Was Mary the greatest woman that ever lived?

Is Mary the greatest woman who ever lived?

  • Yes, Mary was clearly the greatest woman ever and God has made this clear.

  • No, only God knows who the greatest woman is and if there is a woman greater.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you are referring to me, I absolutely am (and was before your post) aware of the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah and how Christ fulfills them. I was quite clear about that in my post.
You said "none of that existed", even though it obviously, if the Bereans were even able to verify anything.

I am simply making the point that if the Bereans were truly sola-scriptura as you seem to believe they are, they would never have been able to accept Jesus was the Messiah, because that was totally dependent upon the ORAL testimony of the church that the person Jesus did these things. All they knew from Scripture was that someone would do these things. Not specifically Jesus.

They could only verify that IF what Paul was TELLING them ORALLY about the person Jesus was true, he would fulfill the prophecy.

They accepted Paul's oral testimony -- oral tradition about the person Jesus Christ. Totally non sola-scriptura, or otherwise every Jewish person who holds to the OT would be likewise convicted regarding the person Jesus Christ. They do not reject the OT speaks of a Messiah with certain characteristics, they reject the oral tradition of the church that Jesus met them.
okay. point made. however, unlike Catholic doctrine, what Paul said could be verified in the Bible. Catholics err in not holding to the same standard as the "more noble" Bereans.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,750
1,265
✟330,308.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
However, they would've rejected what Paul said if they couldn't verify from the Bible what Paul said to be true.
If that were true they would have had to reject Jesus as fulfilling those prophecies.

Is it so hard to see there were two pieces to that? One, the prophecies. Two, the fulfillment. Information on the prophecies was in Scripture. Information on the fulfillment was not. Yet they accepted they were fulfilled by Jesus, based upon oral testimony. It didn't contradict what was in Scripture, but it certainly added to it.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,750
1,265
✟330,308.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You said "none of that existed", even though it obviously, if the Bereans were even able to verify anything.


okay. point made. however, unlike Catholic doctrine, what Paul said could be verified in the Bible. Catholics err in not holding to the same standard as the "more noble" Bereans.
What I said did not exist was Paul's ORAL testimony regarding Christ, who he was, what he did. It did not exist.

You accuse Catholics of having doctrine that is not Biblical, yet you hold fast to a concept that Mary had other children based upon a few phrases that are certainly open for many possible interpretations across languages and cultures. The most one can say from Scripture alone regarding this is that "we don't know". Yet you insist on saying "yes she did". And that is because?
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There was no place in the Bible for them to check to see if the person Jesus Christ had actually risen from the dead. Or was born of a virgin.
News of Jesus spread far and wide, even while he was alive, even reaching Roman politicians. The details of Jesus' life could be verified back then from official reports. Whether or not those details showed that Jesus was the Messiah could be verified by the Bible.

And nobody ever said oral tradition was the ONLY thing to go on.
the only thing to go on was the oral tradition that St. Paul said.


We Catholics simply believe Paul when he says we should hold fast to all he taught, whether it is written or oral. You on the other hand, only accept the written.
Pauls said "follow me as I folow Christ". Christ used the written word of the Bible to verify things he said. Catholics doctrine doesn't.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If that were true they would have had to reject Jesus as fulfilling those prophecies.

Is it so hard to see there were two pieces to that? One, the prophecies. Two, the fulfillment. Information on the prophecies was in Scripture. Information on the fulfillment was not. Yet they accepted they were fulfilled by Jesus, based upon oral testimony. It didn't contradict what was in Scripture, but it certainly added to it.
What is your point? I've said a million times that there's nothing wrong with oral testimony, as long as it can be verified in the Bible. Refer to how the Bible commends the Bereans for doing so.

Catholic doctrine, unfortunately, doesn't hold to the same standard.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What I said did not exist was Paul's ORAL testimony regarding Christ, who he was, what he did. It did not exist.
you said none of the information in Paul's testimony existed in any Scripture. This is wrong, since the Scriptures prophecied about the things Paul testified of.

You accuse Catholics of having doctrine that is not Biblical, yet you hold fast to a concept that Mary had other children based upon a few phrases that are certainly open for many possible interpretations across languages and cultures. The most one can say from Scripture alone regarding this is that "we don't know". Yet you insist on saying "yes she did". And that is because?
There's evidence for Mary having sex. There's no evidence that Mary remained a virgin.

Unlike the noble Bereans, Catholics accept doctrine that there's no Biblical evidence for.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,750
1,265
✟330,308.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
News of Jesus spread far and wide, even while he was alive, even reaching Roman politicians. The details of Jesus' life could be verified back then from official reports. Whether or not those details showed that Jesus was the Messiah could be verified by the Bible.






