The Assumption of Mary

[Marcia]

John 19:26-27:

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home].​

Here we see Mary refered to as Jesus' mother and to John to behold his mother (Mary), in which he did.

In XC
-

This was not uncommon in that time - widowed women had to depend on relatives to take care of them or they would be beggars. Jesus telling John to regard Mary as his mother was to entrust Mary to John's care. He was speaking to John - Jesus did not tell us nor does God say anywhere that Mary is the mother of all believers!

 

[Agnus_Dei]

This was not uncommon in that time - widowed women had to depend on relatives to take care of them or they would be beggars. Jesus telling John to regard Mary as his mother was to entrust Mary to John's care. He was speaking to John - Jesus did not tell us nor does God say anywhere that Mary is the mother of all believers!

Hi Marcia, since you know a little about the culture and custom of that time period and since we're already discussing Mary, let me ask you this.

Was Mary "ever-virgin"? You just made a good case for it. Why would Jesus give care of His mother to St. John, instead of another son, which was the Jewish custom?

In XC
-

 

[Marcia]

Hi Marcia, since you know a little about the culture and custom of that time period and since we're already discussing Mary, let me ask you this.

Was Mary "ever-virgin"? You just made a good case for it. Why would Jesus give care of His mother to St. John, instead of another son, which was the Jewish custom?

In XC
-

I think Jesus had half-brothers - James was one. I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

There is no reason for her to be perpetually virgin - to think this matters is to assume that sex is a sin between a husband and wife, but it clearly isn't. Why should she be perpetually virgin?

I don't know why Jesus gave care of his mother to John but here are some guesses:
1. The brothers were not there at the moment
2. We know Jesus loved John and felt John would be the right one to care for Mary
3. Jesus chose John for some other reason
4. The brothers could not care for Mary; perhaps they were already caring for the widowed mothers of their wives

I think the fact Jesus did this is in no way evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary!

 

[mrtumnus]

I did explain it, but apparently you are not reading my posts.
The text states that there was one offering given for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering. One cannot get around what the Scripture states. You can't simply insert your own opinion here; you must adhere to what the Bible says, whether you like it or not. It states burnt offering and sin offering. Your duty in Bible study is to find out why--not to try and justify why not, or discredit what the Bible says.

Blood has to do with sin--every time.
1. Blood is unclean, and represents sin, or:
2. Blood is sacrificial and covers sin--as in the Passover or in the blood of Christ.

This is obviously the former.
Lev.12, in great detail, explains the details of her purification. She needed to be purified of the blood that was lost in giving birth. There was blood involved. It was not a neat and clean cesarean operation. Even then, when the baby comes out, it still has blood on it and needs to be cleaned.
Blood is "unclean." It reminds one of sin. Sin has to be atoned for. It is atoned for by means of a sacrifice. All of this is done according to the law. Mary did not sin in giving birth. But the blood was unclean. The picture of it was to remind her of her own sin nature as David expressed in Psalm 51:5

No Nazarite could touch of any unclean thing, including blood, lest he be defiled. Then he had to go through a process of purification, just as these women had to.
Mary was reminded of her sin nature with these sacrifices--that she was a sinner.

It was also significant that she had to offer a pair of turtledoves. She came in her poverty, too poor to offer a lamb. Her sin, prophetically would be atoned for by the Lamb slain for the sins of the world.

I am reading your posts. I am just trying to follow the logic that because Mary followed the Jewish law and offered the required sacrifice prescribed by law for childbirth this proves she sinned. That's beyond stretching the intent of the text. It simply proves that she kept the law, and nothing beyond that. Had she not kept the law as required -- that would have been a sin.

Quite similar to Jesus being baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness -- even though John's baptism was for repentance and forgiveness of sins. Presenting himself to John to be baptized did not mean he needed to repent or be forgiven. It meant he was honoring the ritual and its purpose.

