4:12:16 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege (Salvation is by FAITH alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Your claimed “departure from Rome” may have happened for many reasons, but I don’t care what they are in this regard. I have no reason to believe you are a reasonable judge of these things. **** Vladimir, the two biggest forces drawing me away from the Catholic Church was 1) The anti-papist legacy of the founding of America forced me to study the Protestant Reformation on a deeper level, which ultimately led me to read the Bible for myself. **** **** "He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all. Our forefathers threw off the yoke of Popery in religion; for you is reserved the honor of leveling the popery of politics. They opened the Bible to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judge for himself in religion." ~ SAMUEL ADAMS **** **** 2) Catholic apologetic books by respected Ex-Protestants such as Scott Hahn: I thought the arguments were incredibly weak and frankly, I was turned off by the excuses and details Catholics had to give to explain away why Roman doctrines so blatantly contradict teachings even a child can understand from opening up a Bible and reading things in context. **** **** I ALSO REALIZED that what attracts people (and what was attracting me) to Rome has a LOT to do with the theological weaknesses and failures of modern American Evangelicalism than it has to do with Biblical truth. **** The BIBLE *IS* profound, the faith Christ and his disciplies practiced was rigorous, consuming, and radically transformational. American Evangelicalism on the other hand has more to do with the Republican Party platform, Christmas trees, and conformity to our shallow materialistic culture than it does with the written Word of God and a bloody cross.
29 posted on 11/06/2009 4:18:39 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege (Salvation is by FAITH alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

You wrote:

“Vladimir, the two biggest forces drawing me away from the Catholic Church was 1) The anti-papist legacy of the founding of America forced me to study the Protestant Reformation on a deeper level, which ultimately led me to read the Bible for myself.”

Claiming that your apostasy came in admiration of the anti-Catholic bigotry of the nation’s founding fathers does not bolster your claims about Calvin. It doesn’t even put your apostasy in a good light. It just makes you sound like you chose the sentiments of dead men over the living Christ and His Church. And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.

“He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all. Our forefathers threw off the yoke of Popery in religion; for you is reserved the honor of leveling the popery of politics. They opened the Bible to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judge for himself in religion.” ~ SAMUEL ADAMS

And of course Adams was wrong. Protestants did not open the Bible to all. Luther tried, but then realized ever “plowboy” came to believe he was just as right in his interpretations as Luther himself. It is indeed strange that you don’t view faith through the eyes of Christianity, no, instead, you view it through the eyes of an 18th century Boston merchant. And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.

“2) Catholic apologetic books by respected Ex-Protestants such as Scott Hahn: I thought the arguments were incredibly weak and frankly, I was turned off by the excuses and details Catholics had to give to explain away why Roman doctrines so blatantly contradict teachings even a child can understand from opening up a Bible and reading things in context.”

And yet if there were such contradictions that even a “child can understand” than why is it men who know scripture so much better than you see no such contradictions? And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.

“I ALSO REALIZED that what attracts people (and what was attracting me) to Rome has a LOT to do with the theological weaknesses and failures of modern American Evangelicalism than it has to do with Biblical truth.”

No. People have always been attracted to orthodox Christianity. What is happening now is that the weaknesses in Evangelicalism - which are always present in all Protestants sects - have become more apparent. The weaknesses were always there. It’s just now the bigotry, the irrational Protestant hatred of truth, hatred of orthodox Christianity, has lessened to the point where people actually fairly investigate the Catholic faith. And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.

“The BIBLE *IS* profound, the faith Christ and his disciplies practiced was rigorous, consuming, and radically transformational.”

And Protestantism never was, never will be, and never can - at least for very long. And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.

“American Evangelicalism on the other hand has more to do with the Republican Party platform,...”

And your evangelicalism apparently has more to do with Samuel Adams! And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.

“...Christmas trees, and conformity to our shallow materialistic culture than it does with the written Word of God and a bloody cross.”

Our shallow culture is a product of Protestantism and Protestant influenced tendencies. It was inevitable. And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.

As Pope Pius X wrote in Pascendi:

“Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.”

