A Controversial Review of the Immaculate

[Root of Jesse]

Shamelessly copy / pasted from http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/did-jesus-have-any-brothers-andor-sisters :

Jesus' Brothers, Sisters & Mother
Jesus' siblings are mentioned as accompanying Jesus and his mother to Capernaum after the marriage at Cana (John 2:12). Later Mary and these brothers are recorded as seeking an audience with Jesus (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). Toward the end of Jesus' ministry, His brethren are mentioned as urging Jesus to prove His Messiahship, which they themselves doubted (John 7:3-5). That they were later converted is clear, for they are described in Acts as uniting with the disciples and others in "prayer and supplication" prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14). Paul implies that they were all married (1 Corinthians 9:5).

Many commentators hold that the author of the epistle of Jude, who identifies himself as the "brother of James," was one of these brothers (Jude 1). It is also generally believed that the leader of the church at Jerusalem was James the brother of Jesus, (see Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13). This seems to be confirmed by Paul's reference to his visit to Jerusalem, in which he states that he saw only Peter, and "James, the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:18-19).

If or that Jesus had other siblings isn't the question. He could have siblings, yet they aren't Mary's progeny. Cousins are also siblings, by the way. I don't take bibleinfo.com as authoritative, sorry. No Catholic commentators say that Mary had other children. Again 'Jesus had siblings' isn't the same as 'Mary had other children'.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No.
The canon is considerably older than the Catholic Church.

Wrong answer. Impossible, more like. Maybe older than 'when Constantine legalized Catholicism'.

 

[Root of Jesse]

"Why do you assume the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' -- the one into whose care Mary was transferred -- was not one of her own children? How do you know their ages or beliefs? The gospel writer never identifies the beloved disciple as John. Many scholars believe in fact it was James, Jesus' brother, whom we know became the leader of Christians in Jerusalem."

It would be strange to say to a son of Mary: "Behold, your mother."
Just as strange as saying to a mother "Behold, your son."
That would be strange if they were already mother and son.

Joseph had apparently died already (?).
And then it is strange that Jesus' siblings didn't provide Mary a home.

And many more scholars disagree that James wrote the Gospel of John. Joseph is never mentioned after Jesus was found in the temple at 12 years old. Probably he died, but there is also no mention of brothers or children of Mary and Joseph other than Jesus. If James was Jesus full blood brother, as well as an apostle, then he surely would have been written as such.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Catholic Church began:
according to Catholic traditionalists, with St. Peter in the 1st Century
according to those with a more critical view, when King Constantine issued the Edict of Milan and "took over" the Church, 313-325 AD

The canon dates back to the Council of Carthage, 419 AD. That is when the canon came into existence.

Either way, the Catholic Church predates the canon. Either way, the canon comes from the Catholic Church.

Constantine only legalized Christianity. It already existed prior. The Concil of Rome also listed the Canon. But that's picking nits.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I have no reason to believe that Mary didn't have more children, as you do. I have no reason to believe that she was a perpetual virgin. I have no reason to believe that she, in some way, has a special birth, herself or any sort of sinless life, before or after her virgin conception of Jesus.

Think about it...... Satan, from the beginning of time, has been trying to condemn humans to hell. He tried everything from tempting Adam and Eve, destroying the bloodline of humans with Nephilime, trying to extinguish the Jewish people in Egypt with all the young baby boys being killed (Moses survived), then in the story of Esther, also in trying to kill Jesus at His birth.

Do you not think that if Mary had a special birth, herself, and lived a sinless life, that she would not have been known by the enemy, Satan himself? Really!, Satan would have known this. God would have telegraphed His move to have her as the mother of Christ. Satan would have tried to stop this.

For this reason, and the many scriptures that have been debated here, I firmly believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. However, she and Joseph went on to have other children. She also was a normal human being and sinned. She may have been a very righteous and proper woman but she was a sinner just like you and I. She needed salvation and had to believe that her son was who He said He was and believe in Him as her savior.

Nowhere in any scripture do I see it documented that Mary was sinless. No where do I see any reason why she could not have had other children. Nowhere in scripture is there any indication that if she did have children, or was not sinless, that the prophesies and logistics and integrity of Christ being our savior be faulted or nullified.

