Immaculate Conception?

[kepha31]

If the angel's salutation were correctly understood, you wouldn't have any difficulty with this. First, the angel was an archangel (according to Roman Catholic theology), so his purpose is an a messenger, and there is no issue of who is revering whom. Second, he is merely stating a fact--Mary has found favor with God and been chosen for a unique and uniquely important role.

There is nothing "troubling" about a favor. Favors are always welcomed, never feared. Would you be "troubled" if someone did you a favor?

Yes. But none of this amounts to a justification for thinking there had already been any Immaculate Conception.

The meaning of grace leads to that.

Romans 6:14
Ephesians 2:8-10

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.
2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.
2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.
2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.
3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).
4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.
5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.
6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.
7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.
8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.

All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation. (We Catholics fully agree with that; we merely deny the tenet of “faith alone,” as contrary to the clear teaching of St. James and St. Paul.)

Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions.
Luke 1:28 Full of Grace
Index page

 

[Albion]

There is nothing "troubling" about a favor. Favors are always welcomed, never feared. Would you be "troubled" if someone did you a favor?

I am confident that I'd be troubled by this whole thing--a visit from an angel telling me what he told Mary, yes. Do you seriously think she should have reacted by saying something like "Oh, an angel with a message for me from God. OK, and you say I will conceive--without intercourse--and give birth to God himself? Sure. Wednesday looks open. Anything else while you're here?"

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy.

You've got to stop thinking of grace as a commodity or as goodness saved in a piggy bank that, when your 'grace tank' is full up, you can turn it in for a salvation ticket. That's not what is meant in this verse.

 

[Albion]

Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest

I can't agree. If we go by what the passage tells us, Mary was favored by God with a special role in life . The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with it, and doesn't need to exist for the rest of this to occur. There is nothing in the passage that indicates any Immaculate Conception. That is all speculation, like it or not. The word superstition might be more accurate if you prefer that, but I usually say speculation since the doctrine is unbiblical.

 

[EmethAlethia]

Jesus is fully man, and fully God.

I believe it is true that: the Holy Spirit's seed and Mary's seed produced Jesus?

For Jesus to be sinless, would Mary need to be either:
a) Saved and or Filled with the Holy Spirit
b) Sinless

I can't see, God in the flesh could be conceived if Mary was a sinner.

Ok, first off, why does anyone need a savior at all? All have sinned and have fallen short …, right? If you haven’t sinned, you have nothing to be “saved” from. The problem is … Mary knew she needed a savior.

Luk 1:46 And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

From scripture we also know:

Heb 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.



But how does that mean that Jesus was born without inheriting a sin nature / Being under the condemnation of Adam? If you were, for some reason, and without a shred of scriptural evidence, want to include Mary into the sinless category, her parents, both of them, would have needed to have been born without sin, and their parents and their parents… we end up with Adam and Eve needing to be without sin as well. So… let’s just go with Mary’s own statement and acknowledgement that she also needed a savior, shall we?

The problem gets more complex when most people add, subtract and distort the meaning of scripture to hold fast to their beliefs and refute opposing beliefs. For example:

1. Who did God command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
   
   1. Adam
      
      
   2. Eve
      
      
   3. The Serpent
      
      
   4. Adam & Eve
      

Answer: a (Gen 2:16-17) Eve wasn’t even created yet.(Gen. 2:21-23)

1. Did God give commands to both Adam and Eve together, prior to the fall?
   
   1. No.
      
      
   2. Yes, to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth & Not to eat of the tree of knowledge
      
      
   3. Yes, To be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and to rule over all creation.
      
      
   4. Yes, To be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and for Eve to be subject to her husband.
      

Answer: c (Gen. 1:28)

1. Did God ever give Eve the command to obey, or submit to, her husband prior to the fall?
   
   1. Yes
      
      
   2. No
      

Answer: b. God never gave Eve the command to submit to or obey her husband prior to the fall. It was a result OF the fall. Rule of interpretation: When two passages in close proximity use the EXACT SAME wording, the meaning of both is exactly the same. Pick the ONE meaning that fits perfectly in both places. Within 15 verses we have (2) different verses using the exact same wording. Pick the meaning that fits in both places. Gen 3:16 …Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." & Gen 4:7 "… its desire is for you, but you must master it." Note: This is a consequence of the fall, not something given as a command of God prior to it. It’s new, just like all the other “new” consequences.

