Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry

[bound]

Bound, Well, what these various "Councils" say is as irrelavant as whet the Catholic church says. What matters is what the scriptures say.

Perhaps they are irrelevant to you but we have inherited their conclusions no-the-less and they are the very foundations which form our exegesis for much of the faith claims we made 'with' the Scriptures.

No one approaches the Scriptures 'in a vacuum'. We come to the Scriptures with our own personal histories of inherited exegesis developed through our lifetimes. Messianic Jews have a different 'exegesis' than say Anglicans or even Baptists. Depending on the extent of formal education an individual has and where and what that education taught has a huge effect on the particular faith claims any of us will have. Although I have my own unique influences playing a role on my interpretation of the Scriptures I also try and recognize that we also have the consensus of Christian history to consider as well. Perhaps such an exercise is a real challenge to some who have not historical evidence to establish their claims except to make the broad assertion that their exegesis 'is' the Scriptures but honestly that isn't the case. If evangelical, Catholic or Orthodox Christianity were so self-evident then the Jews would have never rejected Jesus as the Messiah... but they did! Why?

Well, I would argue that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ taught I 'particular' exegesis to the Apostles and Disciples. This is most evident on the Road to Emmaus.

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Christ] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. ~ Luke 24:27

The Jews did not have this exegesis in order to 'interpret' the Scriptures in the proper way in order to convict them as to the truth of Christianity. They had to in effect accept the Christian Exegesis or continue in their own blind grasping for understanding. Many, modern denominations, do this very same thing today (i.e. blindly grasp at their own understanding). The Apostle Paul argues the same thing in his exhortations to stand fast in the Traditions taught us. It wasn't the Gospels that Jesus taught but a unique and Godly Exegesis of the Old Testament Scriptures that revealed the truth of him and his movement. The New Testament was valuable documents articulating evidence of this but not it's details. The details of this Exegesis can be found in the study of the consensus of the Fathers. This is what is meant by Holy Tradition and it is necessary for the proper interpretation of the Scriptures.

And there is perfect evidence as to what I am sharing. That Council was flat out wrong. What they declared about Mary is rubbish. The scriptures contradict them. Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after Christ was born. She had other children after Christ was born.

It would be meritus to look at the consensus of the early Church Fathers and see what they had to say about these passages. The worse thing it could do is show you how the early Church saw these passages and if they are similar to how you and your tradition interpret them.

Nonsense. I have a mother in heaven now, and her name is not Mary. Mary was Christs earthly mother. It goes no further than that. She was a sinner in need of a savior. She confessed it herself. She was not "assumed" miraculously into heaven, she is no kind of "Queen of Heaven", she is not omnipresent as Catholics consider her to be. She grants no apparitions. Those are demons. We are not to "entrust the whole world into her care" as the Catholics indoctrinate its victims into believing, as they engage in their goddess worship.

Remember what our Lord said to Nicodemus, "What is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of Spirit is spirit". Just as we, as Christians born again, will have two fathers, in of the Flesh and our Heavenly Father who is Spirit we can and do have two mothers.

Just as Eve was the mother of all the living (in the flesh) the New Eve (i.e. Mary) is the mother of all the living (in the Spirit). She is our Spiritual Mother in the Faith.

I believe that but if you are uncomfortable with that I can appreciate the challenge presents to you and your tradition which deny this but I would say that the denial was originally directed toward the Roman Catholic Church and some of the errors it may have taught but I honestly believe that the baby was thrown out with the bath water.

Regardless, it's been wonderful discussing this very challenging topic on this forum. Most have been kind, charitable and generous and I really appreciate that.

Be Well.

 

[BobRyan]

You can't have it both ways, Matt! If the Roman Catholics and/or Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and/or Coptic Christians and/or Maronites were responsible for which books went into the New Testament, it seems odd that they did not choose books which reflected what they apparently believe about Mary.