 

[BRIANH]

Hi Marcia, since you know a little about the culture and custom of that time period and since we're already discussing Mary, let me ask you this.

Was Mary "ever-virgin"? You just made a good case for it. Why would Jesus give care of His mother to St. John, instead of another son, which was the Jewish custom?

In XC
-

People use this argument often because as Marcia has pointed out there are reasons. There are a couple of things I will ask you Angus if you do not mind based upon YOUR perspective.

Why did Jesus not give the care of his mother to his step brothers and her stepsons? They were close enough to travel together after all.

and if that is not the tradition you believe..

Why did Jesus not give the care of his mother to her own nephews. After all the brothers mentioned are really cousins..

 

[mrtumnus]

No it's not. It would have been a sin for Christ to ignore the care of Mary. He is our example. We are to take care of our parents.

You're absolutely correct -- Jesus was bound to follow the commandment to honor his mother. This is why any attempts to present that he "distanced himself" and "ignored her" and even sometimes publicly dis-honored her (I'm not saying by you) are ridiculous. All of those things would be contrary to honoring his mother, which he fulfulled completely to perfection as he did all the commandments.

Yet, he could have simply requested John to take care of Mary. Telling him to "Behold your mother" is telling John to see Mary as his own mother.

If Mary wasn't a sinner, why did she need a redeemer? This makes no sense.
There is not a shred of scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was sinless.

I believe there is implicit Scriptural evidence for this. For the purpose of a discussion like this however, I simply will point out that from a "Bible-alone" perspective I would contend the most one could say is the Bible doesn't explicitly speak to whether or not Mary sinned.

Mary needed a Redeemer because she was a human woman entering a fallen world, and her salvation was merited by Christ on the cross. Catholic theology has never quesitoned that. The belief is that her salvation was applied uniquely to her due to the unique role she was to play in the salvation story. Saving someone before they inevitably fall is the same as saving someone after they fall.

Have you considered that it is "downplayed" because it is not doctrine?

Protecting Mary makes no sense, because she was with Jesus and the disciples much of the time. Everyone knew she was His mother. If they wanted to protect her, they would have hidden her away somewhere, not kept her with them in public.

There was no need to hide her away during the ministry of Christ. At the time the NT was written she was no longer with Jesus and the other disciples. She was living with John in Ephesus, and very much "hidden away". Christianity was growing. Persecutions were increasing. This is one possible reason they downplayed the role of Mary in their writing -- to protect her from both the overly zealous faithful, the curiosity seekers, and the persecutors. Certainly as good as any other assumption.

The Marian doctrines did not appear in scripture. That is why it should not be doctrine at all.


If you can back up your claims with scripture, you will be able to convert me, but so far all your claims are just opinion.

[/QUOTE]I can certainly appreciate your opinions regarding that, and I have no desire to convert you. My simple point is that the idea that these doctrines are contrary to Scripture is not supported. They certainly may be contrary to the way some interpret Scripture. Individual interpretations are a dime a dozen.

 

[mrtumnus]

John 2:3-4 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
--The narration says 'mother.'
The words of Jesus Himself, calls her "woman," indicating that he is not to be referred to as his mother. His time of ministry had not yet come. This was before his baptism--before the actual official beginning of his ministry. Who was this "woman" who dared to tell the Son of God what to do!!!!
She must be put in her proper place!! This "woman!"

I think your assertion that he was putting Mary in "her proper place" would be much more substantiated if he had actually refused her request. The fact that he did indeed change the water into wine at her request, even though the time of his ministry had not yet come, sort of brings your interpretation of the event into question, don't you think?

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
--The narration says mother; but Jesus says "woman."
It is a stark contrast. She is not his mother. She is a woman, another believer, no greater than anyone else. And John was to take this "woman" home and take care of her. Notice it was John, and not one of the half-brothers of Jesus, as custom would dictate at that time. If the physical bond was important, the family bond was important, then Jesus would have entrusted Mary to his physical family, but he didn't. The bond was only spiritual at best.

