Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

FenderTL5 said:

That's exactly the point.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Get back to us after you learn what Sola Scriptura means. It makes discussing the subject so much more productive.

Sola Scriptura has been explained many times on these forums already, but since that apparently wasn't noticed, perhaps you can research it on your own.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

I already know thanks

Click to expand...

Evan Briggs said:

This is exactly why we have to pray for the lost, because when the truth sets us free, we are free indeed.

Click to expand...

PeaceB said:

Perfect.


There is no Bible teaching that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.


You have provided no Biblical proof whatsoever that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph, because there is none to be provided.


First, if you were my dear friend, you would not constantly WRITE IN ALL CAPS, overuse boldface, insult me with statements such as "I told you that your hair was on fire, you would say ......I do not smell any smoke!" and end every other sentence with multiple exclamation points!!!!! That is not how dear friends write to one another.

As for adelphoi, here is what the Protestant NIV has to say:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 1 - New International Version

The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in verses 11 and 26; and in 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 6:8; 7:24, 29; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 6, 50, 58; 16:15, 20.
​

Good luck with that.


I did do the work. And if I did not do the work, I might still be a false gospel teaching Protestant such as yourself.


With God all things are possible. If you believe that you are correct, I suggest that you do less shouting at me, and more praying for me.


You do not even know what the Bible is, and the only reason why you know that the 27 books of the New Testament are the inspired word of God, is because the Catholic Church told you so. So you accept the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

PeaceB said:

Perfect.


There is no Bible teaching that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.


You have provided no Biblical proof whatsoever that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph, because there is none to be provided.


First, if you were my dear friend, you would not constantly WRITE IN ALL CAPS, overuse boldface, insult me with statements such as "I told you that your hair was on fire, you would say ......I do not smell any smoke!" and end every other sentence with multiple exclamation points!!!!! That is not how dear friends write to one another.

As for adelphoi, here is what the Protestant NIV has to say:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 1 - New International Version

The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in verses 11 and 26; and in 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 6:8; 7:24, 29; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 6, 50, 58; 16:15, 20.
​

Good luck with that.


I did do the work. And if I did not do the work, I might still be a false gospel teaching Protestant such as yourself.


With God all things are possible. If you believe that you are correct, I suggest that you do less shouting at me, and more praying for me.


You do not even know what the Bible is, and the only reason why you know that the 27 books of the New Testament are the inspired word of God, is because the Catholic Church told you so. So you accept the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

PeaceB said:

Perfect.


There is no Bible teaching that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.


You have provided no Biblical proof whatsoever that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph, because there is none to be provided.


First, if you were my dear friend, you would not constantly WRITE IN ALL CAPS, overuse boldface, insult me with statements such as "I told you that your hair was on fire, you would say ......I do not smell any smoke!" and end every other sentence with multiple exclamation points!!!!! That is not how dear friends write to one another.

As for adelphoi, here is what the Protestant NIV has to say:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 1 - New International Version

The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in verses 11 and 26; and in 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 6:8; 7:24, 29; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 6, 50, 58; 16:15, 20.
​

Good luck with that.


I did do the work. And if I did not do the work, I might still be a false gospel teaching Protestant such as yourself.


With God all things are possible. If you believe that you are correct, I suggest that you do less shouting at me, and more praying for me.


You do not even know what the Bible is, and the only reason why you know that the 27 books of the New Testament are the inspired word of God, is because the Catholic Church told you so. So you accept the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

I don't accept Catholic doctrine. I am Orthodox.

Matthew is telling his readers that from Joseph's betrothal to Mary until the birth of Jesus, he knew her not. He does not make any statement regarding their actions after the birth of Jesus. You are reading your own assumption into the text.

I haven't rationalised anything. All I've done is show the weakness of your own arguments from Scripture.

If you did respect my beliefs, you would not have devoted so much time and effort mocking those beliefs in this and other threads.

Click to expand...

PeaceB said:

Perfect.


There is no Bible teaching that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.


You have provided no Biblical proof whatsoever that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph, because there is none to be provided.


First, if you were my dear friend, you would not constantly WRITE IN ALL CAPS, overuse boldface, insult me with statements such as "I told you that your hair was on fire, you would say ......I do not smell any smoke!" and end every other sentence with multiple exclamation points!!!!! That is not how dear friends write to one another.

As for adelphoi, here is what the Protestant NIV has to say:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 1 - New International Version

The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in verses 11 and 26; and in 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 6:8; 7:24, 29; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 6, 50, 58; 16:15, 20.
​

Good luck with that.


I did do the work. And if I did not do the work, I might still be a false gospel teaching Protestant such as yourself.


With God all things are possible. If you believe that you are correct, I suggest that you do less shouting at me, and more praying for me.