1. True or False: When Eve ate of the tree her eyes were opened?
   
   1. True
      
      
   2. False
      
      Answer: b False: (Gen. 3:6) while we do not know the time period between when Eve ate and when Adam ate, we do know that nothing at all happened when Eve ate. After Adam ate BOTH their eyes were opened. (vs. 7) Which makes sense because she was not given the command and wasn’t even alive yet to witness it or overhear it.
      
2. True or False: When Eve explains to the serpent what God said her statement is accurate?
   
   1. True
      
      
   2. False
      
      Answer: b False (Gen. 3:3) She added to God’s original words. God told ADAM not to eat. Here she has 1.) added herself to the command & 2.) added not touching the tree
      
      
3. True or False: When God talks about His command not to eat of the tree of knowledge he always includes both Adam & Eve in the discussion?
   
   1. True
      
      
   2. False
      
      Answer: b. False. Every time God’s command to ADAM is discussed it is always in the singular, not including Eve in the discussion at all. The following refer to Adam alone(singular) (Gen. 2:17, Gen. 3:11, 3:17) All 3 places are only including Adam. Which makes sense since Eve wasn’t there for the command.
      
4. When God says, “What is this that you have done?” (3:12) to Eve, what was God referring to? (Hint: Look at Adam’s statement.(vs. 12))
   
   1. God was referring to her eating of the tree
      
      
   2. God was referring to Adam’s statement, “The woman that you gave to me gave me from the tree and I ate.”
      
      
   3. Eve’s disobedience to God’s command to let Eve rule over her.
      

Answer: b That’s the way language works. What is “this” that you have done refers to Adam’s statement ONLY. Of course Eve didn’t take it that way. She was all uptight about eating.

1. So if:
   
   1. Eve wasn’t there when the command not to eat was given.
      
      
   2. God only refers to Adam (singular) when discussing that command.
      
      
   3. No consequences for eating were seen when anyone other than Adam ate of the tree.
      
      
   4. Eve didn’t even get the command given to Adam down correctly
      
      
   5. The consequence of the fall of Eve being “ruled” by Adam occurred AFTER and not before the fall.
      

Is there ANY evidence that Eve sinned? If she did sin first, is this statement true? “Through one man, Adam, sin entered into the world.”? (Rom. 5:12-21) (How many offences were there according to the N.T.? How many do you say there are? Is Eve the one who violated the command in that passage or Adam?)

1. Yes
   
   
2. No
   

Answer: ii. If Eve sinned first, through one woman sin entered into the world. Note: Some people want to perform marvelous feats of hermeneutical contortionism to make Adam responsible for an imaginary sin on the part of Eve. Since we are the bride of Christ, does Christ sin when we do? There is no evidence of eve sinning. This does not mean that she didn’t fail. What was Eve created for? To be the glory of man, right? Man was created to be the glory of God, right? What does that mean? To simplify it a bit, we were all created to make someone look good. Adam was created to make God look good. Eve was created to be a helper for Adam and to help Him look good to God. How did Eve help Adam? She helped him out of the will of God, she helped him out of the garden, out of his position of righteousness before God … When did that occur? The moment she gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. When were her eyes opened? When she gave to Adam and he ate. What was God referring to when He turned to Eve and said, “What is this that you have done?”. Her giving the fruit to Adam and him eating of it.

Why bother with all of this?

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man(Not woman) sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one(Not Adam and Eve) the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one(Not two) who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression (One transgression in the garden) resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one(Not two), death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression(Only one in the garden) there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's (Not both of them) disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

In scripture, “seed” always comes from man. With the exception of Eve, who received consequences not for violating a direct command of God, or anyone else’s command God had commanded her to obey, but for her failure in the role for which God created her in the first place. (What is this that you have done). Everyone is from the seed of Adam … with the exception of Christ. Jesus’ birth was without the “seed” of any man. Thus without that which passes from every male on the planet tainted by their decadency from the first father, Adam. It is the virgin birth foretold in Genesis:

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

This fact is why Jesus did not fall under the consequences of the sin of Adam. The sin nature is passed to offspring through the seed. Some create all kinds of imaginary commands of God, imaginary situations ... to hold fat to another belief. From what I see, the only way to make everything fit, without adding imaginary data is as listed above. Any changes and a lot of things no longer fit.