I'm not sure where Scripture speaks of any half-brothers of Jesus? They may well have been half-brothers in the eyes of society (Joseph's children) or cousins. Since Scripture nowhere indicates Mary gave birth to other children, it could be a very logical choice for him to choose John.

Here is one of the strongest passages yet, where Jesus completely ignores his physical mother:

Matthew 12:46-50 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

There was not one word of recognition of Mary. Not a word! He doesn't even recognize her as "mother." Instead he turns his attention on his disciples, and those that would follow him, and identifies them as his: brother, sister, and mother. Mary is totally ignored.

I do not see how stretching out his arms towards all who do his will is showing disrespect toward Mary?

Your willingness to so easily claim that Jesus failed to honor his mother amazes me. Was Jesus not required to "Honor his father and mother"? Did he not fulfill all of the commandments to perfection?

Have you considered the title of "woman" was therefore meant to actually honor her? Consider another piece of Scripture I am surprised you did not quote:

As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

Many see this as a 'diss' of Mary. Other than the obvious (Jesus would not publicly dis-honor his mother) -- consider that Scripture teaches us that Mary was indeed blessed. It teaches us that she did indeed hear the word of God and obeyed -- at great personal risk I might add. So what does Jesus really mean here?

The word 'rather' is key. Most apply the definition -- "on the contrary". You have to get pretty far down on the list to get to that definition though. How about the primary -- "with better reason". Or this one -- "more correctly speaking".

So have you considered that what Jesus is saying is not that Mary was not blessed by being his physical mother, but more importantly she (and any of us) are even more blessed when we hear the word of God and obey? Probably not.

The term 'woman' could well be in recognition of the fact that the importance of Mary being willing to obey God gains her a status even moreso than that of being his physical mother, and that is which he recognizes. Interesting interpretation, isn't it?

But I would categorically reject your view that Jesus did not honor his mother and fulfill that commandment as perfectly as he did all the rest.

 

[mrtumnus]

Mary was the mother of Jesus but that does not make her the mother of Christians. We become Christians upon faith in Christ, and God tells us that this makes us adopted children of God. There is nothing there about Mary being our mother.

In fact, the RC catechism says that the RC Church is your mother.

And it also says that Mary is the mother of all the church's members. Not a contradiction.

 

[Amy.G]

You're absolutely correct -- Jesus was bound to follow the commandment to honor his mother. This is why any attempts to present that he "distanced himself" and "ignored her" and even sometimes publicly dis-honored her (I'm not saying by you) are ridiculous. All of those things would be contrary to honoring his mother, which he fulfulled completely to perfection as he did all the commandments.

Yet, he could have simply requested John to take care of Mary. Telling him to "Behold your mother" is telling John to see Mary as his own mother.

I think the phrase "behold your mother" means to care for her as his own mother and take her into his family as a member, not a guest. If this is the way Jesus meant it, then John would have certain Jewish oblilgations to care for her.

I believe there is implicit Scriptural evidence for this. For the purpose of a discussion like this however, I simply will point out that from a "Bible-alone" perspective I would contend the most one could say is the Bible doesn't explicitly speak to whether or not Mary sinned.

But the Bible does say that Mary was a sinner. First of all, she was born to 2 parents who were sinners. Second, the only person in all of history to be sinless was Jesus. Third, we have scripture.

Luk 1:46 And Mary said:
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

Jesus is the Savior to sinners.
Mar 2:17 When Jesus heard [it], He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call [the] righteous, but sinners, to repentance."*

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


See how easy that is? You can use scripture to prove what is true.

Mary needed a Redeemer because she was a human woman entering a fallen world, and her salvation was merited by Christ on the cross. Catholic theology has never quesitoned that. The belief is that her salvation was applied uniquely to her due to the unique role she was to play in the salvation story. Saving someone before they inevitably fall is the same as saving someone after they fall.