You do not even know what the Bible is, and the only reason why you know that the 27 books of the New Testament are the inspired word of God, is because the Catholic Church told you so. So you accept the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

I don't accept Catholic doctrine. I am Orthodox.

Matthew is telling his readers that from Joseph's betrothal to Mary until the birth of Jesus, he knew her not. He does not make any statement regarding their actions after the birth of Jesus. You are reading your own assumption into the text.

I haven't rationalised anything. All I've done is show the weakness of your own arguments from Scripture.

If you did respect my beliefs, you would not have devoted so much time and effort mocking those beliefs in this and other threads.

Click to expand...

FenderTL5 said:

Joking aside; when scripture is removed from it's ancient moorings, understanding drifts.
By disassociating the New Testament with the ancient teachings, customs, and Tradition of the church; then applying, not only a western, Aristotelian philosophical viewpoint but a American revivalist/protestant foundation - there's no way the restoration movement is restoring anything. They're creating a new religion based on just the parts they use.

Although I am not Catholic, I 'studied' my way OUT of the reformed church and into Orthodoxy. It was actually core theology/teaching and history that brought me here initially. Some of the customs surrounding the Theotokos and icons took longer for me to understand/warm up to. The history and Tradition of the church is deep and rich, I can't imagine dismissing it out of hand now.
- Hoping for a restored communion in our lifetime -
Godspeed

Click to expand...

Major1 said:

Now once again, the original Greek words for blood kin.....BROTHER is the words used to describe the 1/2 brothers of and sister of Jesus. Now we can talk this over and over and you are welcome to listen to Catholic apologetic web site but you can not get away from the fact that the fact that the Greek word for brother (adelphos; plural adelphoi) means sibling/blood relation and about the fact that Greek has precise words for cousin, nephew, and other close relations.

Click to expand...

The word used in the Greek New Testament for "brothers" is adelphoi, which means "from the womb" and literally means brothers who are born from the same mother.

Click to expand...

PeaceB said:

Perfect.


There is no Bible teaching that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.


You have provided no Biblical proof whatsoever that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph, because there is none to be provided.


First, if you were my dear friend, you would not constantly WRITE IN ALL CAPS, overuse boldface, insult me with statements such as "I told you that your hair was on fire, you would say ......I do not smell any smoke!" and end every other sentence with multiple exclamation points!!!!! That is not how dear friends write to one another.

As for adelphoi, here is what the Protestant NIV has to say:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 1 - New International Version

The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in verses 11 and 26; and in 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 6:8; 7:24, 29; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 6, 50, 58; 16:15, 20.
​

Good luck with that.


I did do the work. And if I did not do the work, I might still be a false gospel teaching Protestant such as yourself.


With God all things are possible. If you believe that you are correct, I suggest that you do less shouting at me, and more praying for me.


You do not even know what the Bible is, and the only reason why you know that the 27 books of the New Testament are the inspired word of God, is because the Catholic Church told you so. So you accept the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

I don't accept Catholic doctrine. I am Orthodox.

Matthew is telling his readers that from Joseph's betrothal to Mary until the birth of Jesus, he knew her not. He does not make any statement regarding their actions after the birth of Jesus. You are reading your own assumption into the text.

I haven't rationalised anything. All I've done is show the weakness of your own arguments from Scripture.

If you did respect my beliefs, you would not have devoted so much time and effort mocking those beliefs in this and other threads.

Click to expand...

FenderTL5 said:

Joking aside; when scripture is removed from it's ancient moorings, understanding drifts.
By disassociating the New Testament with the ancient teachings, customs, and Tradition of the church; then applying, not only a western, Aristotelian philosophical viewpoint but a American revivalist/protestant foundation - there's no way the restoration movement is restoring anything. They're creating a new religion based on just the parts they use.

Although I am not Catholic, I 'studied' my way OUT of the reformed church and into Orthodoxy. It was actually core theology/teaching and history that brought me here initially. Some of the customs surrounding the Theotokos and icons took longer for me to understand/warm up to. The history and Tradition of the church is deep and rich, I can't imagine dismissing it out of hand now.
- Hoping for a restored communion in our lifetime -
Godspeed

Click to expand...

FenderTL5 said:

What? Peter's dead? I didn't see that in the Bible!! Chapter and verse or he's still alive.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

Strong words, when even Luke disagrees with you.

Mary says on being informed she would (future) be carrying child -
"how can this be , I have not known man"

Consider. Mary is betrothed. Which is NOT the same as engagement in present day.
It is an (almost irrevocable) binding contract to marriage, just waiting for joseph to set up the home.

So Mary was betrothed, at at time when not having children was considered a sin because of genesis.

