Praying to Mary - A Biblical Defense

Status
Not open for further replies.

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,074
5,940
Nashville TN
✟631,633.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
God become a man born of a virgin cannot be addressed as Christ the man?

Paul didn't have a problem with this

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1 Tim 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
He is both, man and God. That is what makes Him the mediator.
 
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,074
5,940
Nashville TN
✟631,633.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Did you, or did you not write that my post was almost a verbatim quote of "ancient heresy"?

Anyone can mistakenly repeat heretical statements without being a heretic.
Pretty close to calling me a heretic if you ask me. But that's fine, according to official Catholic doctrine I am "anathema", so I guess it might be true.
I'm not Catholic nor is it my place to declare one way or the other.
Whatever you are comfortable with is fine by me. ;)
Yep, I never once said Jesus was not fully God and fully man.
.. not to rehash the whole discussion but in denying Mary as Theotokos, you kinda' did, even if unintentional.
That was the conclusion of the 5th century council.
My point is this, as God, Jesus pre-existed Mary, as the Bible clearly says, in the Scripture I quoted, which you ignored.
I saw no need to address this part, I agree with it.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
First, prayer is not worship. Second, there is nothing "Christian" about being hypercritical about a doctrine, belief or practice you refuse to make any attempt at understanding. That requires shedding prejudice and narrow mindedness. It also requires a lot of reading. Third, no one is obligated to have a devotion to any saint, it's not mandatory. We do it because we are a family and it works. Dividing the family of God in heaven from the family of God on earth is a false man made Protestant tradition.

I was raised, fully practicing and educated Roman Catholic through university. I hope you now realize this and stop the insulting comments (prejudice, narrow minded, not attempting to understand). I understand fully, and there is no Biblical support for the RC Marian devotion and praying to departed saints.

In His story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), we find our compelling prooftext:
Asking Saints to Intercede: Clear Teaching of Jesus
James 5:14-18
Note here that the Bible itself recommends asking someone else to pray: “the elders” of the Church,
Dialogue: "Why pray to a saint rather than to God?"
vs 18: “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.” We see the same dynamic in the following passage:

Your proof text is a parable where a man is actually 'praying' from Hades in torment? Are you seriously using this as a proof text. If you are all we have is evidence people currently in Hell awaiting final judgment can pray to Abraham. I'll ask the question. Was Jesus teaching about prayer in this parable? No he was not.

James 5:14-18
Note here that the Bible itself recommends asking someone else to pray: “the elders” of the Church,

Yes, there were still alive on this earth.

1 Kings 13:6
This is the biblical rationale for asking others, of more spiritual stature in the kingdom, or holier (or, best of all, both!) to pray for us.

But that is not yet the same as asking a (dead) saint to pray for us. How does one arrive at that conclusion? It takes a little more work, but it is possible to ground it, too, in Scripture by less direct, explicit biblical data.

What is the 'less direct, less explicit biblical data?"

In Revelation 5:8, the “twenty-four elders” (usually regarded by commentators as dead human beings) “fell down before the Lamb . . . with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” They appear to have other people’s prayers, to present to God. So the obvious question is: what are they doing with them? Why does Revelation present dead saints presenting the prayers of other saints to God?

Already addressed:

Praying to Mary - A Biblical Defense

Notice the USCCB does not even address this passage, but you and others pass this off as official RC teaching. Show me the official Roman Catholic teaching of this one verse.

Revelation 8:3-4 is even more explicit. Rather than equate incense and prayers, it actually distinguishes between them, and presents the scenario that the prayers and incense are presented together:
Dialogue: "Why pray to a saint rather than to God?"

This is not explicit. And the USCCB NABRE Bible notes agree with me:

* [8:113] The breaking of the seventh seal produces at first silence and then seven symbolic disasters, each announced by a trumpet blast, of which the first four form a unit as did the first four seals. A minor liturgy (Rev 8:35) is enclosed by a vision of seven angels (Rev 8:2, 6). Then follow the first four trumpet blasts, each heralding catastrophes modeled on the plagues of Egypt affecting the traditional prophetic third (cf. Ez 5:12) of the earth, sea, fresh water, and stars (Rev 8:712). Finally, there is a vision of an eagle warning of the last three trumpet blasts (Rev 8:13).

* [8:1] Silence in heaven: as in Zep 1:7, a prelude to the eschatological woes that are to follow; cf. Introduction.