Mary was a human being who needed to be saved from her sins.

There was no need to hide her away during the ministry of Christ. At the time the NT was written she was no longer with Jesus and the other disciples. She was living with John in Ephesus, and very much "hidden away". Christianity was growing. Persecutions were increasing. This is one possible reason they downplayed the role of Mary in their writing -- to protect her from both the overly zealous faithful, the curiosity seekers, and the persecutors. Certainly as good as any other assumption.

You are saying that the apostles downplayed Mary's role, while at the same time neglecting an important doctrine? And this doctrine of Mary was revealed sometime later by people other than the apostles?

I can certainly appreciate your opinions regarding that, and I have no desire to convert you. My simple point is that the idea that these doctrines are contrary to Scripture is not supported. They certainly may be contrary to the way some interpret Scripture. Individual interpretations are a dime a dozen.

You have proven my point that you cannot find the Marian doctrine in all of scripture. You have believed what the RCC has taught you. You need to search the scriptures to see if these things are true.

Act 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily [to find out] whether these things were so.

 

[mrtumnus]

I think Jesus had half-brothers - James was one. I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

There is no reason for her to be perpetually virgin - to think this matters is to assume that sex is a sin between a husband and wife, but it clearly isn't. Why should she be perpetually virgin?

I don't know why Jesus gave care of his mother to John but here are some guesses:
1. The brothers were not there at the moment
2. We know Jesus loved John and felt John would be the right one to care for Mary
3. Jesus chose John for some other reason
4. The brothers could not care for Mary; perhaps they were already caring for the widowed mothers of their wives

I think the fact Jesus did this is in no way evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary!

It certainly isn't explicit evidence, but then again, Scripture doesn't give any explicit evidence she had more children either.

The belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary has nothing to do with believing that sex between a husband and wife is a sin. There are many things which factor into the belief, but not that one. But many people do make the assumption that Mary and Joseph were a young couple, in love, planning to have a family. That is simply an assumption as nowhere in Scripture indicates that. There were many reasons for marriage in the Jewish culture.

But if they were planning to be married and have a family, why did Mary bring up the topic of her virginity when the angel told her that in the future she would have a child? I can understand her response of "how can this be, I am a virgin" if the angel had said "Oh, by the way, you are pregnant". I can't quite see it as making much sense when she was told she was going to have a son in the future. Why did she not just assume she and Joseph would be having a son?

 

[DHK]

I'm not sure where Scripture speaks of any half-brothers of Jesus? They may well have been half-brothers in the eyes of society (Joseph's children) or cousins. Since Scripture nowhere indicates Mary gave birth to other children, it could be a very logical choice for him to choose John.

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?

His brothers: James, Joses, Simon, Judas. Those were their names. They were the children of Mary and Joseph, and therefore half-brothers. He had half-sisters as well mentioned in verse 56. Mary was not a perpetual virgin. She was a mother that had many children, after Christ was born.

The reason that Jesus entrusted Mary to John, was spiritual. John was the beloved disciple. He was also a disciple of means, and had a house where he was financially able to take care of Mary. Remember that Mary and Joseph were a poor family.
He did not entrust her to anyone of his brothers because they were not saved. Both Jude and James (authors of the respective books of Jude and James) could have taken care of her, but they were not saved until after the resurrection. Jesus would not entrust the care of Mary to someone who was antagonistic to Him and His ministry even if they were related to Him.

Jude 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:

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

 

[Doubting Thomas]

People use this argument often because as Marcia has pointed out there are reasons. There are a couple of things I will ask you Angus if you do not mind based upon YOUR perspective.

Why did Jesus not give the care of his mother to his step brothers and her stepsons? They were close enough to travel together after all.

and if that is not the tradition you believe..

Why did Jesus not give the care of his mother to her own nephews. After all the brothers mentioned are really cousins..