If, however, you claim she was a perpetual virgin, you have some explaining to do. If, however, you claim that she was sinless, you also have some explaining to do.

Firstly, in Galatians, where Paul says this as it is direct and unavoidable that Jesus had a brother:

"Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him 15 days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother."

Secondly, this:

Ecclesiastes 7:20King James Version (KJV)

20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

And this:

Romans 3:23King James Version (KJV)

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

I do not know why the Catholic leaders deem it necessary for Mary to be sinless and or a perpetual virgin. It is a totally unnecessary claim and totally unnecessary quality or trait for Mary to have if scripture is to be true and unblemished.

All it does is create a need to take scripture out of context and stretch and bend it to extreme assumptions and speculation in order to satisfy statements that are totally unnecessary.

If Mary was not a perpetual virgin and was in fact a typical human, with sin.........Nothing changes in the Gospel.

Of course Yeshua had brothers AND sisters, but they were not from Mary, but either close cousins (from Mary's sister or from Joseph's previous marriage. Joseph was old when Yeshua was born and had already died well before He was crucified because there is no mention of Joseph much after Yeshua was born.

 

[Root of Jesse]

According to the Catholic Sacraments One has to undergo baptism, confirmation and thereafter, it's up to the believer to live in purity. There's obviously the provision of confession which ensures a person is living a "pure life." The sacrament I believe are in the view that the Jesus came to redeem mankind from the curse that came from the fall of Adam and Eve meaning that by faith the blood cleanses all sins and by faith, we live under the LORD's grace. Otherwise, we are proved to Christians by our actions or deeds to others.

So if the LORD came to redeem mankind and anyone who believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life (Thanks to the Holy Spirit who watches over our walk with the LORD) it means we are the new "Eves" and the redeemed "Adams" unless we are denying the works of the cross. It's okay to say that.

Confession does not ensure a person is living a pure life. It ensures that a fallible human being has a way to get himself right with God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This is according to Roman Catholic historians...
However the facts tell us that the Canon was established before Nicea and that predates the Roman Catholic Church.

Them was Catholics too, FYI BTW.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BC and 200 AD, and a popular position is that the Torah was canonized c. 400 BC, the Prophets c. 200 BC, and the Writings c. 100 AD[8] perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamnia—however, this position is increasingly criticised by modern scholars.

But that's just the Old Testament, and it wasn't agreed upon even in Jesus' time. The Sadducees and Essenes didn't agree with all the OT writings.

 

[Root of Jesse]

1. Did God deliver man from the law of sin and death? Adam and Eve were never created with any sin but as a result of law, sin came to be. Supposedly, the first law was not to eat of the fruit in the middle of the garden. Therefore, when Eve and Adam broke the law they became subject to sin. In other words, the spirit of man was not strong enough to overcome the law of sin or rather weak to temptation. In other words, the LORD came to restore mankind from the law of sin so that "he" would be strong enough to overcome it and more so, redeemed from eternal damnation.

2. What does it mean that Mary was born from IC? It wouldn't make sense that she was born sinless because man is generally not born with sin but with a weakness to the law of sin.

"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.a 2For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the Law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh,4 so that the righteous standard of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

So it's either she was not born without any flaws or she was born with a free to ticket that guaranteed freedom from eternal damnation. In other words, her spirit was that of "man" meaning susceptible sin but by God's Grace she was able to overcome. On the other hand, I don't think she would be the first righteous woman. Otherwise, Jesus would not be the word that came in the flesh, "God did by sending His own Son in likeness of sinful man" meaning he bore the weakness that came with human nature but his Spirit being God's he was able to overcome it all. Therefore, Christ was without sin and crucified it on the cross.

3. What does it take to be fully restored to God's image and inheritance to eternal life?

• Believing in God and in His Son
• Blood of Christ
• The Gift of the Holy Spirit

4. What did it take Mary to be fully restored to God's image and inheritance to eternal life?

• She believed in her Son/Jesus
• The Blood of Christ
• She went to receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:14

If Mary was Holy how comes she followed her son's instruction to wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

We believe God gave Mary her holiness before she was born. In other words, she needed to be saved, and was, before she was born. God foreknew what her answer to Gabriel was going to be.