In some of the books that are not in the canon, known as "The New Testament Apocrypha", one could read a supposed account of her birth, stories of Mary performing miracles, see her referred to as "Our Lady", "Saint Mary", and "The Virgin of the Lord", and read referrences to her supposed sinlessness, all things which seem common in Roman Catholicism, but none of which is even mentioned in the canonical New Testament.

That presupposes a sola Scriptura position, to which I do not subscribe - and neither do the groups you named.

Actually it does not pre-suppose anything but reason. IF the RCC is really picking and choosing which books to canonize - then you would think that they would pick books favorable to their doctrines.

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
The Catholic church itself denies that anyone is allowed to "pray to the living" -- since they originated this idea of praying to the dead for Christians and even THEY can not equivocate to the point of allowing Christians to pray to BOTH the living and the dead (as if these really are the same thing) -- why in the world should that argument hold sway here??? It doesn't even work with Catholics!

If you mean by 'pray' petitioning God alone, then you are correct;

By "pray" I mean kneel down (and if RC - light your candle) and pray to the person -- you know "pray". This is what the RCC forbids it's followers to do to the living!

Matt Black
I know of no Christian group who permits anyone to pray in this sense to anyone except God. But if you mean 'ask someone to pray to God for you', then I see no distinction between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant on this score.

The point you are carefully glossing over - is that I point to both living and dead SAINTS -- and show that the SAME act of prayers to the dead that ARE allowed in the RCC are NOT ALLOWED as an act done to the living.

The equivocation that you attempted as if this is one and the same thing - is being "tested" and I simply point out that EVEN the RCC does not allow it!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Mary had no other children after Jesus was born. She remained a virgin her entire life.

Since the Bible says Jesus DID have both brothers AND sisters - where are you getting your information?

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, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly reasonable.

This makes no sense at all.

1. Scripture says Joseph kept her a virgin UNTIL the birth of Christ.

2. NOTHING in what Mary says to the angel makes any statement AT ALL about a commitment to remain unmarried and a virgin all of her life.

(This is just the obvious part -- but seems like it should be addressed)

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 Jerome, Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).

NO Bible writer says the apostles came flying through space to visit mary prior to her death -- lots of RCC tradition is not found in scripture -- this is just another example of the same.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Zenas]

Scripture does indeed state that Mary had other children.
Matthew 13:55-56 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? Whence then hath this man all these things?

DHK, I rest my case as stated above. This does not say Mary had other children. All we can do is infer from the context.

There is no evidence that Matthew was first written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. That is not even a viable argument here.

Not so. Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome all wrote that Matthew was written in Aramaic. The New American Commentary (1992) strongly suggests Matthew was written in Aramaic. Neil Altman says it was written in Hebrew--not Greek or Aramaic. (http://essenes.net/new/gospelhebrews4.html).

The inspired Word of God, that revelation that God gave to mankind is in the Greek langauge, and that is the language that we must go by.

Where did you ever get that idea? And which Greek text must we accept as inspired?

 

[D28guy]

Bound,

Concerning the early Church Councils...

"Perhaps they are irrelevant to you but we have inherited their conclusions no-the-less and they are the very foundations which form our exegesis for much of the faith claims we made 'with' the Scriptures."

The "very foundations" of our doctrine are to be found in the scriptures, as God is their author. All teaching is to be judged up against the scriptures, as the Apostle Pauls teaching was scrutinized against the scriptures. The scriptures are Gods unchanging truth standard, not Church Councils.

"No one approaches the Scriptures 'in a vacuum'. We come to the Scriptures with our own personal histories of inherited exegesis developed through our lifetimes. Messianic Jews have a different 'exegesis' than say Anglicans or even Baptists. Depending on the extent of formal education an individual has and where and what that education taught has a huge effect on the particular faith claims any of us will have."

And thats why it is so important that we learn to turn to Gods unchanging truth standard, the scriptures, as our truth source.

"Although I have my own unique influences playing a role on my interpretation of the Scriptures I also try and recognize that we also have the consensus of Christian history to consider as well."

We are to judge the wisdom of the "consensus of Christian history" by means of testing it against Gods unchanging truth standard, His scriptures. If you do not do that, then only disaster will follow.