* [8:3] Altar: there seems to be only one altar in the heavenly temple, corresponding to the altar of holocausts in Rev 6:9, and here to the altar of incense in Jerusalem; cf. also Rev 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7.

* [8:7] This woe resembles the seventh plague of Egypt (Ex 9:2324); cf. Jl 3:3.

* [8:811] The background of these two woes is the first plague of Egypt (Ex 7:2021).

* [8:9] Creatures living in the sea: literally, “creatures in the sea that had souls.”

* [8:11] Wormwood: an extremely bitter and malignant plant symbolizing the punishment God inflicts on the ungodly; cf. Jer 9:1214; 23:15.

* [8:13] Woe! Woe! Woe: each of the three woes pronounced by the angel represents a separate disaster; cf. Rev 9:12; 11:14. The final woe, released by the seventh trumpet blast, includes the plagues of Rev 16.

Link: scripture

Once again the official Bible study notes don't even address your claim. Not even close.

Bible on Invocation of Angels and Saved Human Beings
Read more at Bible on Invocation of Angels and Saved Human Beings

The source does not even know "The Angel of the LORD" is YHWH and in many other places in Holy Scriptures also refers to "One like the Son of Man" (Daniel 7). I think we both know Who that Is.

What's striking is your source once again invokes a negative example. Saul spoke to Samuel via a witch. I'm hoping this is not another 'proof text' from perdition.

What you mean by the Communion of Saints and what we mean are not the same.
Saints, Purgatory, & Penance (Index Page)
obviously.gif
 
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not once have I called you a heretic. Nor will I, ever.

You quoted Goatee who said :
"Mary is truly the Mother of the risen Lord."
You then replied, "She is the mother of Christ the man, (that is, His humanity/physical body), not of Christ as God. Jesus, as God, existed "in the beginning" and is the Creator of all things, as Scripture plainly states."


I've read your post several times, You said, "She is the mother of Christ the man, ..not of Christ as God."
It still reads the same. God became man, born of a virgin - that is the Incarnation.

Not trying to jump into the middle of this, but please let me take a whack at it. ;)

I think what she's saying, and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, is that as per John 1, the Son was eternal from the beginning. Therefore the Son predated Mary, which means Mary had no part in creating the Son. The Son wasn't created, he always was.

That being said, also as per John 1, the Son became flesh. And that is where Mary entered the scene. So yes, while Mary did give birth to Jesus Christ, who was fully God and Man, she did not play a part in creating the Son, since the Son became flesh.
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Anyone can mistakenly repeat heretical statements without being a heretic.
Fine line if you ask me. Not that I "mistankenly repeated" any heresy at all. Only part of what I said was addressed.

I'm not Catholic nor is it my place to declare one way or the other.
Whatever you are comfortable with is fine by me. ;)

Fair enough.

.. not to rehash the whole discussion but in denying Mary as Theotokos, you kinda' did, even if unintentional.
That was the conclusion of the 5th century council.
I saw no need to address this part, I agree with it.

I think if you're going to accuse me of saying Jesus was not fully God and fully man, you should quote me on that, rather than making presumptions and jumping to I'll supported conclusions.

Here is my point, yet again, as God, Jesus pre-existed Mary.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As I have stated many times before. The Apostles heard 'all' of the teachings of Jesus, of which, there would not be enough books in the world to record!

The Apostles did not teach or pass down through Apostolic Tradition only that which is in the Bible!

Many more 'truths' have been revealed to the Catholic Church because of the Apostolic Tradition and the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is a guide. God lives outside of scripture too. Jesus continues to steer the Catholic Church. The gates of hell will not prevail!

Sola Scripture is very much MAN MADE.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (St. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III. chapter I.)
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Not trying to jump into the middle of this, but please let me take a whack at it. ;)

I think what she's saying, and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, is that as per John 1, the Son was eternal from the beginning. Therefore the Son predated Mary, which means Mary had no part in creating the Son. The Son wasn't created, he always was.

That being said, also as per John 1, the Son became flesh. And that is where Mary entered the scene. So yes, while Mary did give birth to Jesus Christ, who was fully God and Man, she did not play a part in creating the Son, since the Son became flesh.

Thank you. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,074
5,940
Nashville TN
✟631,633.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
[QUOTE="amariselle, post: 71623293, member: 86037"]Here is my point, yet again, as God, Jesus pre-existed Mary.[/QUOTE]
Yet again, I agree. You are right, the Son of God is begotten not created, before all ages.

but, just so you understand why I pointed out the earlier part, Nestorians agreed with us on this part too.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mary is truly the Mother of the risen Lord.