 

[Hieronymus]

Them was Catholics too, FYI BTW.

Yes, but then suddenly the word "Catholic" means something else...

 

[Hieronymus]

And many more scholars disagree that James wrote the Gospel of John. Joseph is never mentioned after Jesus was found in the temple at 12 years old. Probably he died, but there is also no mention of brothers or children of Mary and Joseph other than Jesus.

Shamelessly copy / pasted from http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/did-jesus-have-any-brothers-andor-sisters :

Jesus' Brothers, Sisters & Mother
Jesus' siblings are mentioned as accompanying Jesus and his mother to Capernaum after the marriage at Cana (John 2:12). Later Mary and these brothers are recorded as seeking an audience with Jesus (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). Toward the end of Jesus' ministry, His brethren are mentioned as urging Jesus to prove His Messiahship, which they themselves doubted (John 7:3-5). That they were later converted is clear, for they are described in Acts as uniting with the disciples and others in "prayer and supplication" prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14). Paul implies that they were all married (1 Corinthians 9:5).

Many commentators hold that the author of the epistle of Jude, who identifies himself as the "brother of James," was one of these brothers (Jude 1). It is also generally believed that the leader of the church at Jerusalem was James the brother of Jesus, (see Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13). This seems to be confirmed by Paul's reference to his visit to Jerusalem, in which he states that he saw only Peter, and "James, the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:18-19).

 

[JacksBratt]

So, when applied to our understanding of the Blessed Mother -

Mary, like all of us, inherited "no guilt". However, Mary, like all of us, inherited the consequences of the Fall. Thus, speaking of the need for Mary to be 'purified' from 'original guilt' is, at best, redundant - at worst, heretical. But Mary still needed a Saviour, because she still had to be delivered from the consequences of the Fall.

Thus, one can simultaneously speak of Mary needing to be saved and in fact being saved by Jesus while also holding that she was the immaculate Mother of God?
(I say "immaculate" here not as a reference back to the Roman doctrine but as a reference to the state of Mary when the angel proclaimed "full of grace" and she became pregnant with God).

The thing is, the consequences of the fall is that we are all born into sin.

Psalm 51:5King James Version (KJV)

5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Romans 5:12King James Version (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Ecclesiastes 7:20King James Version (KJV)
20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Therefore, we do not inherit guilt, we inherit a sinful nature. Nobody ever lived sinless or they would have had no need of a savior.

So, Mary needed a savior because she was a sinner. If she was sinless, Satan would have known, he would have hunted her down and tried to stop her from being able to have Jesus as a virgin mother....

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

We are also Catholic from the beginning of the church of which 'You' broke away from.

You were Catholic because you were part of the Universal Church. However, when your church left and invaded other Patriarchal territories you broke Church Council rulings that your own church agreed with. You are now "catholic" not because you are still part of The original Orthodox Catholic Church but because you spread your Roman church into other Patriarchal territories. After that your church went its own way inventing new doctrines such as the one we are discussing. You can always come back home...just leave your pope and baggage elsewhere

 

[Hieronymus]

Wrong answer. Impossible, more like. Maybe older than 'when Constantine legalized Catholicism'.

Before Catholicism existed...
but hey, if it makes your clock tick, who am i to discourage you, right?

 

[JacksBratt]

Corrected for the truth

Please don't change my words and put them on this forum as a "quote"of something that I said. It lacks integrity and is a misrepresentation of something I have said.

 

[JacksBratt]

Of course Yeshua had brothers AND sisters, but they were not from Mary, but either close cousins (from Mary's sister or from Joseph's previous marriage. Joseph was old when Yeshua was born and had already died well before He was crucified because there is no mention of Joseph much after Yeshua was born.

I agree that Joseph was older than Mary. Where were his other children when they went to Bethlehem? Why is there no mention of them before they are deemed "brothers and sisters"?

