Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[prodromos]

Jesus was not the typical oldest brother who lived close to home and was around the family.

Where on earth did you pluck this 'typical' oldest brother from? Where can we find examples of such since they are apparently commonplace. Jesus was in His 30's when He began His ministry. Any supposed younger siblings would be adults too, probably married, with their own children.

 

[prodromos]

Normally, yes but they thought Jesus was crazy claiming to be God.

Jesus had only implied His divinity to the Pharisees in the hearing of His disciples. There is no evidence that He had made the claim to His brothers. They were of course, witness to many of the miracles He performed, but that isn't why they thought He was out of His mind. It was because He was constantly preaching without a break.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Seriously?
Growing up with an older brother who loved you with a perfect love, never shaming you, always having the wisest advice? You think that would provoke envy?

I think it's possible. The fact remains that they did not believe that He was who He said He was. They did not believe until sometime after the resurrection. Jesus' perfect love for them was insufficient to convince them He was rational in calling Himself the Son of God. At the very least they thought He must have lost His mind and was delusional. They might have been acting out of concern and not like a younger brother would normally act toward an older brother.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus had only implied His divinity to the Pharisees in the hearing of His disciples. There is no evidence that He had made the claim to His brothers. They were of course, witness to many of the miracles He performed, but that isn't why they thought He was out of His mind. It was because He was constantly preaching without a break.

When it came to his brother’s bold claims, James was a skeptic. James, his brothers, and even his mother thought Jesus had “lost his senses” and showed up once when he was teaching “to take custody” of him (Mk. 3:21). Another time, Jesus’ brothers told him to go to Judea, where the Jews were seeking to kill him (Jn. 7:2–4) since “not even his brothers were believing in him” (Jn. 7:5).

“A prophet is not without honor,” Jesus said, “except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household” (Mk. 6:4).

They did think He was out of His mind. The Greek word used in Mk 3:21 is:

1839 eksístēmi (from 1537, ek, "out of," and 2476, histēmi, "to stand") – literally, "to remove from a standing (fixed) position," put out of place; i.e. "beside oneself," showing someone as flabbergasted (completely stupefied); at a total loss to explain or account for something; overwhelmed, astonished (amazed).

In context, they were not amazed at how wonderful and profound His teaching was but were amazed at how irrational they felt He had become. There is nothing in the Scripture to suggest their concern was the pace of His preaching. John 7:5 tells us that His brothers were not putting their faith and trust in Him. In context, that is clearly a reference to His claim to deity. Having grown up with Him, they knew He was loving, honest, hardworking, etc, so they had no trouble believing those things about Him. They never saw Him sin. What was there not to believe? His claim to deity. That was the bridge too far for them. He was the model brother, but the Son of God?

While there is no Scripture telling us Jesus told His brothers who He was, His ministry was public, and at times, the Pharisees accused Him of blasphemy for claiming to be equal to God. One time, a crowd tried to throw Him off a cliff. Another time, they were going to stone Him. It is highly unlikely they knew nothing of His claim to deity. Word would have gotten around. If they were genuinely astonished (in a good way) by His teaching and only concerned for His physical well-being, we would not be told they did not believe in Him (Jn 7:5). While they never saw Jesus sin, they had never seen Him perform a miracle. Constantly preaching is not a sign of being out of your mind. It is a sign of being devoted to your task. While we know Jesus hungered and got tired, nothing is said about His poor health due to His constant preaching and teaching. What would make them think He was out of His mind was the things He was claiming.

 

[prodromos]

When it came to his brother’s bold claims, James was a skeptic. James, his brothers, and even his mother thought Jesus had “lost his senses” and showed up once when he was teaching “to take custody” of him (Mk. 3:21). Another time, Jesus’ brothers told him to go to Judea, where the Jews were seeking to kill him (Jn. 7:2–4) since “not even his brothers were believing in him” (Jn. 7:5).

“A prophet is not without honor,” Jesus said, “except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household” (Mk. 6:4).

They did think He was out of His mind. The Greek word used in Mk 3:21 is:

1839 eksístēmi (from 1537, ek, "out of," and 2476, histēmi, "to stand") – literally, "to remove from a standing (fixed) position," put out of place; i.e. "beside oneself," showing someone as flabbergasted (completely stupefied); at a total loss to explain or account for something; overwhelmed, astonished (amazed).

In context, they were not amazed at how wonderful and profound His teaching was but were amazed at how irrational they felt He had become. There is nothing in the Scripture to suggest their concern was the pace of His preaching. John 7:5 tells us that His brothers were not putting their faith and trust in Him. In context, that is clearly a reference to His claim to deity. Having grown up with Him, they knew He was loving, honest, hardworking, etc, so they had no trouble believing those things about Him. They never saw Him sin. What was there not to believe? His claim to deity. That was the bridge too far for them. He was the model brother, but the Son of God?