Yes indeed there is clear evidence for this. The plain written words of God tell us so.

She is truly the Holy Tabernacle.

A later interpretation and should not be confused with Theotokos.

She is truly Our Holy Mother as given to us at the foot of the cross.
Debatable. As John received that mission personally.

People go on about how they cannot find any Biblical evidence for what the CATHOLICS teach about Mary or the Saints. I say, it is there! Plus, we have Apostolic Tradition. Teachings brought down through Holy Tradition as given by the Apostles who heard all of Jesus teachings, of which, not enough books in the world could contain!

Glad you mentioned this. I guess the early church 'forgot' a lot about Marian devotion as it was absent for the first 500 years of the church.

I will use only Catholic sources:

From then Cardinal Ratzinger (better known to all as Benedict XVI):

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .

This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” — J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

Basically Ratzinger is telling us the Church forgot this most important doctrine but remembered it much later. Even though, as he admits, there was no historical evidence prior to the 5th Century AD. Which he does not try to defend from a position of Holy Scriptures at all.

Therefore, your argument among other RCs here is the same as Karl Keating:

"The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

Which is a circular argument.

However, not surprising as indicated here as well:

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors" (Vehementer Nos, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X, 1906)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: amariselle
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are a Sola Scripture only believer. Nothing outside the Bible is real to you.
Can you define Sola Scriptura? I don't think you know what it means.
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Yet again, I agree. You are right, the Son of God is begotten not created, before all ages.

but, just so you understand why I pointed out the earlier part, Nestorians agreed with us on this part too.

Yes, well, you did only quote the first sentence of what I wrote after all. If you had addressed my entire post or asked me a few questions if it wasn't clear enough this all could have been avoided. ;)
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Does the text confirm the prayers are directed towards the 24 elders? No

Are you indicating the use of 'saints' in the text is the Roman Catholic understanding of canonized departed saints?

Who are the 24 elders? What is the significance of the harps the 24 elders each hold? Why are the prayers in golden bowls full of incense?
APOCALYPSE - Chapter 5
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If it's not handed down by the Apostles then it's not Tradition. Irenaeus has no problem asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture, and neither did any Church Father. That's why using the ECF to support sola scriptura never works. It's the sole or formal sufficiency that is non-existent.
I didn't argue SS. I provided Irenaeus showing the traditions of the apostles were later written down by the apostles and given to his generation as Scriptures (NT). Will you address what Irenaeus actually said and not introduce into the conversation what you think I am saying?

Newman became a Catholic BECAUSE he studied history. " "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." Newman’s maxim is not intended to be a "rule" that those Protestants versed in Church history "must" enter the Catholic Church. It is a general observation that Church history argues against Protestantism and that those Protestants who study history deeply many times realize that the Catholic Church is the true Church.

Ultimately, belief in the truth of Catholicism is a gift of faith given by God that must be accepted and acted upon by the recipient in order for the recipient to become Catholic.

Nice commentary, but you missed the context of what Newman was addressing. He admits there are later traditions which were not apostolic.

You are not being fair here. It goes on to say, " Images are painted ... For the Image is a triumph, and a manifestation, and a monument in memory of the victory of those who have done nobly and excelled, and of the shame of the devils defeated and overthrown."

I have no idea why you quoted this and calling me unfair. Newman said those things I did not.

THAT IS A LIE.

Tell it to the Roman Catholic theologian I quoted and linked.

Catholics have never claimed forgeries as apostolic. That's the job for SuperAnti-Catholic bigots like James White and Willy Webster.

Again, Roman Catholic scholar and original work cited.

After trying for over an hour I couldn't find your source. Snippets like that are highly suspicious given your track record in one post. Please provide an accessible link to the source.

The link to the free ebook was provided.

Do tell me kind sir what 'my track record is?' I have quoted Sacred Scriptures and Roman Catholic theologians.

You are quoting from junk theologians who manipulate what Cardinals actually mean. It would take months to sort through that volume of Catholic material and then not seeing the forest for the trees.
I provided the original sources and links to ebooks. These are the words of Catholic theologians.
Psychotic anti-Catholic nonsense.

Not so as demonstrated to another poster and provided below.

From then Cardinal Ratzinger (better known to all as Benedict XVI):

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .

