YesVerily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Is Mary included when Jesus said this, since she was born of a woman.
Those who suggest that Christ could not be sinless unless His mother was born sinless - somehow grant His mother to be sinless without her mother having to also be sinless. Have they thought that through? Is something missing from their proposal?
Good thing we have Mary calling Christ her Savior. It is sinful humanity that needs a Savior - and praise God we have one.
Christ's response to being confronted with "blessed be Mary" was... "on the contrary"
Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.”
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Is Mary included when Jesus said this, since she was born of a woman.
We are to reject anything that contradicts the word of God. Christ states anyone that does the will of God is the same as his brother, sister and mother. We are also not to revere anyone but the Father/Christ. We are told this in scripture. God's word will never change but men and traditions do.
God will use whomever he will but oral tradition cannot contradict scripture. And oral traditions have to start somewhere. We are to search the scriptures to see if what is being taught is true. Don't you think the Holy Spirit would have led the disciples and apostles to write down such an important truth in the scriptures we do have? You yourself stated that your church believes the Gospel of Matthew is inspired. Why would the gospel then leave out such a truth? It wouldn't. Christ has foretold us all things. The one true church is the one started by the disciples and the apostles. We have the 4 gospels, the acts as well as the letters by Paul and others. It's all about the Father and our Savior Jesus Christ. If anything being taught goes against that word or adds to that word than we have to look at it as suspicious at best. Mary was blessed to have given birth to Christ. But again anyone that does the will of the Father is the same as his brother, sister or mother. To state otherwise would be to go against Christ's own teaching.
And no church is infallible. That goes for all denominations. What is infallible is the Word of God. It's not the church and then the word of God.
BobRyan said:
Do you see any of them praying to the dead - or for the dead in the NT?
958 Communion with the dead
How exactly do you think Catholic teaching claims to contact Mary if not via 958 above in their efforts to venerate her?
29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”
I did not state teaching about Mary contradicts scripture. Teaching she remained a virgin, was sinless, etc is. Yes we can spin the words 'did not know her until/til" and claiming his brethren were cousins/stepbrothers but one has to stretch and reach to do so instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves. If we do that there are no contradictions. We know "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Mary is not the exception and is not listed as such.if you think teaching about Mary contradicts scripture, please show me where.
Unless of course the magistrate changes it, like it tried to do with the Lords Prayer, and the Lords Supper which it did, to say nothing of the Resurrection and the Life eternal, and the Sabbath..The same Church that said the Gospel of Matthew is inspired text also said Mary was Immaculately conceived. You either accept it all, or reject it all.
I did not state teaching about Mary contradicts scripture. Teaching she remained a virgin, was sinless, etc is. Yes we can spin the words 'did not know her until/til" and claiming his brethren were cousins/stepbrothers but one has to stretch and reach to do so instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves.
If we do that there are no contradictions. We know "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Mary is not the exception and is not listed as such.
We are taught that Mary was blessed among women and she was -given that she gave birth to our Savior. But she was not sinless, did not remain a virgin, etc. She was not even a huge part of the gospels or the rest of the Word after Christ started his ministry. Christ states anyone that does the will of the Father is the same as his family. He's not raising his mother up over anyone else and neither should we. The disciples tried to do that among themselves and he shot that down.
The Greek is pretty selective in using words for brother, relative or cousin. For example in this verse we see two words -
Luke 21:16 "And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death."
Brethren is aldelphos (the womb) a brother, (lit or fig) near or remote. Yes someone could possible spin this in some way but we do not have to do so when his brethren are listed with Mary. Because we see in Luke 21:16 we have "kinsfolk" which is suggenes -a relative (by blood) , a fellow countryman-cousin, kin. So if they were cousins it stands to reason, this word would have been used in John 2:12.
And then comes the theory that they are his step brothers, children by Joseph, but then we are really reaching because we see nothing of these children mentioned about Joseph and so on.
Again, if you want to continue to believe in these theories that are not rooted in scripture by all means. I will continue to believe otherwise.
but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
"There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."
FalseUnless of course the magistrate changes it, like it tried to do with the Lords Prayer, and the Lords Supper which it did, to say nothing of the Resurrection and the Life eternal, and the Sabbath..