While there is no Scripture telling us Jesus told His brothers who He was, His ministry was public, and at times, the Pharisees accused Him of blasphemy for claiming to be equal to God. One time, a crowd tried to throw Him off a cliff. Another time, they were going to stone Him. It is highly unlikely they knew nothing of His claim to deity. Word would have gotten around. If they were genuinely astonished (in a good way) by His teaching and only concerned for His physical well-being, we would not be told they did not believe in Him (Jn 7:5). While they never saw Jesus sin, they had never seen Him perform a miracle. Constantly preaching is not a sign of being out of your mind. It is a sign of being devoted to your task. While we know Jesus hungered and got tired, nothing is said about His poor health due to His constant preaching and teaching. What would make them think He was out of His mind was the things He was claiming.

Good grief, and you think my position is conjecture

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Good grief, and you think my position is conjecture

I think my position fits the text far better than the Catholic position. The RCC goes out of its way to avoid admitting Mary had other children. While we cannot prove she did (or didn't), I think the most natural reading of the text is that she did. Only if you had a presupposition that she didn't would you conclude otherwise. I believe most of the Catholic beliefs about Mary developed centuries after her life. I believe that came about by men reasoning what they thought would be right. I don't believe their views were built on Scripture. They later returned to the Scriptures to try and defend their beliefs against critics. They thought of ways to explain away the common sense interpretation of the text.

 

[prodromos]

I think my position fits the text far better than the Catholic position

Mine is the Orthodox position. I am not Catholic.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

"Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us." - the same could be said of Stephen.

Stephen "being full of grace"
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

And in Stephen's case it is not just "full of grace" but "full of grace AND power"!

And what is true of Christ is that He was incarnated -- not procreated. Which is true of Christ alone - not any other human.

This is not a slam against Mary, or Stephen or Jesus. It is just what the Bible teaches.

Those who suggest that Christ could not be sinless unless His mother was born sinless - somehow grant His mother to be sinless without her mother having to also be sinless. Have they thought that through? Is something missing from their proposal?

Good thing we have Mary calling Christ her Savior. It is sinful humanity that needs a Savior - and praise God we have one.

Christ's response to being confronted with "blessed be Mary" was... "on the contrary"
Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.”

================================

BTW - It is not very helpful to claim that anyone who differs with this post is attacking Mary, or Jesus or Stephen. That kind of statement proves nothing.

I agree with your post
Trying to remember the passage or Passages where Mary calls Jesus her Savior...I would like them on hand for testimony of you could please post them too.?
I believe that statement would be the weightier evidence.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Mine is the Orthodox position. I am not Catholic.

Apologies

 

[Jan001]

Salvation has always been by faith alone. True, saving faith WILL ALWAYS produce good works. It cannot help but do so because God has prepared good works to do through those He saves. It is true that professing faith is different than possessing faith. Anyone can make a show of faith and say the right things but that doesn't mean they possess saving faith. God knows the heart and we cannot fool Him with our lips. We might fool men (the wheat and the tares), but we cannot fool God.

Thus, salvation is not faith + works. It is by faith alone which always leads to good works. You cannot have true saving faith and not have good works. There is a second judgment in heaven of our works. Some will have great rewards, and some will be little, but all will be saved. Salvation is judged at the Great White Throne judgment. It is true God separates the sheep from the goats and is described as doing so based on their works, but that is because saving faith always leads to good works. It is the fruit or evidence of saving faith. The lone exception would be someone who dies shortly after believing and has no time to do good works.

Some people read James and think salvation depends on works. To believe that you must reject what Paul writes that salvation is by faith and not by works. Since God does not contradict Himself, those two go together by realizing that you are saved by faith alone (Paul's point), but saving faith always leads to good works (James's point). Both are right. I think some Catholics misunderstand Protestants, thinking we believe that as long as we profess faith, we are saved and can live like hell and have no good works. No! We don't believe that, and anyone who does is mistaken. However, when someone makes what appears to be a sincere profession of faith, we trust they are, at that moment, saved and that the good works will follow in time. We could wait and see and withhold judgment until much time has passed and their works become evident, but we prefer to encourage them in their newfound faith and proceed on the assumption they truly have saving faith. God knows the heart and He alone is judge. Someone may fool us. If we could see hearts, the church would not be full of wheat and tares.

An unbeliever can do good things but no amount of good works will save them for they lack faith.

James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[rturner76]

It is not Mary's womb that is special. It is who she gave birth to. Her body was a vessel used by God to bring His Son into the world in flesh. There is nothing sacred about her womb. I disagree with attempts to equate Mary's womb to the Ark of the Covenant. Without Mary's womb, God would have used another. That is a moot point though as God chose and predestined Mary to carry Jesus. There was no chance she would say no. I still admire her as a great woman of faith who believed the impossible and put her full trust in God. She is one of the finest examples of a believer. I don't consider her womb sacred and believe she had other children after Jesus. If she did, that in no way lessened her or Jesus.