This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” — J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

Basically Ratzinger is telling us the Church forgot this most important doctrine but remembered it much later. Even though, as he admits, there was no historical evidence prior to the 5th Century AD. Which he does not try to defend from a position of Holy Scriptures at all.

Therefore, your argument among other RCs here is the same as Karl Keating:

"The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
  • Haha
Reactions: Fireinfolding
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Frankly Roman Catholics should not be engaging in these discussions on church doctrine without permission from their Local Ordinary.

We should be getting only information with the proper nihil obstat and imprimatur.
Nonsense.

Can you define Sola Scriptura? I don't think you know what it means.
If he defines it as A you wil say "no, it means B". If he defines it as B you will say "No, it means A".

All of the numerous different ways that Protestants define Sola Scripture have the same problem - absolutely none of the various different versions of it are taught in Scripture, and nearly all of them are directly contradicted by Scripture. So you can define it just as you please, and we will show you why you are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
If you could find another source or tell me the name to the official Catholic teaching I would appreciate it. I received a notification the link was suspect for virus.

Thanks.
Ver. 7-8. He....took the book,[3]...and when he had opened it, or was about to open it, (in the Greek is only, he took it: which was a sign that he would open it)...the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, to adore him, as appears by what follows, ver. 13. --- Having every one of them harpsto celebrate his praise, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints: which shews that the saints in heaven offer up before the throne of the Divine Majesty the prayers of the faithful. (Witham) --- Harps, &c. These harps are symbols of the praise which good men render to God; and the vials full of odours represent the prayers of the saints. In conformity with this idea, St. John wishes to represent these four and twenty ancients as so many senators, who present to the Almighty the prayers and homages of good men on earth. (Estius; Clement of Alexandria) --- This also is an imitation of what was practised in the temple, in which were always around the altar, in times of sacrifice, Levites with musical instruments, priests with vials to contain the wine and blood, and censers to hold the incense (Calmet) --- The prayers of the saints. Here we see that the saints in heaven offer up to Christ the prayers of the faithful upon earth. (Challoner)
 
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Again, Roman Catholic scholar and original work cited.

I've actually quoted Catechism for the Catholic Church and been told I'm spouting anti-Catholic bigotry. What I'm saying is...good luck. ;)
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
I've actually quoted Catechism for the Catholic Church and been told I'm spouting anti-Catholic bigotry. What I'm saying is...good luck. ;)
Nah. You get accused of bigotry because of instances such as the time when you made up a story about missing Bible verses at Mass, and I proved that you were lying.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
First lets back up the truck a bit {BEEP, BEEP, BEEP}. I think you are attributing perhaps arguments from others and 'thinking' them to me. So let's examine your claims.

I never made that statement so please stop putting words in my mouth. What you quote above has nothing to do with the passage in Matthew where the crowd tells Jesus His kin are present and want to speak with Him. The quote from Luke 1:38 is of a contrite and faithful Blessed Mary who surrenders to the will to God. Indeed that is to be emulated and followed.

Of course where the Blessed Mary of the Bible is concerned. Not the demi-goddess status some proclaim her to be. And I will note, we have a laundry list of examples of Great Faith recorded for us to follow, unfortunately, in these verses Blessed Mary is not mentioned:
Spare me the vicious, ignorant, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic hate speech.

The text nor I made that claim. You projected it upon me. Jesus claimed those who do the Father's will are His brothers and mother. There is nothing more to read into the text. However, you did read into the text and attributed Jesus as pointing out His earthly family were examples He was uplifting. The text makes no mention of this, nor does the text allude to this. So we have to take it at face value Jesus was comparing the spiritual relationship above the earthly bonds we have. Which support His other teachings as well (Luke 14:26; Luke 18:28-30).
Scripture is not opposed to logic and reasoning.
Again, Jesus does not make this point at all. In fact, He is making the point about what He was teaching (Parable of the soils, Parable of Revealed Light). To make the leap that Jesus was pointing out to the crowd His entire earthly family was the example of what He spoke of is reading into the text.
I never said His entire earthly family. His "brothers" are relatives, not biological siblings, which I am about to prove.
As I already pointed out His own earthly brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5).
Now you are saying Jesus was refering to His unbelieving brothers in Mark 3:34 who do the will of God. That's absurd.
Marian devotion is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. At least the type of Marian devotion as seen in the two self proclaimed One True Churches (West and East).
The seeds of developed Marian devotion are in the NT, you just refuse to understand the whole picture. If you mean the people who walked the earth with Blessed Mary and respected her, loved her and looked after her when Jesus ascended into Heaven, that is found in the NT. [/quote] Marian theology is rooted in both the OT and the NT.