I'm not RC or EO, but I'll hazard a guess..

Jesus committed His Mother, Mary, to John, His Beloved Disciple, instead of James or his other step-brothers because:
(1) the latter were not blood relatives of Mary; AND
(2) the latter were not believers in Christ at the time.

Christ committed the care of His Mother, a faithful follower of her Son to the end, to John, who also faithfully stayed by Christ's side even at the Cross. I could say more, but that'll do for now...

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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?

His brothers: James, Joses, Simon, Judas. Those were their names. They were the children of Mary and Joseph, and therefore half-brothers. He had half-sisters as well mentioned in verse 56. Mary was not a perpetual virgin. She was a mother that had many children, after Christ was born.

Ah...but where in the Scriptures does it actually say they were children of Mary?

 

[BRIANH]

I'm not RC or EO, but I'll hazard a guess..

Jesus committed His Mother, Mary, to John, His Beloved Disciple, instead of James or his other step-brothers because:
(1) the latter were not blood relatives of Mary; AND
(2) the latter were not believers in Christ at the time.

Christ committed the care of His Mother, a faithful follower of her Son to the end, to John, who also faithfully stayed by Christ's side even at the Cross. I could say more, but that'll do for now...

I dont get the first one. He did not give her to people she has known for..from this perspective 30 years because...they were not blood relatives? It sounds like you are saying he is protesting step children. Please clarify if you will. I am confused.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I dont get the first one. He did not give her to people she has known for..from this perspective 30 years because...they were not blood relatives? It sounds like you are saying he is protesting step children. Please clarify if you will. I am confused.

It's "BOTH...AND".

 

[mrtumnus]

I think the phrase "behold your mother" means to care for her as his own mother and take her into his family as a member, not a guest. If this is the way Jesus meant it, then John would have certain Jewish oblilgations to care for her.

Which at a minimum gets back to someone in the NT having a relationship with Mary as their mother.

Do you believe that at some point Mary ceased to be the mother of Jesus?

But the Bible does say that Mary was a sinner. First of all, she was born to 2 parents who were sinners. Second, the only person in all of history to be sinless was Jesus. Third, we have scripture.

Luk 1:46 And Mary said:
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

Jesus is the Savior to sinners.
Mar 2:17 When Jesus heard [it], He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call [the] righteous, but sinners, to repentance."*

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


See how easy that is? You can use scripture to prove what is true.







Mary was a human being who needed to be saved from her sins.

I must have missed the part where the Bible says that Mary is a sinner?

Mary speaks in terms of God being her Savior. Not will be her Savior in the future. So when do you think God became her Savior?

In terms of "all have sinned" -- there are quite a few places in Scripture where it's quite evident that the use of "all", or "none" or "no one" is not speaking about all individuals, but rather generically about mankind. Some individuals are quite logically exempt from the 'all'. What in your view qualifies this to be different?

You are saying that the apostles downplayed Mary's role, while at the same time neglecting an important doctrine? And this doctrine of Mary was revealed sometime later by people other than the apostles?

My thoughts are the apostles did not reveal everything they knew explicitly within Scripture.

You have proven my point that you cannot find the Marian doctrine in all of scripture. You have believed what the RCC has taught you. You need to search the scriptures to see if these things are true.

Act 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily [to find out] whether these things were so.

I never said I cannot find it. I think Scripture implicitly supports it. What I will consistently say is that one cannot "search the scriptures" and prove it is false.

Interesting Scripture -- they were searching the OT to see if they could verify what Paul was telling them about Christ. The NT was not yet there to search. They combined what Scripture foretold and accepted the teaching of Paul that Jesus actually rose from the dead -- for this was nowhere contained in Scripture at the time.

My mother will be the first to tell you that I never was one to just believe what people taught me. I have diligently searched the Scriptures. I believe these things about Mary most of all because they are rooted in an understanding of the nature of God and bring glory to God most of all.