 

[Albion]

If you were, for some reason, and without a shred of scriptural evidence, want to include Mary into the sinless category, her parents, both of them, would have needed to have been born without sin, and their parents and their parents…

Quite so! This point hasn't come up before (as I recall), but it's certainly true. IF the argument that's made for Mary being an Immaculate Conception (How could she not be sinless if she was to carry a sinless God, she was a second Ark of the Covenant, etc. etc.) then her parents would have to have never known sin either or else this second Ark would have been touched by sin and, as the argument goes, that's impossible.

So… let’s just go with Mary’s own statement and acknowledgement that she also needed a savior, shall we?

All right.

 

[kepha31]

Quite so! This point hasn't come up before (as I recall), but it's certainly true. IF the argument that's made for Mary being an Immaculate Conception (How could she not be sinless if she was to carry a sinless God, she was a second Ark of the Covenant, etc. etc.) then her parents would have to have never known sin either or else this second Ark would have been touched by sin and, as the argument goes, that's impossible.


All right.

This has been refuted before. Mary's parents were not sinless. It's amazing how far people will go to avoid the truth of God's intervention.
Like I already said, "What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions."
"Mary a sinner" was not taught by the reformers, it's a false man made tradition invented by liberal Protestants in the 19th century.

None of us (including even the Blessed Virgin) can produce our own holiness; that's a heresy called Pelagianism: long since condemned by the Church. It's all ultimately from God.

Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, believed in a somewhat modified form of the Immaculate Conception. He had a very "high" Mariology.
http://www.patheos.com/…/luther-the-immaculate-purification…

In 1544 (just two years before his death), he wrote: "God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins." And in 1545 he stated that the Virgin Mary "has not sinned and cannot sin for ever more."
If even Martin Luther can accept the actual sinlessness of Mary, then any Protestant can do so, because nothing in this doctrine is contrary to Scripture at all, and indeed, "full of grace" (kecharitomene) in Luke 1:28 (rightly understood and deeply
examined) is an explicit biblical proof of Mary's freedom from actual sin.

Adam and Eve were sinless before they rebelled and fell, and the (created) unfallen angels are as well, so sinlessness is by no means impossible, biblically speaking.

Zwingli
Although he does not explicitly relate Mary’s virginal and immaculate conception of her Son with her own immaculate conception, Zwingli does call her “immaculate.” As he also wrote in De vera et falsa religione, she was without “the smallest trace of a stain.” (p. 107)

3) Gottfried Wilhelm Locher, Zwingli’s Thought: New Perspectives (Leiden: E. J. Brill: 1981).

Zwingli goes so far as to state: “I firmly trust that she is exalted by God above all creatures of blessed men or angels in eternal bliss.” [Z I 424; H 1 159] (p. 88)

. . . forceful expressions which Zwingli frequently used to describe Mary’s purity (“immaculata”, “illibata”, “purissima”, etc.) . . . [Zwingli:] [“]God has also sanctified and purified the mother (of the holy Son), for it was fitting that so holy a Son should have so holy a mother.[“] (p. 88; original Latin version

In a sermon in 1524, Zwingli called Mary “the pure virgin Mary, mother of our salvation,” and he stated that where she is concerned, he never “thought, let alone taught or publicly affirmed the slightest thing that could be impious, dishonoring, unworthy or bad of her.” (p. 130)In a sermon in 1524, Zwingli called Mary “the pure virgin Mary, mother of our salvation,” and he stated that where she is concerned, he never “thought, let alone taught or publicly affirmed the slightest thing that could be impious, dishonoring, unworthy or bad of her.” (p. 130)

The data that Giselbrecht presents demonstrates that Protestant Reformed Mariology was quite full and robust in the Catholic sense in “reformer” Huldrych Zwingli‘s time in Zurich (1518-1531), and also in his successor, Heinrich Bullinger‘s time (1531-1575), becoming gradually less robust, but still significantly greater than in most of today’s Protestantism.
Interesting facts about the robust Mariology of the Zurich Protestant “reformers” Zwingli and Bullinger.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are quite right. Carl Braaten, a leading North American Lutheran theologian, has said the Roman Catholic distinctives that most Protestants focus on, are not actually incompatible with Lutheranism, at least as he understands it. The main issue are different understandings of Church authority.