Everything else from "co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate" were terms added well after the 6th century and some as recent as the 19th-20th century and are doctrinal developments of the Roman magisterium.
How about we level the playing field and you show me "sola scriptura" before the 16th century in any document in any language in any place on earth.
Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

Well I did not even turn over this rock. However, as I pointed out in John 7:5, Jesus' own earthly brothers did not believe in Him, therefore He would not be pointing them out as 'spiritual brothers.' Let's look at Mark's account of the encounter with family:

Mark 3: NKJV
31 Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. 32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.”

33 But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” 34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

Notice the bolded blue underlined. In Mark's Gospel account, Jesus points to those sitting 'about Him.' Not His earthly family 'outside seeking' Him.
This argument has been flattened 30 times on this thread. I guess I have to do it again because you probably don't read links.

As I pointed out, the men referred to as 'brothers' in the "Jesus’ Mother and Brothers Send for Him" Gospel accounts are also referred to not believing in Him (John 7:5). So the 'brother in Christ' reference to post resurrection NT church use is not the context here.
The multiple usage of "brother" is the same as the zillion other places in the Bible where "brother" is found. You just take the one meaning that suits you.
And as I note above, Jesus is pointing out those who are around Him listening to Him preach (Mark 3:34). Not His earthly family still outside wanting to come in and see Him.
I pointed the same thing. I also pointed out that everyone who does the will of God is His mother, and I clarified what doing the will of God meant. Mary did the will of God PERFECTLY, and that is why she is a model of faith. I have yet to find any Catholic or Protestant that does the will of God as perfectly as Mary.
With that option (Jesus' stated 'brothers' in Mark 3 as 'spiritual brothers') removed what you have left is wresting the Greek to make 'brother' mean just 'kin' or 'cousin' even though the Latin Vulgate translates the Greek as "fratres." Seems Jerome got it right.
Then why are a vast number of Protestants Helvidian heretics, whom Jerome opposed? Jerome did not teach Jesus had siblings, he unequivocally opposed it as a heresy.
I refuse to wrest the Holy Scriptures to conform to a much later doctrinal development.
Check Strong's concordance.
Jesus having siblings was invented in the 19th century. You have bought a later heresy that no Protestant church accepted before that time. Jesus having siblings is a false man made tradition. It's popular only because it's fashionable, and it does violence to Scripture. Here we go again:

Matthew 13:55 -- Jesus at Nazareth

-- carpenter’s son
-- mother named Mary
-- brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas
-- sisters “with us”

Matthew 27: 55 -- The Crucifixion

“Among them were Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”

This “Mary” is obviously the mother of the same James and Joseph mentioned in Matt 13:55.

Matthew 28: 1 -- The Resurrection

“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and THE OTHER MARY came to see the tomb.”

This “other Mary” certainly corresponds to the mother of James and Joseph, the companion of Mary Magdalene in Matt 27:55. However, she is presented as such a minor gospel character that she is apparently NOT the mother of Jesus.

It’s interesting to note that whenever Matthew mentions the Virgin Mary, he always identifies her as “Jesus’ mother.” (See: Matt 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, and 2:21, in which the author all but beats us over the head with the phrase “His mother.”) It’s unlikely, therefore, that Matthew is abandoning this point by later identifying her as merely the mother of James and Joseph: a secondary character, less important than Mary Magdalene. Taking all this into consideration, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Jesus’ mother are apparently two different women. But first, let’s turn to Mark.

Mark 6:3 -- Jesus at Nazareth (possibly the original source)
-- “Is he not the carpenter?” (Jesus had taken over the family business)
-- “The son of Mary” (Very unusual in a Jewish context, in which a son is the son of the father, not the mother)
-- brothers James, JOSE, Judas, and Simon

The same list as in Matt 13:55, with the exception of “Jose” in place of Matthew’s Joseph -- really the same name in Hebrew (Yoshef).

-- “sisters are here with us”

Both in Matthew’s account, and more clearly here in Mark’s, this phrase seems to suggest that these particular “brothers” of Jesus lived elsewhere. (Could they have been traveling with Jesus as His followers?)