Pauls said "follow me as I folow Christ". Christ used the written word of the Bible to verify things he said. Catholics doctrine doesn't.
There were "official reports" on Christ that stated he was born of a virgin and rose from the dead? I don't think so. And regardless, they would not have been scripture.

And fyi, Christ IS the Word -- he was not dependent in any way, shape or form on the written word to verify what he said. That concept is borderline blasphemy.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,750
1,265
✟330,308.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
you said none of the information in Paul's testimony existed in any Scripture. Which was wrong, since the Scriptures prophecied about the things Paul testified of.


There's evidence for Mary having sex. There's no evidence that Mary remained a virgin.

Unlike the noble Bereans, Catholics accept doctrine that there's no Biblical evidence for.
I did not say that "none" of Paul's testimony existed in Scripture. I did say "If they had been, they would never have accepted Paul's oral testimony regarding Jesus, that he had been born of a virgin, crucified, died, resurrected. None of that information was in any scripture of their time."

Clearly speaking of the person of Jesus and the facts surrounding his life.

And there is no Biblical evidence that Mary had sex. You are working from assumptions based in your own prejudice.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There were "official reports" on Christ that stated he was born of a virgin and rose from the dead? I don't think so.
There were official reports that Christ was crucified, and reported to have done miracles such as raise the dead, heal the blind, etc. Just like the Messiah prophecied in the OT.


And fyi, Christ IS the Word -- he was not dependent in any way, shape or form on the written word to verify what he said. That concept is borderline blasphemy.
Um, I never said Christ wasn't the Word. Yes, Christ is the Word, which is why the Word verifies Jesus as Messiah.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,750
1,265
✟330,308.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
What is your point? I've said a million times that there's nothing wrong with oral testimony, as long as it can be verified in the Bible. Refer to how the Bible commends the Bereans for doing so.

Catholic doctrine, unfortunately, doesn't hold to the same standard.
You evidently aren't getting the point. Paul's oral testimony regarding the facts about Jesus birth and resurrection were not in the Bible. Only prophecies about someone, sometime. Everything Paul says about the person of Jesus and these events as having actually occurred were unverifiable by Scripture.

The Bible also commends people for obeying the authority of those placed over them to shepherd them.
 
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

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And there is no Biblical evidence that Mary had sex. You are working from assumptions based in your own prejudice.
Evidence:

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

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

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

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,750
1,265
✟330,308.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There were official reports that Christ was crucified, and reported to have done miracles such as raise the dead, heal the blind, etc. Just like the Messiah prophecied in the OT.



Um, I never said Christ wasn't the Word. Yes, Christ is the Word, which is why the Word verifies Jesus as Messiah.
You said Christ used the written word to verify the things he said. Christ does not need 'verification' from the written word. And the word (scripture) does not equal the Word (Christ). They are not the same thing.

Please provide evidence of these 'official reports' that exist outside of the records of the NT scriptures. Nonetheless, they are not 'scripture'. The Bereans still accepted testimony outside the written word.

And how are you so sure that what Scripture is praising the Bereans for is the searching of scripture? It says they were more noble because of their eagerness. They were excited about Christ. That excitement lead them to daily be in the Scriptures, but their enthusiasm is what garners them their 'nobility'.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,750
1,265
✟330,308.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Evidence:

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

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

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

Peace.
And as you know by now, there are perfectly reasonable considerations for each of those that exclude Mary having other children. The possibility of them being children of Joseph's from a previous marriage leaps to mind. Nothing in Scripture that excludes that possibility. Scripture doesn't speak one way or the other.

Clue -- an explicit statement in Scripture would be "Mary had other children", or "Mary gave birth to James, Joses...".

Without such an explicit statement, one is left with assumptions. The assumption that any people identified as brothers of Christ are definitively children of Mary is simply that, an assumption. My husband has a biological half-brother that is legally by adoption his real brother. But they do not share a common father. Even today one cannot make the assumption of a common parent by the use of the term "brother".

If you truly profess to go by the Bible alone, you should profess to 'the Bible does not specify'.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You evidently aren't getting the point. Paul's oral testimony regarding the facts about Jesus birth and resurrection were not in the Bible. Only prophecies about someone, sometime. Everything Paul says about the person of Jesus and these events as having actually occurred were unverifiable by Scripture.
If it was undeed "unverifiable", what then, where the Bereans verifying, when the Bible says the Bereans verified Paul testimony about Jesus' birth and ressurection?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And as you know by now, there are perfectly reasonable considerations for each of those that exclude Mary having other children. The possibility of them being children of Joseph's from a previous marriage leaps to mind.
None of which there's evidence for. However, those Scriptures are evidence of Mary having sex.