If you have something coherent to add, please post it.Unless of course the magistrate changes it, like it tried to do with the Lords Prayer, and the Lords Supper which it did, to say nothing of the Resurrection and the Life eternal, and the Sabbath..
I posted the words in the Greek I found relevant concerning brethren/kinsfolk. I did not simply take the English translations of those words.The fact that you can take an English translation and understand that in the context of modern spoken English and modern American culture, is not "letting the text speak for itself". You are the one who is stretching and spinning.
I see many.My view has no contradictions
My point is only oral tradition later on states she was sinless, remained a virgin, was some sort of mediator and so on. If she was all of these things they were left out of the letters we have. They are left out of the gospels. You believe in the traditions of men. I will believe as Paul states the traditions that were brought forth, not those added later on. Those can make void the word of God.We are told more about Mary
I see this as a huge reach. This is not a good argument for Mary to be sinless. We can't compare Christ and Mary. Mary who knew she needed a Savior.You know who else is not listed as an exception in Romans 3:23... Jesus. Did Jesus sin and fall short of the glory of God? All means all right? There is no righteous, no not one... that leaves no exception for Jesus does it?
She does not say this in the past tense, as in "I have not known man". She says it in the present "I do not know man". This at the very least implies that she is in a state where she does not expect that she will "know a man" in the future. Thus it implies that she may have taken a vow of virginity.
Another reach, we are told that Christ and even Stephen are full of grace -entirely different translations that theWe are told that the Angel Gabriel appeared to her, used the title "full of grace" for her
Again, not biblical. Of course you believe Oral tradition is just as important if not more important than the Word. But there is no comparison to the ark of the covenant in the gospels. Christ didn't teach this and so on. John is leaping because he felt the presence of the Savior. This has nothing to do with Mary other than she is carrying him. Her womb is not sacred or anything afterwards. She still had to go through the purification process, etc.Then we are told how Mary goes to the hill country of Judea for 3 months (to visit Elizabeth). This directly parallels the Old Testament story of how David tried to bring the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem but was forced to leave it in the hill country of Judea for 3 months. Drawing a direct thematic connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant.
This connection continues when Mary meets Elizabeth and John the Baptists "leaps" in his mother's womb, exactly as David is described as "leaping" before the Ark of the Covenant.
Not biblical. In this we see both Mary revealed as the new Eve
We don't need Mary to prompt Christ to do good. Not biblical. Even without Mary and this first miracle, Christ was to be the Savior. Mary other than giving birth to him has nothing to do with that.The New Ever prompted the New Adam to do good,
No, she doesn't. We can go straight to the Father through Christ. We don't need Mary to tell us anything. You're are stating an instance when both Mary and Christ walked the earth.This is what Mary always says to us to this day.
She needed help with the wine for a wedding. There's nothing here bringing petitions for all time to the people. Again, she sought his help when they both walked the earth for a wedding. After Christ died, the veil was rent from top to bottom. That symbolizes that one does not an earthly high priest anymore to go to the holy of holies. We have Christ for that. Mary has nothing to do with that.Mary is also revealed here in her primary role in the Kingdom, she brings petition to Jesus on behalf of the people,
No one is dissing Mary. It's just the fact that Christ puts everyone on the same level that does the will of God.They think this is a diss against Mary
Which should be a red flag for you if she had such an important part in the Kingdom other than being blessed to have given birth to the Savior.Matthews account leaves out Mary the mother of Jesus.
I'm honestly not trying to be insulting with my comments. My beliefs come from scripture. I've honestly seen not one verse that even implies Mary was to remain a virgin, sinless, is symbolic of the ark of the covenant, etc. You are seeing those beliefs. But I honestly believe if you hadn't been "taught" those you might believe differently."that's just unbiblical".
Mary being highly favored/full of grace so she must not be a sinner and must remain a virgin is a theory, it's not biblical.
Should I say this is unbiblical and that people who believe it are adding to the bible? or should I say that it is biblical, but that it is incorrect, because they have misunderstood the verse in question?