Prove you claim about Calvin. You were wrong about ‘Reformers’ in general. At least try to prove your claim about Calvin.


30 posted on 11/06/2009 5:00:33 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
The Church does not hesitate to profess that Mary needed a savior. This should be the first issue to address if this question arises. It was by the grace of God—and not the work of Mary—that she was saved from sin in a most perfect manner. By what is called “preservative redemption,” Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this gift was given to Mary, making her “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

None of this is in the Bible. And being sanctified has nothing to do with never sinning. Even John the Baptist sinned. Being sanctified is being set apart by The LORD for His purpose. It does not mean that one cannot nor will never sin. Also, if Christ could save us from sinning before we ever did even one sin why would he not do it for each of us?

Rom 3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; ((Emphasis mine.)) Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of SINS THAT ARE PAST, through the forbearance of God; ((Emphasis mine to show that the sins were past and therefore had been committed. Not kept from ever being committed,))

John in the Bible clearly says that for anyone to say that they have not sinned is a lie. He did not say except Mary the mother of Jesus our LORD whom Christ had given to his care at the time of His death.

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

31 posted on 11/07/2009 12:58:36 AM PST by Bellflower (If you are left DO NOT take the mark of the beast and be damned forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

The word for brother here is ἀδελφός Which means brother. In this context it does not mean the broader term for brother which can be used as we do meaning someone who belongs to the same group such as "brothers in arms". If you want to say as in the Bible that someone is a cousin or a kinsman rather than a brother with the same mother or father or mother and father you would use the word συγγενής. This word is used for the word cousin, kinfolks and kinsmen, ect. If the relatives of Jesus spoken of in Mark 6:3 were merely cousins or kinfolks the word συγγενής would have been used but it was not. The word ἀδελφός was used which means that they really were Jesus' brothers.

Below are just a few examples of when the word συγγενής is used in the Bible in the place of the word for cousin, kin, kinsmen etc.

Mar 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own KIN, and in his own house.

Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy COUSIN Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luk 1:58 And her neighbours and her COUSIN heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

Luk 2:44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among [their] KINSFOLK and acquaintance.

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my KINSMEN according to the flesh:

Now here are examples of when the word ἀδελφός is used which is the word for brother when used with specific names to denote a relationship. The same word for brother in the verses listed below is the same word in Greek that is used to denote the relationship that Christ had to his brothers in Mark 6:3. If you look carefully at these examples you will see that Jesus did have brothers. I hope that you will at least.

Mat 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his BROTHER, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.

Mat 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his BROTHER;

Mar 1:19 And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the [son] of Zebedee, and John his BROTHER, who also were in the ship mending their nets.

Mar 3:17 And James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the BROTHER of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

Mar 5:37 And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the BROTHER of James.

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the BROTHER of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Act 12:2 And he killed James the BROTHER of John with the sword.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's BROTHER.

Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and BROTHER of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, [and] called:

Also, the word sisters in the Greek which is used in Mark 6:3 can be shown over and over in the Bible to mean sister as we know it and not just generalized female "kin".

32 posted on 11/07/2009 1:51:48 AM PST by Bellflower (If you are left DO NOT take the mark of the beast and be damned forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

You wrote:

“None of this is in the Bible.”

There’s nothing in the Bible that says it has to be.

“And being sanctified has nothing to do with never sinning.”

Sure it does.

“Even John the Baptist sinned.”

So you say. Where does it say that in the Bible (I’m sure you won’t mind be held to your own sectarian standards).

“Being sanctified is being set apart by The LORD for His purpose.”

No, it’s more than that. The very word means being made holy, not just being made separate.

“It does not mean that one cannot nor will never sin. Also, if Christ could save us from sinning before we ever did even one sin why would he not do it for each of us?”

For the same reason why God the Father allowed us to Fall in Eden.

“John in the Bible clearly says that for anyone to say that they have not sinned is a lie. He did not say except Mary the mother of Jesus our LORD whom Christ had given to his care at the time of His death.”

He didn’t have to say anything about Mary since his point was not about Mary.