Peace.
 
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

polishbeast

Servant of Jesus
Apr 14, 2008
1,430
68
34
UCF
✟9,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
If it was undeed "unverifiable", what then, where the Bereans verifying, when the Bible says the Bereans verified Paul testimony about Jesus' birth and ressurection?

The the Messiah was to be born of a Virgin and be resurrected from the dead.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,750
1,265
✟330,308.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If it was undeed "unverifiable", what then, where the Bereans verifying, when the Bible says the Bereans verified Paul testimony about Jesus' birth and ressurection?
The Bible says they sought to see if what Paul said was true. Since the specific testimony about Jesus' birth and resurrection was not yet contained in scripture, it is not possible they were verifying that information. That information they accepted based upon Paul's oral testimony. The only thing they could verify is if what they accepted orally about Christ matched what the OT says about the Messiah.

Any way you cut it, they were not 'sola-scriptura'. They had to start with the premise of oral testimony, and work from there.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,750
1,265
✟330,308.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
None of which there's evidence for. However, those Scriptures are evidence of Mary having sex.

Peace.
And that conclusion always makes me laugh when people say they go by the Bible "alone" instead of having any clue they are reading through their own prejudice. Concluding with all certainty that a brother can only mean a common parent (no other possibility) and then deriving a conclusion from that. Sola-scriptura indeed. There is evidence that those children were born of Mary but no evidence they were prior children of Joseph's? The Biblical evidence for either premise is the same.
 
Last edited:
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

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,539.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Evidence:

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

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

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

Peace.
This may help:


The Lord's "Brothers"

There are several questions based on Scripture that are often raised by those skeptical about the doctrine of ever-virginity. The first of these involves the passages which state explicitly that the Lord had "brothers." There are nine such passages: Matthew 12:46-47 and 13:55-56; Mark 3:31-32 and 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12 and 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; and 1-Corinthians 9:5. The Greek word used in all these passages and generally translated "brother" is adelphos .

The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by the Apostles (abbreviated LXX) includes specific words for "cousin," notably adelphinos and anepsios , but they are rarely used. The less specific word adelphos , which can mean "brother," "cousin," "kinsman," "fellow believer," or "fellow countryman," is used consistently throughout the LXX, even when cousin or kinsman is clearly the relation described (such as in Genesis 14:14, 16; 29:12; Leviticus 25:49; Jeremiah 32:8, 9, 12; Tobit 7:2; etc.). Lot, for instance, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Genesis 11:27-31), is called his brother in Genesis 13:8 and 11:14-16. The point is that the commonly used Greek word for a male relative, adelphos , can be translated "cousin" or "brother" if no specific family relation is indicated.

Is there anywhere a clear statement in the Scriptures establishing Jesus brothers as literally the children of Mary? In fact, there is not. Nowhere is Mary explicitly stated to be the mother of Jesus' brothers. The formula for speaking of the Lord's family is "His mother and His brothers." In Mark the possessive, anavtou "of Him," is inserted before both " His mother" and "His brothers," making a clear distinction. In Acts 1:14, the separation is more pronounced: "Mary the mother of Jesus, and His brothers." Some manuscripts use the conjunctive syn "along with, in company with," so that the text reads "Mary the mother of Jesus, along with His brothers." In any case, Mary is never identified as the mother of Jesus' brothers (nor they as her children), but only as the Mother of Jesus.

The Meaning of "Until"

Another objection to the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity is that the Scriptures use the word "until" or "till" in Matthew 1:25: ". . . and [Joseph] did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." Whereas in English the word "until" necessarily indicates change after the fact, in the ancient languages of the Bible this is simply not the case. For instance, if we read Deuteronomy 34:6, 2 Samuel 6:23, Psalm 72:7 and 110:1 (as interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 22:42-46), Matthew 11:23 and 28:20, Romans 8:22, and 1 Timothy 4:13, to reference just a few examples, we will see that in none of these passages does the word "until" indicate a necessary change. If it did, then apparently among other things we would be meant to understand that Jesus will at some point stop sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that on some unhappy date in the future He intends to abandon the Church! The use of "until" in Matthew 1:25, then, is purely to indicate that Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, not conceived by Joseph and Mary, since they did not "know" each other "until" the birth. In this context "until" is really synonymous with "before." If on the contrary it were meant in its full contemporary English sense. That is, if it really meant that Joseph and Mary's chaste relationship changed after the birth then the stylistics present another big problem: the reader would have to believe that Matthew was actually inviting contemplation of the couple's later sexual activity. This is doubtful to say the least.