Just take a look at the longest running religious organisation that practices what you are promoting. The Romish Church was invented around the 3rd century and has countinued until today. Now, what is the "fruit" that we clearly see from 1700 years of turning away from the scriptures alone...Gods "unchanging truth standard...and heeding the "consensus" of various "Councils" and great "Declarations of the Faith" that has come from them?

What we find is 1700 years of paganism layered on top of blasphemies on top of heresies on top of mass murder on top of falsehoods on top of more blasphemies. A virtual cess pool of wickedness, idolatries, goddess worship and decades...if not longer...of child predators and rapists being moved from parish to parish so as to protect the "reputation" of "Holy Mother Church".

That is the result of what you are promoting.

"Perhaps such an exercise is a real challenge to some who have not historical evidence to establish their claims..."

I think I've got my "historical evidence" pretty much lined up just fine, thank you very much....as I just listed it in all its 1700 year ugliness.

"...except to make the broad assertion that their exegesis 'is' the Scriptures but honestly that isn't the case. If evangelical, Catholic or Orthodox Christianity were so self-evident then the Jews would have never rejected Jesus as the Messiah... but they did! Why?

Because their hearts were hardened, and they couldnt "see", for the most part. (Paul did, as well as Nicodemus and so many others of course)

"Well, I would argue that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ taught I 'particular' exegesis to the Apostles and Disciples. This is most evident on the Road to Emmaus.

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Christ] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. ~ Luke 24:27

The Jews did not have this exegesis in order to 'interpret' the Scriptures in the proper way in order to convict them as to the truth of Christianity. They had to in effect accept the Christian Exegesis or continue in their own blind grasping for understanding."

They have no excuse. There was enough "light" for them, and always has been. Pride is the problem. God "resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble".

"Many, modern denominations, do this very same thing today (i.e. blindly grasp at their own understanding)."

Those that might do that are in error. The truth of the gospel, the christian life, and how we are to grow as christians that the evangelical/pentecostal world holds to comes primarily from seeking God Himself to "open" our eyes through the scriptures alone, and always with the Holy Spirits guiding. Anyone who attempts to learn spiritual truth through carnal methods (..."their own understanding" as you put it) are in great error...

"6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:
" Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."[a]
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy[b] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?"[c] But we have the mind of Christ."

Those great truths are not for "Church Councils" or "Church Hierarchies" alone. (and in some cases church "Hierarcies" and "Councils" know absolutly nothing of those great truths) Those great truths apply to every single christian who has access to Gods unchanging truth standard, the scriptures.

"The Apostle Paul argues the same thing in his exhortations to stand fast in the Traditions taught us. It wasn't the Gospels that Jesus taught but a unique and Godly Exegesis of the Old Testament Scriptures that revealed the truth of him and his movement. The New Testament was valuable documents articulating evidence of this but not it's details. The details of this Exegesis can be found in the study of the consensus of the Fathers. This is what is meant by Holy Tradition and it is necessary for the proper interpretation of the Scriptures.

Thats what men say, but its not what God says...

"16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

I'm going to go with God every time.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[David Lamb]

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.

Overwhelming evidence in the Scriptures?

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.

Do you mean verses like Mark 6.3, words spoken by local people?

"Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" And they were offended at Him."


​

Is that part of your overwhelming evidence? Suppose someone was talking about Queen Victoria and her children, and said, "Princess Victoria, the eldest child of Queen Victoria, had four brothers and four sisters." It would be stretching the use of language almost to breaking-point to suggest that that could mean Queen Victoria had only one child.

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.

I agree that they would only be half-sisters and half-brothers, but not for the reason you gave. Jesus had no human father, so if, as you say, these supposed siblings were "children of Joseph", they would share neither parent with Jesus. They would not be related to Him at all! Rather, they are half-siblings because they share the same mother, but not the same Father.

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, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly reasonable.