You might want to read this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp


33 posted on 11/07/2009 4:25:54 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

Sorry, but you have no idea of what you’re talking about. This has been posted many times before in different threads: http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002fea2.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp


34 posted on 11/07/2009 4:30:04 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
I know that these articles are the standard fare. Do the word research for yourself. Compare word to word, where they are used and how they are used. You will then be able to tell exactly what they mean in the context that they are used. If you are interested in the truth do your own in depth word study.
35 posted on 11/07/2009 11:44:04 AM PST by Bellflower (If you are left DO NOT take the mark of the beast and be damned forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
He didn’t have to say anything about Mary since his point was not about Mary.

His point was that ALL have sinned. If there was such a prominant member of The Church who had not sinned it would have been well known and the exception would have been made. ALL means exactly what it says, all.

He would needed to have said something to the effect of "All have sinned except Mary the mother of Jesus." At that time if Mary were always sinless it would have been noted as the well known exception to the rule.

Also, when returning arguments I would appreciate it if Catholics, as much as possible, would endeavor to put their beliefs into their own words rather than sending one to a long page of indoctrination.

36 posted on 11/07/2009 12:18:56 PM PST by Bellflower (If you are left DO NOT take the mark of the beast and be damned forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

You wrote:

“Do the word research for yourself.”

Already have. I have all the usual standard works, consulted the works of experts, and read what history had to offer on the subject. The Catholic point of view is completely in agreement with the orthodox viewpoint on this.


37 posted on 11/07/2009 1:46:33 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

You wrote:

“His point was that ALL have sinned. If there was such a prominant member of The Church who had not sinned it would have been well known and the exception would have been made.”

That’s an assumption on your part. The Trinity was understood but not discussed in any detail at all in scripture. St. Matthew’s gospel is inspired. Nowhere does scripture say so.

“ALL means exactly what it says, all.”

http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2005/10/mary_and_romans.html

“He would needed to have said something to the effect of “All have sinned except Mary the mother of Jesus.””

That’s your assumption. We make no such demands of the inspired authors.

“At that time if Mary were always sinless it would have been noted as the well known exception to the rule.”

I see no reason at all why it would be. I can, in fact, see several reasons why it would not be.

“Also, when returning arguments I would appreciate it if Catholics, as much as possible, would endeavor to put their beliefs into their own words rather than sending one to a long page of indoctrination.”

I think someone genuinely interested in truth does not care if it is presented in an article or a post. Truth is truth.


38 posted on 11/07/2009 1:57:30 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
"I think someone genuinely interested in truth does not care if it is presented in an article or a post. Truth is truth."

But if you can't put it into your own words you don't own it. I can go to many sites full of doctrine by Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Scientologist and vast amounts of others. For them their pages of doctrines given out by their leaders are "truth". They may not understand it all or ever really processed it in their own minds but non the less they are sure it is truth because someone or religious institute that they trust told them it was.

If you process what your written doctrines are and compare them carefully to real Scripture you can begin to see if they really are truth and not just something you have chosen, for whatever reasons, to accept as truth. If you are going to convince me that something you believe is truth give an informed, intelligent and convincing argument from your own heart, mind and Bible knowledge. Then if you will, have your religious doctrine site as a backup for the the things you believe. The Bible is the the resource that all other doctrine must line up with and not contradict. Argue your points from The Bible if you wish to win a Christian over to your beliefs.

Millions of people are fooled by many doctrines and religious leaders. If you cannot defend your doctrine from Scripture, for yourself, do you realize that you may one of the deceived.

39 posted on 11/07/2009 6:48:52 PM PST by Bellflower (If you are left DO NOT take the mark of the beast and be damned forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

You wrote:

“But if you can’t put it into your own words you don’t own it.”

Truth is truth. Scripture, for instance, is truth, but already written. Must I put scripture into my own written words to know the truth and live it out?

“I can go to many sites full of doctrine by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Scientologist and vast amounts of others.”

And taht would make perfect sense if you were talking to a JW, or Mormon or CScientist, or Scientologist. You’re not.

“For them their pages of doctrines given out by their leaders are “truth”. They may not understand it all or ever really processed it in their own minds but non the less they are sure it is truth because someone or religious institute that they trust told them it was.”