Mark 15:40 -- The Crucifixion

“Among them were Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF THE YOUNGER JAMES AND OF JOSE, and Salome.”

Here, Matthew’s “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” reappears as “the mother of ...James and of Jose,” corresponding to Mark’s reference to Jesus’ “brothers” James and Jose at Nazareth in 6:3. If one compares Matthew and Mark’s accounts of Jesus at Nazareth with that of their accounts of the crucifixion, it becomes abundantly clear that they are speaking about the same two relatives of Jesus, whose mother -- like Jesus’ -- happened to be named Mary:

NAZARETH CRUCIFIXION

Matthew: James and Joseph James and Joseph
Mark: James and Jose James and Jose
And so, Mark continues...
Mark 15:47 -- Jesus’ burial
“Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JOSE watched where He was laid.”
Jose corresponds to the one mentioned in Mark 6:3 and 15:40.

Mark 16:1 -- The Resurrection

“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint Him.”

The same three companions appear again. Here, Mary is called “the mother of James” (a variant of “the mother of Jose” in 15:47). However, there is still no mention, or even a vague implication, that this woman is also the mother of Jesus; but merely a background character like Salome.

Luke 24:10 -- The Resurrection

“The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES; the others who accompanied them also ...”

Again, the “mother of James,” but not the mother of Jesus. And, like Matthew and Mark (in 3:35), the author of Luke always refers to the Virgin Mary as Jesus’ mother (See: Luke 1:43, 2:33-34, 2:51, 8:19, Acts 1:14).

“Others” (aka, Salome and Suzanna, etc.)

John 19:25 -- The Crucifixion

“Standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother and HIS MOTHER’S SISTER, MARY THE WIFE OF CLOPAS, and Mary Magdala.”

This mysterious “Mary” appears again; this time called “Mary the wife of Clopas.” If this passage is speaking about three women, rather than four (as it almost certainly is), the comma after “his mother’s sister” may be identifying Clopas’ wife as the sister (or tribal-relative’) of Jesus’ mother. This would explain the gospel writers’ use of the Greek word “adelphos” (as a translation of the Hebrew “ah”), which could mean brother (or sister in the feminine), as well as cousin, nephew, relative, etc. If Clopas’ wife was the sister (i.e., close, tribal relative) of Jesus’ mother, then Clopas’ sons, James and Joseph (Jose), could very well be called Jesus’ “brethren” (i.e., part of His extended tribal family).

This seems to fit, since neither James and Joseph/Jose (nor any of the “brothers”) are EVER called the sons of Joseph.

It is also quite possible that, as John’s gospel so often does, this reference to Mary as “wife of Clopas” is a conscious intention to clear up any questions about the “mother of James and Joseph (Jose)” in the Synoptics -- that is, to clearly distinguish her from Jesus’ mother.

CONCLUSION

So, with all this evidence in mind, I hold that:

(1) John’s “Mary the wife of Clopas ” is the same person as the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” (the Mary of the cross/tomb accounts).

(2) This Mary is in turn the “sister” (i.e., close tribal relative) of Jesus’ mother Mary.

(3) This is how Jesus is “brothers” with James and Joseph (Jose).

(4) His other “brothers” (Judas and Simon), as well as his “sisters,” and the “brothers” who don’t believe in Him in John 7:5 are from other branches of His extended tribal family.

But, let’s play devil’s advocate.

If James, Joseph (Jose), Simon, and Judas ARE INDEED Jesus’ fraternal brothers, then the Synoptics’ Mary of the cross/tomb (i.e., the mother of James and Joseph/Jose) MUST be Jesus’ mother as well.

And, after all, there ARE certain seemingly-logical arguments to support this:

-- James and Joseph (Jose) ARE called Jesus’ brothers.
-- And, their mother IS named Mary (the same as Jesus’)
-- And, one must admit, it’s also possible that the comma between “His mother’s sister” and “Mary the wife of Clopas” in John 19:25 may be distinguishing two different women instead of identifying Clopas’ wife as the Virgin Mary’s sister.

So, therefore, Mary the wife of Clopas may NOT be a relative at all NOR is she necessarily the same woman as “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in the Synoptics.

So, can “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” be Jesus’ mother as well?

Well, if this is the case, then

(A) Why is she never called the mother of Jesus in the cross/tomb accounts? (Wouldn’t that be easier than constantly “switching” between James and Jose?)

(B) Why is she never called the mother of the other brothers, Simon and Judas?