How ever can you make the assertion that Mary's words, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" implies that she "had already committed herself to remain a virgin"? The verb "know" there is in the present tense; she did not say, "I shall never know a man". Her question to the angel was perfectly reasonable anyway. She had just been told that she was going to have a baby. She would have been perplexled, as although she was betrothed to Joseph, she had had no sexual relations with him. Naturally she would ask, "How can this be?"

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 Jerome, Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).

5. The early reformers, including Martin Luther and John Calvin, advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary.

That may be so - I have not read the particular writings of those people you mention that refer to Mary's perpetual virginity. It is perhaps nopteworthy that the earliest example you give was in the 4th century AD! However, what matters is what God says in His Word.

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. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.

There could be all manner of reasons for this. We are told that so far, His brothers did not believe. Why would He leave His mother in the care of an unbeliever?

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.

That seems to hold water, but in fact the Greek word traslated "until" in Matthew 1.25 is completely different from that in 1 Corinthians 15.25. I will leave it to someone with a knowledge of NT Greek to let us know how that might affect your argument.

It would be interesting to know how your change of views on this matter has affected your Christian life.

 

[skypair]

It is abundantly clear that...

... many people are "importing" meaning into the scriptures from their own personal beliefs or those of their influential leaders. Observations about clear texts (Mk 6:3, Mt 13:55-56) as merely being "inferential" regarding Mary's virginity are dishonest to yourself, to us, and to the Bible. And though it is the "sincerest of dishonesty" (you really do cleave to it), it shows a love of doctrines of men more than of doctrines of God.

I have run across an instance where "rather" (as in "Yea, rather, blessed is he...") was interpretted as "more" by Ryrie. But that would still tell me that the blessedness of Mary was less than that of those who studied and practiced the scriptures.

The question then remains --- will you remain in bondage to men or will you return unto God?

skypair

 

[bound]

Grace and Peace D28guy,

You present a challenging argument and one that has much that I would agree with wholeheartedly but to blindly equate everything taught by the early Church that we know from historical evidence and from examination of it's traditions is the byproduct of a wayward Latin Church. In fact, much of the Papal Monarchy one saw in the Latin Church of the late Middle-Ages is a development of the Middle-Ages and does not reflect the true Collegial Tradition of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which shares much more in common with Holy Orthodoxy in the Eastern Churches which never strayed from a truly universal sense of the Church as the whole of the faithful. Remember, the early councils were not populated by Bishops but also Laity as well. All were welcome and All participated in the consensual proclamations of the universal Church.

With that said it is improper to look at the ecumenical councils as some kind of 'good-ole boys club' or some kind of 'club of the elite' but a true conciliar ecclesiology.

So I would respectfully ask that you not project what you have seen as the structure the Latin Church and it's Papal Monarchy on the truly conciliar and Collegial nature of the early Church Councils.

When and if you do this I believe that you will see them as the very bulwark of the early Church against the heresies of the day which continue to resurface as we fail to remember the history of the Church 'which is the pillar of all truth'.

 

[DHK]

DHK, I rest my case as stated above. This does not say Mary had other children. All we can do is infer from the context.

How do you rest a case you don't have?

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

His mother is Mary, and his half-brothers, Mary's children, and Joseph's children (the carpenter's son), are stated right there. There is no inference. They are stated there very clearly. The context is the immediate family of Jesus who the Jews were inquiring about. There is no doubt about this passage, only a denial by unbelieving minds.

Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
--In verse 24 there was an official wedding ceremony the took place as God commanded Joseph. Mary was already pregnant, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Joseph had been reassured of that fact by an angel.

In verse 25 he "knew her" after Christ was born. That is, there were other children born unto Mary by Joseph after Christ was born. There is no way that Mary remained a virgin. The phraseology, the verbs used, does not allow for it. Joseph "knew" Mary after Christ was born.

Matthew 1:25 and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus. (WEB)
--Is this translation plain enough? He did know her sexually after Christ was born. That is very plain and simple. It is impossible to infer from that that Mary remained a virgin--impossible!

