Is there salvation without Mary?

[prodromos]

And there are only 66 boox in the Bible. The Apocrypha are not considered Scripture by Christians.

The vast majority of Christians do consider them to be Scripture. The proper term for the books in question is Deutorocanonicals.

 

[robycop3]

All European Christians had 73 books in their Bibles from the time the Catholic Church chose the 73 books up until the Protestant reformation, over a thousand years before some new religions dropped books.

When the Church chose the canon in the 300s all apocryphal books were rejected.

Apparently not as they're still in current RC Bibles.

Mary was betrothed, the angel told her that she would have a son in the future, and she asked how that could be.

And the angel answered her. Again, there's absolutely NO indication of any vow of perpetual virginity. Somebody made that up.

 

[robycop3]

The grammar of her statement is continuous, she is "not knowing a man", which is inconsistent with a bride who is expecting to have sexual relations with her soon to be husband. Her statement is completely consistent with the kind of vows described in Numbers 30, so your statement that there is "no scriptural evidence" is false.

No, the grammer is NOT continuous. Here's its correct English translation: Luke 1:34Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”
Still, no Scriptural evidence.

 

[robycop3]

The vast majority of Christians do consider them to be Scripture. The proper term for the books in question is Deutorocanonicals.

No, they don't. Not even all RCs do.
And "deuterocanonicals" is correct; they're NOT canonicals.

 

[Not David]

No, they don't. Not even all RCs do.
And "deuterocanonicals" is correct; they're NOT canonicals.

They are part of the Bible, no sure how some Evangelicals think that they care about the Bible when they get rid of some of their books

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, they don't. Not even all RCs do.
And "deuterocanonicals" is correct; they're NOT canonicals.

Saint Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin for the Catholic Church, rejected the deutercanonical books, although he was later pressured to translate them, as well. In the end he apparently gave into the pressure.

Interestingly, the Anglicans and Lutherans do include the deutercanonical books, despite RCC claims that Luther was responsible for eliminating them from the canon of scripture. However, neither body considers them to be inspired scripture on the level of the other 66 books, but merely as interesting literature of the period which can be judged by the individual as to their value.

 

[Albion]

The vast majority of Christians do consider them to be Scripture. The proper term for the books in question is Deutorocanonicals.

Sorta depends on how one words the claim, doesn't it? I mean the "vast majority" of Christian churches don't consider them to be Scripture, and it's mainly two denominations/communions (RC and EO) which do.

Since the majority of Christians belong, either actively or nominally, to one or the other of those two, it can be said that the majority of Christians can be presumed to consider them Scripture--but that's about all.

 

[robycop3]

Saint Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin for the Catholic Church, rejected the deutercanonical books, although he was later pressured to translate them, as well. In the end he apparently gave into the pressure.

Interestingly, the Anglicans and Lutherans do include the deutercanonical books, despite RCC claims that Luther was responsible for eliminating them from the canon of scripture. However, neither body considers them to be inspired scripture on the level of the other 66 books, but merely as interesting literature of the period which can be judged by the individual as to their value.

The AV 1611, an Anglican version, has them in a separate section between the OT & NT.

 

[prodromos]

No, the grammer is NOT continuous. Here's its correct English translation: Luke 1:34Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”
Still, no Scriptural evidence.

Your saying does not make it so.

πως εσται τουτο επει ανδρα ου γινωσκω​

The verb ending of "ω" is the simple present, so just as "τρωω" can be written as "I eat" or I am eating", "γινωσκω" can be written as "I know" or "I am knowing". There is absolutely no past tense involved such as in the translation you gave.

 

[prodromos]

No, they don't. Not even all RCs do.
And "deuterocanonicals" is correct; they're NOT canonicals.

So Deuteronomy isn't about laws (nomoi). Got it!

 

[prodromos]

Saint Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin for the Catholic Church, rejected the deutercanonical books, although he was later pressured to translate them, as well. In the end he apparently gave into the pressure.

So are you supporting the papacy? You seem to think it is acceptable for a single person to define what is true for the rest of the Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

The vast majority of Christians do consider them to be Scripture. The proper term for the books in question is Deutorocanonicals.

Indeed so. Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Assyrians, Old Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and the various Sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches, represent a majority of Christendom. And these books are included in the KJV, because it was created for use by the Church of England; that most current editions of the KJV omit them started as a cost-savings exercise by printers in the 1800s.

 

[The Liturgist]

Sorta depends on how one words the claim, doesn't it? I mean the "vast majority" of Christian churches don't consider them to be Scripture, and it's mainly two denominations/communions (RC and EO) which do.