 

[mrtumnus]

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?


His brothers: James, Joses, Simon, Judas. Those were their names. They were the children of Mary and Joseph, and therefore half-brothers. He had half-sisters as well mentioned in verse 56. Mary was not a perpetual virgin. She was a mother that had many children, after Christ was born.

So was he actually the carpenter's son? I think not. Could they have been sons of Joseph? Possibly. Society certainly would have seen them as the brothers of Jesus, just as they saw Joseph as his father as evidenced by your quote. Could they be cousins? Possibly. In other places Scripture refers to people as brothers and sisters when it's clear they aren't. "Brothers" was quite a generic term to the Jews who viewed extended family as family.

For example, if you take it all to mean literal brothers and sisters, then Mary had a sister named Mary. Odd thing wouldn't it be for parents to have two daughters and name them both Mary? Incidently, the other Mary had sons names James and Joses as well, who would have been cousins of Jesus.

Scripture nowhere says that Mary had other children after the birth of Christ. Period.

The reason that Jesus entrusted Mary to John, was spiritual. John was the beloved disciple. He was also a disciple of means, and had a house where he was financially able to take care of Mary. Remember that Mary and Joseph were a poor family.
He did not entrust her to anyone of his brothers because they were not saved. Both Jude and James (authors of the respective books of Jude and James) could have taken care of her, but they were not saved until after the resurrection. Jesus would not entrust the care of Mary to someone who was antagonistic to Him and His ministry even if they were related to Him.

Jude 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:

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

How can you prove from Scripture that not one of these "brothers" were saved? Sounds like speculation to me.

 

[steaver]

Ah...but where in the Scriptures does it actually say they were children of Mary?

Oh brother !

I have been reading this thread and this is the most grossly fabricated doctrine I think I have ever witnessed being defended.

I would wager, if I were a wagering man, that those who preach Mary was sinless and the Mother Queen of heaven could also prove Santa Clause and the Easter Bunney as real from God's Holy Word.

Unbelieveable.raying:

 

[Amy.G]

My mother will be the first to tell you that I never was one to just believe what people taught me. I have diligently searched the Scriptures. I believe these things about Mary most of all because they are rooted in an understanding of the nature of God and bring glory to God most of all.

That's good. Then search the scriptures and post all that they teach about the doctrine of Mary. But at this point all you have given me is the RCC teachings. What do the scriptures say?

An example of this type of scripture search would be the doctrine of the Trinity. The word "Trinity" does not appear in scripture, yet I can give you verse after verse after verse where the doctrine is clearly revealed.

That is what I am asking you to do regarding the doctrine of Mary. Find scriptures that reveal this doctrine that you so whole heartedly believe. If the doctrine is true, you will be able to prove it from scripture.

 

[mrtumnus]

That's good. Then search the scriptures and post all that they teach about the doctrine of Mary. But at this point all you have given me is the RCC teachings. What do the scriptures say?

An example of this type of scripture search would be the doctrine of the Trinity. The word "Trinity" does not appear in scripture, yet I can give you verse after verse after verse where the doctrine is clearly revealed.

That is what I am asking you to do regarding the doctrine of Mary. Find scriptures that reveal this doctrine that you so whole heartedly believe. If the doctrine is true, you will be able to prove it from scripture.

I have searched. I am satisified that the doctrines do not contradict Scripture and that they speak to the nature and glory of God first and foremost. I understand there are those who automatically make an assumption that can't be -- if anybody really searches (as they have) it would be clear. I think we all come from pre-disposed beliefs it can be difficult to shake.

Regarding the Trinity, ever read a rebuttal by a JW as to why the doctrine of the Trinity is not revealed in Scripture? Using the Bible alone, they will defend their belief as supported by Scripture without reservation. The clear definition of the nature of the Trinity and of Christ took the church centuries with many heresies along the way, all claiming Scripture as for their side.