Now the real question is: Why do you insist in trusting in the words of men rather than in the words of God?

Not so. Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome all wrote that Matthew was written in Aramaic. The New American Commentary (1992) strongly suggests Matthew was written in Aramaic. Neil Altman says it was written in Hebrew--not Greek or Aramaic. (http://essenes.net/new/gospelhebrews4.html).

Again, why do you insist on trusting in the words of men rather in the words of God? Irenaeus also believed that Christ lived until the ripe old age of 80, do you?
Origen was declared a heretic even by the Catholic Church.
These men held to some very strange and very unorthodox beliefs--some of them heretical.

Psalms 20:7 Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
--Trust in whom you will; I trust in God and in His Word.

Where did you ever get that idea? And which Greek text must we accept as inspired?

Whether you believe in the critical text or the received text is not up for debate here. Both are written in Greek. The entire NT was written in Greek. We have over 5,000 extant documents attesting to the veracity of the NT, all in Greek. The writers of the NT wrote in Greek. It was the Greek language in which the Apostles wrote, and that was the language which God inspired those writings--not in any other language. Only the original writings are inspired. God's Word has been preserved for us. But the original writings were penned and inspired in Greek and in no other language.
(It was Hebrew in the OT.)
You need to do your homework here.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--The inspiration is Greek for the NT and Hebrew for the OT.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--Holy men of God were the prophets of the OT, and by extension the Apostles of the NT. They were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what God directed them to write. And what they wrote was in the Greek in the NT, and in the Hebrew in the OT. There are no other languages inspired of God, except for very small portions of Daniel written in Aramaic, and a couple of other exceptions in the OT. But in the NT, there are no exceptions.

 

[Zenas]

DHK, you say there is no evidence that Matthew was written in anything but Greek. I furnish you evidence and you reject what you are sure you disagree with (fair enough) but you don't even acknowledge that I gave you anything else, including a modern commentary commissioned by the Southern Baptist Convention. I ask where you got the idea that inspired scripture was only written in Greek and rather than answer the question, you restate the premise several different ways. Also you seem annoyed that I would disagree with you on these things. It is difficult to carry on a meaningful discourse when one side of the discussion pays no attention to what the other party is saying.

 

[DHK]

DHK, you say there is no evidence that Matthew was written in anything but Greek. I furnish you evidence and you reject what you are sure you disagree with (fair enough) but you don't even acknowledge that I gave you anything else, including a modern commentary commissioned by the Southern Baptist Convention. I ask where you got the idea that inspired scripture was only written in Greek and rather than answer the question, you restate the premise several different ways. Also you seem annoyed that I would disagree with you on these things. It is difficult to carry on a meaningful discourse when one side of the discussion pays no attention to what the other party is saying.

Here is the point that you are missing.
Even if you find evidence that Matthew was "orignially" written in Aramaic, my response is "so what." It wasn't inspired in Aramaic. It was inspired in the Greek language. If you take a gander at the Versions forum this will become readily apparent to you. The entire NT is inspired in the original writings of the Apostles who all wrote in the Greek language. Even if you found evidence that there was an Aramaic copy of the book of Matthew that copy would not be the inspired Word of God. The Greek is, and thus it is the Greek that we go by. The Greek word for brother and brethren is adelphos. There is another distinct word for cousin that could have been used but wasn't. Thus your case fails.

You could make a case based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate. But the Latin is not inspired. The Apostles did not write in Latin, they wrote the inspired manuscripts in Greek. And those are the manuscripts that we have to go with.

 

[bound]

Do you mean verses like Mark 6.3, words spoken by local people?

"Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" And they were offended at Him."​

Grace and Peace David Lamb,

Unlike Zenas I would not suggest that there is overwhelming Scriptural evidence but I would be interesting in knowing what your explanation is that the early Church would suggest that Mary was Ever-Virgin? What was the objective?