So the ONLY context in which her remark makes simple sense or any sense is a lifelong vow of celibacy, which we know from the old testament can and did happen, take Numbers 30

Otherwise it would have been blindingly obvious to her "how can this be" - aka normal relations with her inevitable husband! So the only context in which Luke 1:34 makes sense, and there can have been ANY surprise of pregnancy, is her [intended] perpetual virginity.

We also know from Qumran, that the essenes practised such celibacy
We also know that there were temple virgins, and it fits with a number of unusual aspects of what we do know of Mary, that the possibility that Mary was just such ,as protoevangelium is consistent with all we know - so then came the problem of what to do with her, when she came of age.

There is a lot of verifiable stuff and stuff that is consistent with what is known, in the proto evangelium - My suggestion is you read such as " Mary of Nazareth" Hesseman - the archeological traces are fascinating.


I repeat again to our protestant friends.
The battle cry of the reformation SOLA SCRIPTURA IS PROVABLY FALSE - you cannot take scripture and interpret it however you like so long as consistent with what is written! And you cannot assume because scripture does not say it explicitily, ergo it is not true... the essence of protestant false reasoning.
The faith was handed down to early christians by apostolic succession, paradosis , what is now translated as TRADITION, the handing down of the faith verbally, and occasional letter, thats how Jesus wanted it.

The canon only came later. MUCH later. Centuries later, and even then it was not how the faith was passed! Few could read! That presumably is why Jesus appointed succession to hand on the truth!

The canon was chosen (by divinely appointed apostolic authority at later councils) in part to ensure it did not contradict tradition, there were many books possible many rejected, some rejected only because they are considered not to have added to essential revelation, not because they were false.
Some of that tradition is in scripture. Not all. The church is the pillar of truth, not scripture, so says scripture!

But in this case you dont need to stray beyond luke 1:34 to see that the only way Luke makes sense is if the essence of some of the assertions of James are true...notably intended perpetual virginity.

We also know from later reference, she never had another child, despite the
silliness in talking of james as sibling, mainly borne of modern day christians trying to interpret ancient language using modern day interpretation ie brother.

If Mary had other offspring, it would undoubtedly be their duty to look after Mary in Jewish Culture, when Jesus died. She had no other offspring, or husband by then, thats why Jesus asked John to look after her!

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Well, if so, state it correctly (and why you disagree) and then we'll discuss the pros and cons.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Well, if so, state it correctly (and why you disagree) and then we'll discuss the pros and cons.

Click to expand...

Major1 said:

It never ever fails. When someone is proven to be in disagreement with the Scriptures they always take the stance of personal comments. Always!



Jesus said..........
"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free".


1 Tim. 4:1-2.............
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter days some shall depart from the truth giving heed to seducing spirits and doctines of devils".


Titus 2:8....
"Sound speech that cannot be condemned, that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed having no evil thing to say of you".

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

There are no pros and cons. Faith was passed by tradition, scripture came later, and was chosen by CHURCH authority to be consistent with tradition as handed by the apostles.

Now Answer my question as relevant here:

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Sorry, no. I am not interested in a discussion that allegedly is about the failings of Sola Scriptura when one party doesn't even know what the term means. And if it makes any difference, I made that point and invited you to get squared away with the subject before you brushed it off in favor of throwing these other questions out there.

Click to expand...

Fidelibus said:

Quite Interesting Major1..... If this "is" the case, you must admit that Abraham and Lot were not uncle and nephew but biological brothers, for in Gen.13:8 Abraham say's to Lot: "“Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers.” If that's the case my friend, that would make Gen.14:12 ("They took with them Abram’s nephew Lot, who had been living in Sodom, as well as his possessions, and departed.") in error. So the question, who/what is in error, you or Sacred Scripture?

For me, (pretty sure for everyone else) the answer is quite simple. (hint: not you)


Now as for the New Testament Major1, your theory has many holes in it. For example, in 1Cor. 15:6....... five hundred holes! "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." Now I do relize Mary is an incredible woman Major1, but having 500 children "at once"......... is amazing!

Now remember these words???



Keep in mind Major1..... these are your words.... not mine!

As many before have stated, these “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).


In other words Major1, your Sola Scriptura/ literalist interpretation/theory ship has too many holes in it and is in need of a life boat. (the truth) i.e. The Holy Catholic Church........ jump on in,you're always welcome!

Click to expand...

Major1 said:

Genesis 12:5.........
"And Abram took Sarai his wife, and LOT HIS BROTHERS son and all their substance.........".

The Hebrew word of "Nephew" used in Genesis to describe Lot is.......
Strong's Concordance
Lot: Abraham's nephew
Original Word: לוֹט
Part of Speech: Proper Name Masculine

You trying to force an issue by saying Abraham and Lot were brothers when the Scriptures clearly say that Lot was his nephew.

I am convinced that you would do anything to try and make the Catholic doctrine of perpetual virginity stand, even change the meaning of the original words.

Shame on you!

Click to expand...