 

[Roseonathorn]

God chose Mary and nature is His creation. He chose her for a reason, one probably for her lineage, not married, jewish, young, related to the right people, right time and a she had a willing heart and a soon to be husband. God does not obey under nature but rules nature.

 

[miknik5]

There is no "elsewhere", revelation is ongoing.

No it's not. Its complete

.

 

[miknik5]

[

How come you do not believe Jesus is half man
and half God?

NOTE*** This is just my own opinion and not to be taken
as truth or lie. For discussion purposes only.

Because HE's not

He's not what?
NOTE*** This is just my own opinion and not to be taken
as truth or lie. For discussion purposes only.

Did you forget what you had said?

 

[miknik5]

I do not believe you quoted Isaiah word for word.
And I also do not believe you comprehend what Isaiah stated.


NOTE*** This is just my own opinion and not to be taken
as truth or lie. For discussion purposes only.

I believe he does

FULLY

 

[Colter]

No it's not. Its complete

.

Well, when Jesus comes back and has more to say, you can explain to him how special that you are and that nothing more can be added. ​

 

[Albion]

This has been refuted before. Mary's parents were not sinless.

It hasn't been "refuted" before because no one's claiming that Mary's parents were sinless.

The point was that there's no more reason to think that they were sinless than there is to think that Mary was conceived without sin.

Since you don't make the claim that they all were sinless, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is shown to be illogical and inconsistent as well as unbiblical.

 

[Kutte]

the Jews never really had a firm concept of Hell either
at the time of His ministry, most of the Jews rejected Jesus as being the Messiah
you can not really look to the Jews as having right understanding of Scripture because even now so many of them are blind to the truth of Christ


because Adam and Eve ruined it for us
and when we sin, we reinforce their original disobedience


why did God say the tablets of the 10 Commandments had to be put in an ornate gold covered box?
because it was fitting for Him to do such, the object that was carried within is of such great dignity that the vessel must be shown proper consideration


Protestants ignore miracles when convenient
of course you could look at the fruits of what has happened at Lourdes, conversions, physical healing, those who were lukewarm in the faith made fervent
not for a generation, but for decade upon decade we have seen such things, for over 100 years there have been healings there and yet it is just ignored


we would be doing what we do now
farming, building things, making art
having families, I think it is reasonable to say that there would still have been the generation of children
even in Genesis chapter 2 before the fall Eve is described as Adams wife

we could speculate that as the unfallen human family grew, Eden would expand so as to tame the whole world, Eden was the size of a garden to be managed by one man, as more men would be born the area would grow

either everyone alive would just be alive forever, and births would be exceedingly rare
or maybe like Enoch, the after many many centuries on earth the humans would be assumed into heaven

this is just speculation though, our first parents kinda ruined everything for us

Dear Rhamiel,

What do you mean by "our first parents kinda ruined everything for us"? They helped making us aware of good and bad. Would you prefer not having those qualities? Not being able to recognize the love of God? Even ants have limited abilities to distinguish between good and bad. I don't think you would want to wander around the Garden of Eden, for thousands of years, stark naked, with nothing to do since allegedly everything is already perfect.
God bless

 

[prodromos]

What can we learn from the Lord Jesus?
Was the woman who bore him, more blessed?
Was the woman who breastfed him, more blessed?

What did the Lord Jesus said?
“Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Luke 1:38
And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

 

[FireDragon76]

Luke 1:38
And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Protestants have a tendency to read every single interaction with Mary, as Jesus putting her "in her place".

 

[kepha31]

It hasn't been "refuted" before because no one's claiming that Mary's parents were sinless.

Yes, the claim has been made, either on this thread or another. I am not scrolling several pages to prove what I don't have to prove. The claim is stupid because Mary was made sinless by the power of God, not by Mary and not by her parents. If you want to believe it's beyond God's power it's your problem, not mine.

The point was that there's no more reason to think that they were sinless than there is to think that Mary was conceived without sin.

It's a stupid argument.

Since you don't make the claim that they all were sinless, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is shown to be illogical and inconsistent as well as unbiblical.

A stupid non sequitur based on denial, denial, denial. The biblicity of the IC has been explained over and over again. That won't work on prejudice and pre-conceptions. You have to be ready. You are not ready.