What do you make of Genesis 12:5 and 14:16 were brother is used for familial relations outside of actual brothers? Why did Jesus from the Cross commit His mother to the care of John? If truly there were brothers and sisters couldn't they care for Mary? If Joseph was still alive, couldn't he care for Mary? Why was it so important for our Lord to commit Her care over to the Disciples? I've never understood this...

I know that early Church traditions taught that Mary's care was committed to John because Joseph has since passed on and that there was no immediate relations to care for Mary. The apparent age of Joseph was also the rationale for believing that the sisters and brothers mentioned in the Scriptures were either extended relations or the sons and daughters of Joseph from a previous marriage. I know these are largely drawn from extra-bibilical sources but they do 'fit' very well together with early Church traditions as well as to the rationale that Jesus committed His mother's care to John because there simply was no one else in which to care for her.

I welcome your thoughts on this and I appreciate you charitableness concerning this very charged and challenging topic.

Be Well.

 

[skypair]

Grace and Peace David Lamb,

Unlike Zenas I would not suggest that there is overwhelming Scriptural evidence but I would be interesting in knowing what your explanation is that the early Church would suggest that Mary was Ever-Virgin?

I just finished reading Eusibius history of the early church and before that, an abridged version of Gibbon's "The Fall of Rome." In neither one was even one mention made of Mary nor of any veneration of her in any form.

I would ask where are you getting it from?

skypair

 

[Zenas]

That may be so - I have not read the particular writings of those people you mention that refer to Mary's perpetual virginity. It is perhaps nopteworthy that the earliest example you give was in the 4th century AD! However, what matters is what God says in His Word.

John Calvin: "Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ." [Helvidius was a contemporary of Jerome who advocated that Mary had other children after Jesus. This link will direct you to further information about the Jerome/Helvidius debate and by comparison it makes debate on the BB apear mild indeed. http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm]

Ulrich Zwingli: "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."

Martin Luthur: "Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity."

John Wesley: "I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

I find it interesting that these men, all of whom left the Catholic Church and all of whom were champions of sola scriptura, would hold to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

David Lamb asked, "It would be interesting to know how your change of views on this matter has affected your Christian life."

Thanks for asking, David. It hasn't had any effect on my Christian life but it has made me realize that long held opinions are not necessarily the best held opinions.

 

[Zenas]

Correction on the previous post (#95): John Wesley was not a Catholic. He left the Anglican Church to found the Methodist Church.

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,



No, the scriptures make clear that The Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Gods triune nature is taught in the scriptures.



The scriptures make clear that Christ was God in human form.

So how come Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches, inter alia, arrived at radically different conclusions using sola Scriptura if it is as you claim 'clear'?

The scriptures were written and considered scripture long before they were called "the Bible".

Granted re the 'written' part, but as to the 'considered', specifically when? Dates, people, documents, please.

 

[Matt Black]

Actually it does not pre-suppose anything but reason. IF the RCC is really picking and choosing which books to canonize - then you would think that they would pick books favorable to their doctrines.

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

The Church was not free to 'pick and choose' books in that way but only those which the HS showed them were necessary to the Canon. Since the Church also had Sacred Tradition, it was not necessary to have specific Scriptural quotes to be congruent to the doctrine(s) concerned.

 

[bound]

Correction on the previous post (#95): John Wesley was not a Catholic. He left the Anglican Church to found the Methodist Church.

Grace and Peace Zenas,

John Wesley (of blessed memory) never left the Anglican Church and always thought of himself as a devoted son of what was truly ecumenical within the Anglican Tradition. Methodism, did grow apart in time but by and large thought of themselves of Anglicans, Methodism in America separated from Anglicanism just as the Episcopal Church did, largely due to the events of the War of Independence.

 

[bound]

I just finished reading Eusibius history of the early church and before that, an abridged version of Gibbon's "The Fall of Rome." In neither one was even one mention made of Mary nor of any veneration of her in any form.

I would ask where are you getting it from?

skypair

Grace and Peace Skypair,

I too have Eusibius' History of the early Church but I would say to you that that is concerning "History" not "Theology". We know what the early Church thought about Mary "Theologically" because we have the Councils....