However God chose her womd and Elijah *Doc with us) Who was chosen for the virgin berth, I think it was a special virgin berth which was brought forth from the virgin berth from Mary to God incarbare

 

[prodromos]

However God chose her womd and Elijah *Doc with us) Who was chosen for the virgin berth, I think it was a special virgin berth which was brought forth from the virgin berth from Mary to God incarbare

Are you OK?
Is it just because you are not wearing glasses or is something happening to you? That post was all over the place.

 

[David Lamb]

However God chose her womd and Elijah *Doc with us) Who was chosen for the virgin berth, I think it was a special virgin berth which was brought forth from the virgin berth from Mary to God incarbare

I have worked out that by "womd" you meant "womb," "berth" should be "birth," and "incarbare" perhaps means "incarnate." However, I cannot work out what you meant by "Elijah *Doc with us."

 

[rturner76]

Are you OK?
Is it just because you are not wearing glasses or is something happening to you? That post was all over the place.

Yeah, I just slammed it out on the keyboard without rereading it which I normally do.. I apologize for the typos. I meant that God chose the Virgin Mary's womb and also not "Doc with us" but "God with us." as the meaning of Elijah. I admit that was a pretty bad typo crisis. Sometimes I think faster than my fingers can move. Does this post clear things up or should I just completely start over? Also, I think I was pretty sleepy when I posted that, but I feel okay to answer your question. Admittedly that was pretty embarrassing to read back again. I don't like to be seen as a complete idiod but I never actually learned to touch type so I miss buttons sometimes but that was pretty bad.

 

[rturner76]

I have worked out that by "womd" you meant "womb," "berth" should be "birth," and "incarbare" perhaps means "incarnate." However, I cannot work out what you meant by "Elijah *Doc with us."

Yeah, I admitted to @prodromos that it was a completely backward post. I don't know if it was because I was half asleep or if the light was off but I should have read it through before I posted. You pretty much got it all right when you guessed at my typos. Totally embarrassing to look like such a fool.

 

[prodromos]

Yeah, I just slammed it out on the keyboard without rereading it which I normally do.. I apologize for the typos. I meant that God chose the Virgin Mary's womb and also not "Doc with us" but "God with us." as the meaning of Elijah. I admit that was a pretty bad typo crisis. Sometimes I think faster than my fingers can move. Does this post clear things up or should I just completely start over? Also, I think I was pretty sleepy when I posted that, but I feel okay to answer your question. Admittedly that was pretty embarrassing to read back again. I don't like to be seen as a complete idiod but I never actually learned to touch type so I miss buttons sometimes but that was pretty bad.

I was concerned that you might have been suffering a stroke or some other medical episode. Glad to hear it was nothing of the sort

 

[David Lamb]

Yeah, I admitted to @prodromos that it was a completely backward post. I don't know if it was because I was half asleep or if the light was off but I should have read it through before I posted. You pretty much got it all right when you guessed at my typos. Totally embarrassing to look like such a fool.

Thanks for explaining, and don't worry about it - most of us make mistakes. Incidentally, in your reply to Prodomos, you said that Elijah means "God with us." In fact, Elijah means "My God is Jehovah." Were you thinking of Immanuel, a title given to Jesus? That does mean, "God with us."

 

[Jan001]

Some people read James and think salvation depends on works. To believe that you must reject what Paul writes that salvation is by faith and not by works.

James states that both faith in Jesus Christ and good works are necessary for salvation.

Jesus first redeemed us on the cross, our faith and baptism first saved us, and our continued good works until we die will make us worthy to enter into heaven to live with God.


Paul states that we are not saved by the works of the Law of Moses.

Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.



Now about the following verse:

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus came to earth to redeem us because God loved us.
Jesus did not come to earth to redeem us because we had earned redemption for ourselves by doing good works.

Adam's disobedience caused mankind's spiritual alienation from God. Only a person who was both God and man could atone for Adam's sin and thereby make possible again our living with God forever. This one mediator, Jesus Christ, was both God and man, and he willingly died a sacrificial death on the cross to repair our spiritual relationship with God, which Adam's sin had severed.

 

[Jan001]

The ark of the first covenant was holy, so holy that God killed a man for touching it.

2 Samuel 6:6-7 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God struck him there because he reached out his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God.

Mary is the ark of the new covenant. Jesus, the son of God, who is the new covenant, resided within her womb (ark) for nine months.

Two covenants, two arks. Both extremely holy. Both arks were created for a specific holy purpose, never to be used again for any other purpose.


If Jesus had sibling brothers, he would have asked one of them to take care of his mother instead of asking John. John 19:26-27



Brothers and sisters meant any close relative in the Aramaic language. Brothers and sisters can also mean an alliance of like-minded people. Acts 2:37

Relatives of Jesus:

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

 

[prodromos]

If Jesus had sibling brothers, he would have asked one of them to take care of his mother instead of asking John. John 19:26-27

If Jesus had sibling brothers there would have been no need.