Since the majority of Christians belong, either actively or nominally, to one or the other of those two, it can be said that the majority of Christians can be presumed to consider them Scripture--but that's about all.

When you include the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans, the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians, and other churches which do not define the issue one way or the other, the figures become overwhelming.

But that aside, even if we were to omit the Lutherans, who have an open canon, which I think would be misleading because the Deuterocanonicals are not uncanonical in Lutheranism (regardless of what Martin Luther thought about them; Lutheranism is much more than Martin Luther and historically, most European Lutheran churches aren’t even officially called Lutheran, but rather have names like The Church of Sweden, the Church of Denmark, the Evangelical Church in Germany, and so on), the statement by @robycop3 that Christians do not accept the deuterocanonical books as scripture is inaccurate and offensive.

 

[The Liturgist]

The AV 1611, an Anglican version, has them in a separate section between the OT & NT.

They are still officially a part of the KJV, and its not a bible exclusive to Anglicanism, although it was originally translated for use in the Church of England to replace the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva Bible and other earlier translations.

 

[The Liturgist]

And there are only 66 boox in the Bible. The Apocrypha are not considered Scripture by Christians.

Hi there, I’m a Christian, and I accept the books you call Apocrypha. Specifically, I accept everything in the Narrow Canon of the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church as inspired scripture.

 

[The Liturgist]

Constantine legalized Christianity which ended the persecution of the Church, but he never made Christianity the official religion of Rome. You are thinking of Justinian.
Pagans did not engage in Christian worship as a result of pagan temples being repurposed as churches. If they went anywhere, they went underground.
The Churches understanding of Mary had been settled in the Council of Ephesus in 431AD, almost a century before Justinian, so your claim of Mary 'worship' being the result of pagan influence due to pagans mingling with Christians in the repurposed temples is completely without merit.
I hope that you were simply repeating something you read somewhere else (possibly Alexander Hislop) and it wasn't something you came up with yourself.

This is correct. Alexander Hislop’s false history has led many into unwarranted anti-Catholic fury.

 

[The Liturgist]

They WERE half-siblings. They had the same mom, but their father was Joseph, while Jesus' Father is GOD.

There is no scriptural affirmation of that position. Joseph is the adoptive father of Jesus Christ, and so it is completely legitimate to believe, as did Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Wesley, that His brothers were half-brothers by Joseph’s deceased prior wife, or cousins, and that Mary was, as John Wesley put it, “a pure and unspotted Virgin.”

She is also the Mother of God, because Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Constantine legalized Christianity which ended the persecution of the Church, but he never made Christianity the official religion of Rome. You are thinking of Justinian.
Pagans did not engage in Christian worship as a result of pagan temples being repurposed as churches. If they went anywhere, they went underground.
The Churches understanding of Mary had been settled in the Council of Ephesus in 431AD, almost a century before Justinian, so your claim of Mary 'worship' being the result of pagan influence due to pagans mingling with Christians in the repurposed temples is completely without merit.
I hope that you were simply repeating something you read somewhere else (possibly Alexander Hislop) and it wasn't something you came up with yourself.

I probably picked up the information during my extensive reading of early church history as part of the Church History paper I did for my MDiv. I guess it depends on whose history one chooses to read.

Anyhow, the topic of the thread is whether there is salvation outside of Mary. My answer is yes definitely; also, for those who are trusting in Mary for their salvation, there is no salvation at all, because there is only one name under which anyone can be saved - Jesus Christ.

 

[Valletta]

No, the grammer is NOT continuous. Here's its correct English translation: Luke 1:34Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”
Still, no Scriptural evidence.

"How can this be?" Such a young woman entering into a normal Jewish lifelong marriage would not ask such a question. The author felt it important enough to include instead of the many wonderous things Jesus did that are not included in the Bible.

 

[Valletta]

Saint Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin for the Catholic Church, rejected the deutercanonical books, although he was later pressured to translate them, as well. In the end he apparently gave into the pressure.

Interestingly, the Anglicans and Lutherans do include the deutercanonical books, despite RCC claims that Luther was responsible for eliminating them from the canon of scripture. However, neither body considers them to be inspired scripture on the level of the other 66 books, but merely as interesting literature of the period which can be judged by the individual as to their value.

You claim that Saint Jerome 1) "rejected" the deutercanonical books" and 2) was later "pressured" to translate those books. This time I ask that your provide documentation for your allegations.