Not one human is infallible. But for myself I try and continue to grow in the Word. If I don't see something backed up with scripture that's where I have problems. As I said I had to drop doctrines that I once believed in that I couldn't back up when studying for myself.but essentially claim infallibility for themselves
I've followed the last few pages and when I came to this it seems to be forming an argument that hasn't been under discussion. Nevertheless, I would agree that there is no one who is infallible in the sense of being impeccable. The First Vatican Council declared the long held doctrine that in specific cases, the Pope is indeed infallible in doctrine. "For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated." Notice that this power is given the Pope representing the Church.Not one human is infallible.
Be careful. A cancer continues grows in a human body, so too can free thinkers contact carcinogenic material without discipline in faith. "WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES." [sic. Dr. Don Felix Sarday Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin]. Thus, Catholics view the doctrine of infallibility to be enlightening the intellect in the discipline faith in discernment of God's Truth.But for myself I try and continue to grow in the Word. If I don't see something backed up with scripture that's where I have problems. As I said I had to drop doctrines that I once believed in that I couldn't back up when studying for myself.
JoeTI can't speak for others, (I'm non denominational) but I certainly believe James's words when it comes to faith/works He's a second witness to Christ's teaching on the subject.
James 2:18 "Yea, a man may say, "Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."
Works are proof of faith.
Matthew 7:16 "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
Matthew 7:17 "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."
Matthew 7:19 "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
Matthew 7:20 "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
This is how we can know if a person has true faith or not -by their works/fruits.
To me it's simple. If someone has sincere faith in Christ, they will naturally produce works because they have achieved true repentance (change of mind/heart) Works/fruits spring from what Christ has taught us -love God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. We can hang all the law on them. And if we have truly changed, of course we love God and of course we certainly love our neighbor and therefore works spring from that. How can it not? I believe that's the heart of James teaching. Works are proof of faith.
Will we fall short of that mark at times, yes, of course but one should always strive to put the spirit above the flesh.
James states -
James 2:19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."
Christ goes on to say-
Matthew 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father Which is in heaven."
James 1:22 "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves."
One cannot state they simply believe and go on living their lives as they did before -not caring. If that's the case one has not achieved true repentance. They haven't changed their minds and if they haven't changed their mind naturally works will not follow.
They go hand in hand. I will state though that sanctification is an ongoing process with the help of the Holy Spirit. That can take time.
I know some bring up this verse by Paul
Romans 4:5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
I think this would be a example of a special case.
Ultimately I leave that up to God. He's the heart knower, he knows who's sincere in their faith or not.
I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know on the subject but just stating my beliefs.
It's been my experince that many Christians are not 24/7 disciplined. They go to their churches (I'm speaking of all churches) either one or two days a week and the rest of the time it's business as usual living in this world, being of the world, etc.material without disciplined in faith.
I'm always careful. And the irony is, I've been more disciplined since leaving my church teachings well over 20 years ago. I'm in the Word every day and have read the bible in it's entirety- something many supposed Christians I know personally have never even undertaken. Do I claim to know everything? No but when it comes to discipline I continue to to that, continue to strive and put the spirit above the flesh every day while preparing to have the gospel armour on in case I need to stand in that "evil day". I continue to seek the meat of God's work and not just the milk which Paul states once we have laid that foundation (Christ ) we can move on to other things.That's what I believe true discipline is. Why would I need a priest to discipline when I have the very high priest in Christ? We don't. That veil was rent from top to bottom.Be careful
Realize that the Catholic Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written. The Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries. The Bible obviously had to conform with Catholic teaching, but NEVER was the Bible intended to spell out all the teachings of Jesus that were passed down through the Apostles. All kinds of beliefs could spring from reading the Bible with no prior teachings, I think a lot of people would not come to the realization of the Holy Trinity by reading the Bible alone with no prior knowledge of Christianity. That being said, certainly nothing in the Bible contradicts Catholic teaching and the Bible gives great support to Catholic teaching. For example, a knowledge of the Koine Greek text when the Angel Gabriel used the title for Mary as "full of grace" would give one the understanding that Mary was previously imbued with an everlasting grace. "Catholic" means "universal," and the Catholic Church is both in Heaven and on Earth. Thus we are in communion with the saints in Heaven, as per our Creed which we call the Apostles Creed. Speculation that Mary had other children simply contradicts what was passed down from the Apostles.I'm honestly not trying to be insulting with my comments. My beliefs come from scripture. I've honestly seen not one verse that even implies Mary was to remain a virgin, sinless, is symbolic of the ark of the covenant, etc. You are seeing those beliefs. But I honestly believe if you hadn't been "taught" those you might believe differently.