You deny the earthly Ark of the Covenant has any foreshadowing elements for the physical Ark of the New Covenant. It wouldn't surprise me if you denied the importance of the Old Ark to the Jews. It wouldn't surprise me if you believed the Ark of the Covenant was just a storage box and nothing holy about it. Is that "biblical"???
You deny numerous scriptural evidences showing a list of parallels. You may accept the nature of grace and what it does for every believer, but deny the greater degree it does for His mother. Have you talked to any angels lately? You deny the teachings of your own reformers. You deny the Early Church Fathers. But you accept 19th century liberal Protestant heretics because it is fashionable.

 

[Albion]

Yes, the claim has been made, either on this thread or another.

The claim has been made here that Anne and Joachim were conceived without sin?? I'd have to see that to believe it, kepha. But the point remains that the logic that's often used to prop up the belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception, if followed through, would require a belief also in the sinlessness of her parents. I take it that you don't believe that they were sinless.

You deny the earthly Ark of the Covenant has any foreshadowing elements for the physical Ark of the New Covenant.

Do I?

I It wouldn't surprise me if you denied the importance of the Old Ark to the Jews.
You deny numerous scriptural evidences showing a list of parallels. You may accept the nature of grace and what it does for every believer, but deny the greater degree it does for His mother. Have you talked to any angels lately? You deny the teachings of your own reformers. You deny the Early Church Fathers. But you accept 19th century liberal Protestant heretics because it is fashionable.

How long did it take you to think up all that nonsense? You couldn't verify any of those allegations if you took a week to work on it.

 

[EmethAlethia]

Here's the problem. Either we hold to a set of men's beliefs, statements, positions ... as absolute truth "AFTER" the scriptures were written OR we hold to the bible itself OR we just hold to our own opinion and the opinions of those that agree with us. Since there were tons of false doctrines corrected even in the writings of the New Testament, even quoting things that were taught at that time are subject to question as to whether or not they are correct or erroneous.

The point is this, apart from the scriptures accepted as authoritative by 95% or more of all those who believe themselves to be Christians, there is no source of knowledge about Christ AT ALL... except for a few secular references. In other words, apart from the scriptures themselves we only have opinions, feelings, thoughts ... about what is right and wrong that are no more authoritative than my own thoughts on the issues.

We already saw the scriptures on the traditions of men, according to Jesus. It is the word of God that is profitable, not the opinions and traditions of men or of a particular belief group. And yes, you and everyone is entitled to believe whatever traditions and beliefs they want. Believe Jesus is a spirit brother of Satan, or that Jesus was really the angel Michael ... but as I state, the final authority is either the bible or it is the traditions, beliefs, feelings, views ... of men who have to alter what the scriptures say and mean to hold fast to their traditions, beliefs, feelings, experiences ... You can't get Mary being sinless "from" scripture, so guess where that belief came from. Guess where all those other beliefs I just stated came from? Someplace other than the bible.

Mary rejoiced in God her savior. Question: Why state this if you are already "saved"? All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. The blessed assumption, according to scripture has nothing blessed about it. It's just an assumption. It's just a tradition that contradicts scripture. Just like many other beliefs. So decide. Scripture says:

Joh 3:13 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

Your traditions, and the opinions of the men you trust, say something different. So if the bible is wrong on this point, or on Jesus having brothers and sisters, and on Joseph not knowing Mary UNTIL AFTER Jesus was born ... thus resulting in the brothers and sisters, then you must assume that it could be wrong about absolutely everything, INCLUDING the passages some people use to state Peter was the first pope. Pick one. Either the bible is authoritative in, and of itself, and is correct in it's teachings, ALL OF THEM, or it isn't. If it isn't reliable and trustworthy in the whole, then we can't even trust that there was a Mary or a Peter, or even a Jesus, and absolutely everything in scripture is up for grabs, and we waste our time even worrying about what scriptures say and mean. Untrustworthy is untrustworthy.

Otherwise the only question is how do we determine how to get to truth of what it says and means. We all have to pick one. Tradition and the opinions of men are the ultimate authority, the bible is the ultimate authority, or we are the ultimate authority. If it's your traditions and the opinions of men, don't even bother with scripture. If it's you, again, don't even bother with scripture.

 

[kepha31]

Protestants have a tendency to read every single interaction with Mary, as Jesus putting her "in her place".

Oh yea! Jesus was known for violating the 4th Commandment (honor your parents) and denigrating His mother in public. All rabbis treated their mothers like dirt. I read it in the Bible!