(C) Why isn’t she simply called the wife of Joseph?

(D) Why is she always listed second (and in Luke, third) after Mary Magdalene?

(E) Why does Matthew refer to her as merely “the other Mary” in 28:1?

(F) Why does John cite a second Mary at the cross: Mary the wife of Clopas? (A character who doesn’t appear in the Synoptics, unless she’s the mother of James and Joseph.)

(G) If John is calling his “Mary the wife of Clopas” the virgin Mary’s sister, how can the word “adelphos” (or “adelphe” in the feminine) be taken literally? Two sisters both named Mary?!

It therefore must be admitted that, if “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” and Jesus’ mother are one and the same, then

-- The three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are INTENTIONALLY neglecting to call her Jesus’ mother in their cross/tomb accounts (as if she’s not Jesus’ mother anymore.)

-- The Synoptics are also INTENTIONALLY depicting her as a minor character, less important than Mary Magdalene. And, in the case of Matthew, she’s reduced to merely “the other Mary” in 28:1.

Still playing devil’s advocate, I can imagine only one reason why the Synoptics would “demote” Jesus’ mother like this; since ALL THREE refer to her as “his mother” earlier in their Gospels. Perhaps, as some have argued, the Synoptics are UNDERLINING their accounts in Matt 12:46, Mark 3:35, and Luke 8:19-21, in which Jesus refuses to go out to meet His mother and brothers, but tells His disciples, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Perhaps they’re making a “theological point” by calling her only “the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in their later, cross/tomb accounts.

Well, although quite flimsy to begin with, this possibility is totally shattered, when one considers that in Acts 1:14 she is again called “the mother of Jesus.” Since Acts is the companion volume to Luke (produced by the same author), it doesn’t make much sense for Luke to call her “Mary the mother of James” in 24:10, and then re-bestow the title “mother of Jesus” in Acts 1:14 if he’s trying to make such a “theological point”.

Therefore, my whole “devil’s advocate” position is undone, and it is proved conclusively that the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” is NOT Jesus’ mother.

And, since this Mary is certainly the mother of the same James and Joseph/Jose who are also called Jesus’ “brothers,” then it’s equally proven that they COULD NOT have been the Lord’s brothers in a fraternal sense.

So, who are these “brothers” of Jesus? I hold that the term “brothers” refers to His entire tribal group: the boys He grew up with, and with whom He was somehow related.

But if these men were “cousins” or “blood relatives,” some argue, why not simply use the word “kinsman” or “relative” as found in Luke 1:36? e.g. in which Elizabeth is described as Mary’s “relative.”

I answer this quite simply. First of all, I claim that His “brothers” and “sisters” were members of His extended family WITH WHOM JESUS WAS RAISED. Elizabeth’s son, John the Baptist, on the other hand, would not have been referred to in this sense, because Jesus was not raised with him, although they were of the same blood.

Also, I argue that the term “brother” is used in the Gospels because these particular men were known BY THIS TITLE in the early Church. I give you: 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, in which Paul is defending his right to be called an apostle:

“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?”

Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of “brother” was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant. You don't.

Conversely, if we take the term “adelphos” literally, that would mean that Joseph and Mary had a total of five sons and at least two daughters. This would make a total of seven children: in essence, a “Biblical Brady Bunch.” Now considering that Joseph’s profession was that of a carpenter; and not that of a shepherd or farmer, in which large families are encouraged to work the land or tend the flocks, it seems rather ridiculous that he could have supported a family of this size, living in a small, most likely mud brick house in a little place like Nazareth.

Also, even assuming (as the early Church writers Clement and Origen did) that Jesus’ “brothers” were the children of Joseph by a wife previous to Mary, Mark 6:3 clearly refers to Jesus as “the carpenter.” Since the family profession was passed on from father to son, how many carpenters could a little town like Nazareth support? Certainly not five!

However, if the term “brothers” refers instead to Jesus’ extended tribal-family group (as I believe I’ve shown it does), we are left with the image of five young boys (among others) playing in the streets of Nazareth:

JESUS: the son of Joseph and Mary
JAMES: and his sibling JOSEPH (or Jose): the sons of Clopas and Mary.
JUDAS
SIMON

These were the Lord’s childhood friends, with whom He grew to manhood; and given the scope of first century village life, with whom He was almost certainly related.

Therefore, the "Jesus had siblings" theory is demolished using Scripture alone.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.