The Meaning of "Firstborn"
Another objection might be based on the word "firstborn," prototokos in Greek. The problem again is that the Greek word is not identical in semantic range to the English rendering. The English "firstborn" usually (though, it must be said, not always) implies the existence of subsequent children, but with prototokos there is no such implication. In Hebrews 1:6, for example, the use of prototokos in reference to the Incarnation of the Word of God cannot mean that there is a "second-born" Word of God! Nowhere is the term used to express merely the order of birth; instead in Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, 18, Hebrews 11:28 and 12:23, and Revelation 1:5, the title is applied to Jesus as the privileged and legal Heir of the Kingdom, attesting that He is truly "first in all things." To the contemporary ear, a better translation might indeed be "heir," which is similarly silent on the subject of other children and carries the same legal and poetic force that is intended by "firstborn."

"Woman, Behold Thy Son"

Also, consider the moving passage from St. John's Gospel in which our Lord commits His Mother into the care of St. John as He dies on the Cross. Why would He do so if she had other children to look after her? Jewish custom dictated that the care of a mother would fall to the second born if the firstborn died, and if the widow had no other child she would be left to take care of herself. Since she is without other children, her Son gives her into the care of the beloved disciple. The Women at the Cross and the Identity of the Lord's Brothers. Who exactly are the "brothers of the Lord" if not fellow sons of Mary His mother? (Here, I am gratefully indebted to Fr. Lawrence Farley's article, "The Women at the Cross." [publication ref?]) A close study of the women at the Cross in Matthew 27:55, 56 yields a plausible answer. These women were said to be:
(1) Mary Magdalene;
(2) the mother of the sons of Zebedee;
(3) Mary the Mother of James and Joseph. In the parallel passage in Mark 15:40, 41, the women are said to be:
(1) Mary Magdalene;
(2) Salome;
(3) Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses.
In John 19:25, the women are listed as:
(1) Mary Magdalene;
(2) Christ's Mother;
(3) His mother's sister, Mary wife of Clopas.

For our purposes we should focus on the woman who is referred to by St. Matthew as "Mary the mother of James and Joseph," by St. Mark as "Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses [a variant of Joseph]," and by St. John in his list as "His mother's sister, Mary wife of Clopas."
Note that in Matthew the names "James and Joseph" were mentioned before. Indeed, the way Matthew mentions "Mary mother of James and Joseph" in 27:55, 56 presupposes that he has already introduced these "James and Joseph" as indeed he has. In Matthew 13:55, we read that our Lord's "brothers" are "James and Joseph and Simon and Judas." Similarly, in St. Mark's Gospel, "James and Joses" are mentioned as if we already know who "James and Joses" are, which in fact we do from Mark 6:3, where Christ's "brothers" are listed as "James and Joses and Judas and Simon."
It seems beyond reasonable dispute that the Mary at the Cross in St. Matthew and St. Mark is the mother of our Lord's "brothers," "James and Joses." Also, it is inconceivable that Matthew and Mark would refer to the Lord's Mother at the foot of the Cross as the mother of James and Joseph, but not mention that she is the Mother of Jesus as well!

If it is the case, as the Scriptures suggest, that Mary wife of Clopas is the same as the mother of James and Joseph, we have the following conclusion: the Theotokos had a "sister," married to Clopas, who was the mother of James and Joseph, our Lord's "brothers." Here, the question ought to immediately arise concerning the Theotokos' relationship to this Mary: What kind of "sister" is she?

Hegisippus, a Jewish Christian historian who, according to Eusebius, "belonged to the first generation after the apostles" and who interviewed many Christians from that apostolic community for his history, relates that Clopas was the brother of St. Joseph, foster-father of Christ (apud. Eusb. Eccl. H. iv:22). If this is so (and Hegisippus is generally acknowledged as fully reliable), then "Mary wife of Clopas" was the Virgin Mary's "sister" in that she was her sister-in-law.

The puzzle therefore fits together. St. Joseph married the Virgin Theotokos, who gave birth to Christ, her only Child, preserving her virginity and having no other children. St. Joseph's brother, Clopas, also married a woman named Mary, who had the children James and Joseph (along with Judas and Simon, and daughters also). These children were our Lord's "brothers" (using the terminology of Israel, which as we have seen made no distinction between brothers and cousins but referred to all as "brothers.")

The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.