I had certain beliefs that left my church (who had taught them to me) over when I saw they could not be backed up in scripture. We are supposed to study for ourselves to show ourselves approved. So I just want to proceed in the Word with an open mind, having been fed false doctrine myself.
But I'm only stating this because I do have an open mind. I got rid of any preconceived notions I had going forward. It's what got me into reading the Word in it's entirety for the first time. So I'm not speaking with any arrogance, I honestly do not see your beliefs backed up in the word. I don't see them as biblical. And you did not provide any biblical support. Just theories. I do not want to deal in theories and I don't think I should have to, especially when I feel like Christ's ministry was complete.
Mary being highly favored/full of grace so she must not be a sinner and must remain a virgin is a theory, it's not biblical. Mary helping Christ at the wedding proves she's a mediator to Christ for all time is a theory it's not biblical. It just proves she sought his help at a wedding when they both walked the earth and he performed a miracle. Mary being the new Eve- not biblical. That's an honest statement, not meant to be insulting. All of the suppositions as well about his brothers being cousins is just a theory. It's not biblical. Most evidence points otherwise. I'm looking strictly for God's truth, not men's traditions. I'm looking for doctrines backed up in the Word. But you deal in oral traditions just as much but I'm only looking for the traditions laid out in the Word. Paul states we are to hold onto to those traditions, not new ones added later. You believe your church is the true church and therefore cannot spread false doctrines. I believe the true church is the one that's laid out by the prophets, apostles -Christ being the foundation. The true church that holds to the traditions brought forth by that very foundation. That church is not an organization, it's not a denomination. It can meet anywhere, etc (we know the early churches were all over and even met in people's houses. It's easy to see in this day and age which church is producing good fruit or not. By their fruits we shall know them as Christ states. Sadly I see few and far physical churches/organizations teaching the Word of God, chapter by chapter and verse by verse, rightly dividing the Word. I see also see bad fruits coming from them as well, changing beliefs to suit the world and so on. We have to be careful. I speak for all, including myself.
And yet chose other books for their own bible that have blatant contradictions to other books chosen. This argument has never held water for me. God will chose whomever he will to set things in motion. We've seen that time and time again. But we can't just veer off course.The Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries.
I believe otherwise. There's a reason we have the Word still intact today. Anyone can add a tradition, new doctrine but thankfully God's word will never change.but NEVER was the Bible intended to spell out all the teachings of Jesus that were passed down through the Apostles.
Just as all kinds of beliefs can be spread by the traditions of men.All kinds of beliefs could spring from reading the Bible with no prior teachings
I've never come across any contradictions, I don't know who told you that. You can understand why some Jews who rejected Jesus were not happy to keep Maccabees, for example, one of my favorite passages is about those who were tortured for their belief in resurrection. That passage, referred to in Hebrews, is only found in Maccabees. Jesus said and did many things that are not in the Bible. In fact the Bible itself tells us we are to stand fast to keep both oral and written traditions. The Bible-only theory didn't catch fire until roughly a thousand years later. You appear to confuse mere tradition with Sacred Tradition. We speak of the Word of God as consisting of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. God's Word does not change, although we can come to a deeper understanding of God's Word as time progresses. One of your traditions is that there are only 66 books of the Bible. That's not in the Bible, that's a mere tradition. I too believe God over man, try not to judge others.And yet chose other books for their own bible that have blatant contradictions to other books chosen. This argument has never held water for me. God will chose whomever he will to set things in motion. We've seen that time and time again. But we can't just veer off course.
I believe otherwise. There's a reason we have the Word still intact today. Anyone can add a tradition, new doctrine but thankfully God's word will never change.
Just as all kinds of beliefs can be spread by the traditions of men.
Again, I truly believe we can look at many churches today and see absolutely who's veered off course,-who's holding to the traditions brought forth that the Christ, prophets, apostles laid down or is more or less conforming to the world. We have eyes, we can see. By their fruits ye shall know them. I will choose to believe our Father/Christ over man.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?