Again, we’re back to scripture. How good is your Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek? I am willing to bet you’re far from the polyglot necessary to read the scriptures in the original languages. Thus, you are dependent on your sect leaders or scholars for scriptural translations. So aren’t you essentially in the same boat as all the groups you mentioned? Didn’t this thought EVER occur to you before?

“If you process what your written doctrines are and compare them carefully to real Scripture you can begin to see if they really are truth and not just something you have chosen, for whatever reasons, to accept as truth.”

Again, when was the last time you read “real Scripture”? Seriously when did you last read scriptures in Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic. How can you know you have it right when you are completely dependent on others for all of your knowledge?

“If you are going to convince me that something you believe is truth give an informed, intelligent and convincing argument from your own heart, mind and Bible knowledge.”

No. I will give the truth in whatever form I find it most convenient. I am not worried about convincing you because I have no reason to believe that your heart or mind are open. I will simply state the truth or link you to it. If you are to decree that you will not interest yourself in the truth because you don’t believe I made it personal enough than you are making the mistake of thinking it’s all about you. The truth is Christ, not you. The truth exists whether you believe in it or not.

“Then if you will, have your religious doctrine site as a backup for the the things you believe. The Bible is the the resource that all other doctrine must line up with and not contradict.”

Yet, you can’t even read the Bible right? All you can do is read translation, right? So you can’t be absolutely sure your even getting the real deal there and not sectarian views instead.

“Argue your points from The Bible if you wish to win a Christian over to your beliefs.”

Arguing with anyone who makes excuses as to why he will not recognize truth - even resorting to sola scriptura when scripture no where supports sola scriptura - just confirms that you are not interested in the truth.

“Millions of people are fooled by many doctrines and religious leaders. If you cannot defend your doctrine from Scripture, for yourself, do you realize that you may one of the deceived.”

I am not one of the deceived. Do you realize you have deceived yourself? Again, tell me the last time you read the Bible for yourself in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic?


40 posted on 11/08/2009 6:34:47 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
Mary was UNITED with Jesus physically in her womb and Jesus would have imperfection physically in Him if Mary had original sin in her

That would indicate a weak "God" if Jesus could have imperfection in Him just because Mary was a sinner like the rest of us.

Jesus was in her womb and nothing could have imparted sin unto Him.

He had His own blood, even though some Catholics say the He had Mary's blood in Him.

Jesus totally immersed Himself in a sinful world and He never was infected with the "imperfection" of those sinners he related to.

It's quite obviouis that God wanted Jesus to be born of one like other humans, instead of a sinless God-like human.

"All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." Some say, Oh then Jesus sinned also. LOL, nope, He is the ONE that breathed that Biblical quote.

There was only one sinless person that walked the earth (after original sin came in via Eve, and then Adam), and that was Jesus.

Mary was a perfect mother for Jesus, but not perfect in the sense of sinlessness.

41 posted on 06/14/2013 2:18:10 PM PDT by Syncro ("So?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
"That would indicate a weak "God"..."

I have heard many Protestants claim that all of their sins past, present and future were washed away by the Blood of Jesus. It is an indication of a belief in a limited God to believe that He could not do so to preserve Mary from sin from the moment of Her conception.

Peace be with you

42 posted on 06/14/2013 2:27:14 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a book, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
I have heard many Protestants claim that all of their sins past, present and future were washed away by the Blood of Jesus.

Well, the Protestants could very well be correct, and it is enlightening to see that you apparently agree.

As for Mary, of course He could have.

And I'm sure if He did, He also would have considered it important enough to put into the Holy Scriptures.

It can't be found there.

Neither can her "assumption" which is "assumed" by some.

43 posted on 06/14/2013 2:43:34 PM PDT by Syncro ("So?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
"It is an indication of a belief in a limited God to believe that He could not" have kept Jesus sinless in Mary's body without making up a "tradition" that she was sinless from conception.