What in the world would it change if Mary was not a perpetual virgin and had other kids with Joseph? Huh? What would it change. You are hanging on to an erroneous concept and all for what? It doesn't even affect the gospel. Mary only had one thing in prophesy to fulfill.........she was a virgin mother. Not a virgin sinless person for life.

We must bring her down from this object of idolatry and place her with the other people of the history of this earth who have had a great hand in God's plan. She is a great key to the entrance of the savior into this world but not an object of worship, prayer of holding to an unattainable level of a sinless life.

 

[FaeryChild]

An observation:

*Orthodoxy has one understanding of original sin, human nature, what it means to be "fallen" and what it means to be saved.
*Roman Catholicism has another understanding of these things.
*Protestantism has yet another understanding (and, if you consider the Free Will vs Predestination debate - then there are at least two more completely different understandings within Protestantism).

We start off, not agreeing on something so basic and fundamental to the Gospel and then we try to argue about the relationship between "sin" and the Mother of God and end up with a discussion which constantly devolves. We're not going to be able to resolve the questions about the Mother of God because we cannot resolve the deeper questions of sin, sinful nature, original sin, etc.

The issue, therefore, is not any one group's "unwillingness" to submit to Scripture - all of us would, were we to be convinced that Scripture was really teaching something, accept it as truth. But as has been shown, in general, there are at least 3, possibly 4 different core understandings - and those core understandings are going to influence what one thinks Scripture is saying.

We would like to think we approach Scripture on its own terms and that it is just an experience between us and Scripture. But it isn't. It is Scripture through an Augustinian lens. Or it is Augustine as understood by Luther. Or it is Luther as understood by Calvin... and, if you want to bring modernism into it... it is Luther as understood by Barth, or Tillich or Spong or fill in the blank...

Was Augustine right or was he in error? This is the first question any of us must ask before answering these questions.

 

[FaeryChild]

We must bring her down from this object of idolatry and place her with the other people of the history of this earth who have had a great hand in God's plan.

You mean like Enoch who lived such a righteous, sinless life that he was assumed straight into Heaven?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I agree that Joseph was older than Mary. Where were his other children when they went to Bethlehem? Why is there no mention of them before they are deemed "brothers and sisters"?

What in the world would it change if Mary was not a perpetual virgin and had other kids with Joseph? Huh? What would it change. You are hanging on to an erroneous concept and all for what? It doesn't even affect the gospel. Mary only had one thing in prophesy to fulfill.........she was a virgin mother. Not a virgin sinless person for life.

We must bring her down from this object of idolatry and place her with the other people of the history of this earth who have had a great hand in God's plan. She is a great key to the entrance of the savior into this world but not an object of worship, prayer of holding to an unattainable level of a sinless life.

They likely may have stayed in Nazareth, maybe even had their own families already? Who worships Mary? Worship is for God only.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

An observation:

*Orthodoxy has one understanding of original sin, human nature, what it means to be "fallen" and what it means to be saved.
*Roman Catholicism has another understanding of these things.
*Protestantism has yet another understanding (and, if you consider the Free Will vs Predestination debate - then there are at least two more completely different understandings within Protestantism).

We start off, not agreeing on something so basic and fundamental to the Gospel and then we try to argue about the relationship between "sin" and the Mother of God and end up with a discussion which constantly devolves. We're not going to be able to resolve the questions about the Mother of God because we cannot resolve the deeper questions of sin, sinful nature, original sin, etc.

The issue, therefore, is not any one group's "unwillingness" to submit to Scripture - all of us would, were we to be convinced that Scripture was really teaching something, accept it as truth. But as has been shown, in general, there are at least 3, possibly 4 different core understandings - and those core understandings are going to influence what one thinks Scripture is saying.

We would like to think we approach Scripture on its own terms and that it is just an experience between us and Scripture. But it isn't. It is Scripture through an Augustinian lens. Or it is Augustine as understood by Luther. Or it is Luther as understood by Calvin... and, if you want to bring modernism into it... it is Luther as understood by Barth, or Tillich or Spong or fill in the blank...

Was Augustine right or was he in error? This is the first question any of us must ask before answering these questions.

but only one is true...