God knew what he was doing, and had COMPLETE control over the situation. After all, she was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

44 posted on 06/14/2013 2:47:47 PM PDT by Syncro ("So?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
"How good is your Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek? I am willing to bet you’re far from the polyglot necessary to read the scriptures in the original languages."
If one knows that it is the Holy Spirit that reveals to us the understanding of scripture, spending years learning languages and reading scriptures in a mess of different languages isn't necessary. If one wishes to be a scholar, yea go for it.

" Thus, you are dependent on your sect leaders or scholars for scriptural translations."

You are sure of that? You can read the poster's mind because of your egregious stipulation???

45 posted on 06/14/2013 3:08:59 PM PDT by Syncro ("So?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

You’re responding to a post from 3.5 years ago?

“If one knows that it is the Holy Spirit that reveals to us the understanding of scripture, spending years learning languages and reading scriptures in a mess of different languages isn’t necessary.”

I don’t think you’ve thought that all the way through. I said, “Thus, you are dependent on your sect leaders or scholars for scriptural translations. So aren’t you essentially in the same boat as all the groups you mentioned? Didn’t this thought EVER occur to you before?” For some reason you left that part of the quote out. Why?

“If one wishes to be a scholar, yea go for it.”

Is that the point I was making - or even hinting at? No.

Then you quote what you refused to properly quote earlier: “ Thus, you are dependent on your sect leaders or scholars for scriptural translations.”

Then you wrote: “You are sure of that?”

Yes. Hence, Protestantism.

“You can read the poster’s mind because of your egregious stipulation???”

No, I simply use logic. Have you ever used logic? Ever?

Let’s go back to your original claim: “If one knows that it is the Holy Spirit that reveals to us the understanding of scripture, spending years learning languages and reading scriptures in a mess of different languages isn’t necessary.”

Alright then, show me, while relying on the Holy Spirit alone for guidance, that what we commonly call the Gospel of Matthew was:

1) written by Matthew.
2) is actually an inspired book.

Let me know when you have bona fide evidence for your claim from the Holy Spirit there, bud.

While you’re at it, consult the Holy Spirit and ask Him to reveal to you why - not how - but why Lutherans and Baptists can be in complete disagreement with each other over the correctness of infant baptism while both cite scripture for their side.


46 posted on 06/14/2013 3:44:47 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Syncro; Natural Law

Syncro, you wrote:

“And I’m sure if He did, He also would have considered it important enough to put into the Holy Scriptures.”

Why? God never provided an inspired Table of Contents for the Holy Scriptures so how do you even know what books belong in the Bible?


47 posted on 06/14/2013 3:49:36 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Then you quote what you refused to properly quote earlier

Maybe you should have read the whole post and you would see that I split up the quote for ease in commenting on each part. LOL@ REFUSED!

I see you seem to take the Holy Spirit's job lightly.

So you will have to go to the Magisterium for your answers I guess. Bud.

48 posted on 06/14/2013 4:06:09 PM PDT by Syncro ("So?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
You’re responding to a post from 3.5 years ago?

Oops, I should have looked at the date. I think the thread must have been linked to a recent one, My bad.

What a non existant table of contents has to do with what we are discussing is beyond my comprehension.

The last question is not relevant to this discussion, I suggest you start a thread if you want to find that out.

Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, mea culpa.

49 posted on 06/14/2013 4:12:14 PM PDT by Syncro ("So?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

You wrote:

“Maybe you should have read the whole post and you would see that I split up the quote for ease in commenting on each part. LOL@ REFUSED!”

Maybe you should have just properly quoted me. When you broke the quote in half you destroyed the context of the quote.

“I see you seem to take the Holy Spirit’s job lightly.”

No, you don’t see that at all - unless you have an incredibly active imagination. You know what I see? Someone who didn’t answer the direct questions I put to him - and that’s not my imagination.

“So you will have to go to the Magisterium for your answers I guess. Bud.”

Well, I get more answers from it than I do you. That means either you’re a failure in consulting the Holy Spirit - which automatically exposes the flaw in your original claim - or the Holy Spirit is a failure (which I bet neither one of us believes). Thus, your claim fails.


50 posted on 06/14/2013 4:27:34 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson