Ash Wednesday

[ThatGirlAgain]

I have seen very few dirty faces in the street today. (Midtown Manhattan) The past couple of years there were more around here. Maybe the new Archbishop (Cardinal now!) is enforcing the "got to go to Mass to get ashes" rule. (I would not know.)

Any practicing Catholics out there? Did you get your ashes today? Does your Church require you to attend Mass to get them?

[jedicri]

I could relate to you more if you said Mary is the mother of the son of man (Jesus); but don't say she is the mother of the son of God or of God. There is nothing Scriptural about that or praying to Mary. Many Catholics look to Mary more than Christ for their salvation, because they see her as a mother and someone who might be more abounding in mercy.

Note that Elizabeth calls Mary the "mother of my Lord" Lk( 1:43). This is equivalent of the title "Mother of God" which the Church has formally given to Mary since the fifth century. Although Jesus has two nature --- human and divine --- He is one person, a divine person, and this person is God (see Lk 1:35). Because Mary is Jesus' mother, she is the Mother of God. Mothers give birth to persons, not natures. Moreover, the title "Mother of God," while rightly exalting Mary, more specifically points to the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I speak from experience as I was once Catholic; I have heard it with my own ears that Mary was considered to the the Queen of Heaven by Catholics. I haven't heard her being a goddess, but IMO, that's what she is if she is really god's mother.

Based on your original post, you make the claim that there are those that say she is a goddess and thus are engaged in idolatry.

Your opinion is fraught with error if that is the conclusion you draw from that line of reasoning. Not even the Bible makes that statement much less Catholics for that matter.

Just because we believe in the deity of Christ that doesn't mean we can refer to her as "Mother of God"

Yes we can as I have shown above. Care to refute it?

You quoted from Scriptures that's referring to the Church not Mary the Church is known as the bride of Christ. You are using inferences from verses to support your views. There is no explicit Scriptures to condone calling Mary mother of God! The Lord rebuke that in Jesus name!

Yes there is as ahown above. Here it is again: Note that Elizabeth calls Mary the "mother of my Lord" Lk ( 1:43). This is equivalent of the title "Mother of God." Who is Elizabeth's Lord?

If you believe in Jesus for the salvation of your soul and not in Mary, you do well. Mary cannot save your soul or redeem you in God's eyes. She had to come to Christ like the rest of us.

Mary intercedes for us just as Abraham interceded for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. She does not save or redeem us.

She didn't remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus Christ.

Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Joseph knew her like a man knows a woman.

You misunderstanding Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew her "not until")
Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

The Magi most certainly was not bowing to worship Mary or Joseph who were present at our Lord's birth. It was Jesus only Yeshua the Lord of lords. He has no mother partner nor does God the father have a mother or wife partner. Jesus is the word of God made flesh.

Based on what you wrote above, Jesus, who is God, was born of Mary; therefore Mary is the Mother of Jesus and thus the Mother of God.

Read the Scriptures carefully friend. You have as zeal, but not according to knowledge; "you err not knowing the Scriptures or the power thereof."

I have. I think you should apply your own advice to yourself.

Care to refute what I've posted above?

[jedicri]

I might like to add, since you quoted Luke 1:43, that you look a little further ahead for the proper context where Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
Notice that Mary is calling Jesus her savior and his servant. Mary would have to submit to Jesus' Lordship just like all kindred, nations and tongues. What was done to Mary was from God only. She was simply a chosen vessel.

Luke 1:47 - Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary's Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 - Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.

She will always be called blessed for it, but never worshipped as if she were deity and conceived without sin. It is written: "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God..." The only exception is Jesus (Yeshua). Sin and iniquity are passed down through the father's line never the mother's. Jesus Son of God was the only sinless person that ever existed since the world began for God is His father! This is the gospel meaning good news. Jesus saved Mary and us all that believe on His name: "For there is no other name given whereby we might be saved except for Jesus Christ"

Misunderstanding about Romans 3:23 ("All have sinned")
Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse "all have sinned" in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 - "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 - finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all ("pantes") have died, and in Christ all ("pantes") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all ("pantes") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says "many (not all) were made sinners." Paul uses "polloi," not "pantes." Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 - "there is none that does good" expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people "good."

Luke 18:19 - Jesus says, "No one is good but God alone." But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says "The good man out of his good treasure..." So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Mary is pure and sinless. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant
Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God's Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke's conspicuous comparison's between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the "woman" clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the "woman" that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary's offspring are those who keep God's commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary's offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

I notice that you called Mary the virgin Mother of God. First of all I hope I made a good case that God has no mother; for God always was and always will be. Next Mary was the virgin mother of our Lord. She had children after Jesus was born. So get "is a virgin" present tense out of your discussion.

No you do not make a good case for Scripture itself proves you incorrect: Mary is Mother of God, Mary is ever-virgin and thus had no other children after Jesus, as already addressed in prior post.

You are right Jesus didn't mention repetitous prayer, but he did say “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

When Jesus instructed His disciples not to "heap up empty phrases," He was focussing on the "vain," and not on the "repetition." In other words, Jesus was was referring to redundant babbling without thinking, or prayer that seeks the praise of men and not God (see Jn 12:43). This is because God judges our prayers by looking into our hearts, not necessarily at our words. Take for instance the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18: 10-14. Jesus said the tax collector was justified because of his sincerity and humilty, while the arrogant Pharisee was not.

however, when I used to pray "Holy Mary mother of God pray for our sinners now and at the hour of our death amen" This is an empty phrase that Jesus spoke of. I repented of it.

Mary is a powerful intercessor for us in Heaven. Note what Irenaeus writes of her:

"For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

I hope & pray you come to the knowledge of truth friend!
PBUY

I wish the same for you but that you return to the One, True Faith.

[Burninglight]

There is only one true catholic church. Those denominational tags people wear saying I am Catholic, I am Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, Episcopalian and etc. Those tags will fall off when and if they go to heaven, in hell they burn off. You say Mary is lowly compared to God, but how can she be if she is the Mother of God? Is a mother lowly compared to her child? Where in the Bible does it refer to Mary as "Mother of God?" I hear none of the apostles glorifying her.

How can you say Jesus had no brothers from Mary? I can not find Mary worship justified in Scripture. If she was sinless and Immaculate as you say, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul would have mentioned this. Not once do they give her praise or glory. Man has simply made an idol of Mary and that is sin. Protestant Christians know it and so do Muslims! Protestant means protest. They came out of the deception in the church. Again the Scriptures you give don't justify Mary worship. You are making very poor inferences that it does. This kind of stuff gives Christians a black eye. I want no part of it.

[ThatGirlAgain]

There is only one true catholic church. Those denominational tags people wear saying I am Catholic, I am Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, Episcopalian and etc. Those tags will fall off when and if they go to heaven, in hell they burn off. You say Mary is lowly compared to God, but how can she be if she is the Mother of God? Is a mother lowly compared to her child? Where in the Bible does it refer to Mary as "Mother of God?" I hear none of the apostles glorifying her.

How can you say Jesus had no brothers from Mary? I can not find Mary worship justified in Scripture. If she was sinless and Immaculate as you say, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul would have mentioned this. Not once do they give her praise or glory. Man has simply made an idol of Mary and that is sin. Protestant Christians know it and so do Muslims! Protestant means protest. They came out of the deception in the church. Again the Scriptures you give don't justify Mary worship. You are making very poor inferences that it does. This kind of stuff gives Christians a black eye. I want no part of it.

The idea of sola scriptura did not exist until the 16th century when Luther broke from the Catholic Church and needed some other basis for authority. The Catholic Church also draws on tradition and continued deepening of understanding as sources of knowledge. So do Protestants even though they claim to get everything from the Bible.

Holy tradition…is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.
…
The Catholic Church holds that the Faith continues to deepen and develop over time, and in our understanding of it, all the while staying the same; thus the doctrine of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the divine motherhood, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, along with other central Catholic Christian doctrines were not fully defined until many years after Christ had ascended and the Apostles had died, and that our understanding of them may continue to deepen, not only through mystical experience, but through the sciences of philosophy and theology, exemplified by the Scholastics, such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham of the High Middle Ages. A common metaphor used to explain this phenomenon is to think of a seed: over time, it grows into a tall oak, but its identity and essence is still the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_tra ... x_Churches

Without a deepening of understanding culminating in The Council of Constantinople, the full blown doctrine of the Trinity would be very hard to arrive at from just reading scripture. The idea of Original Sin as expressed by Augustine is not easy to get out of the Bible either, unless you have reason to look for it.


The bases of the Catholic beliefs about Mary, scriptural and traditional, are described here.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blesse ... _mary.html

[Burninglight]

I can't help thinking of poor Joseph. He married Mary to leave her a virgin? No man marry's to leave his wife a virgin that I know of. Even couples that can't have children have sex. Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born; let's call a spade a spade! Joseph had respect to wait until after her pregnancy to come in unto her. She was no virgin when he got done with her unless Joseph was a born a eunuch.

Look at these verses and tell me if you still think she remained virgin:


•Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
•Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
•Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
•Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
•John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
•Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
•1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
•Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."
"An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

•Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
•Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers."
Why do Catholics want to believe Mary was a virgin so badly? Is it so they can pray to her because they feel Jesus is not enough???????????????

[jedicri]

There is only one true catholic church. Those denominational tags people wear saying I am Catholic, I am Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, Episcopalian and etc. Those tags will fall off when and if they go to heaven, in hell they burn off. You say Mary is lowly compared to God, but how can she be if she is the Mother of God? Is a mother lowly compared to her child? Where in the Bible does it refer to Mary as "Mother of God?" I hear none of the apostles glorifying her.

How can you say Jesus had no brothers from Mary? I can not find Mary worship justified in Scripture. If she was sinless and Immaculate as you say, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul would have mentioned this. Not once do they give her praise or glory. Man has simply made an idol of Mary and that is sin. Protestant Christians know it and so do Muslims! Protestant means protest. They came out of the deception in the church. Again the Scriptures you give don't justify Mary worship. You are making very poor inferences that it does. This kind of stuff gives Christians a black eye. I want no part of it.

Relying on Scripture to prove this and that shows that you have no argument from the start. No where in Scripture does it say that all teachings must be found therein. The Apostles were given the mandate to preach the Good News; and they did so by speaking, ie, orally, not by referring to the NT which did not even exist as yet. Sola Scriptura is an error practiced by so may Christians that have separated themselves from the Catholic Church.

Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..� How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)

[ThatGirlAgain]

I can't help thinking of poor Joseph. He married Mary to leave her a virgin? No man marry's to leave his wife a virgin that I know of. Even couples that can't have children have sex. Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born; let's call a spade a spade! Joseph had respect to wait until after her pregnancy to come in unto her. She was no virgin when he got done with her unless Joseph was a born a eunuch.

Look at these verses and tell me if you still think she remained virgin:


•Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
•Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
•Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
•Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
•John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
•Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
•1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
•Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."
"An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

•Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
•Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers."
Why do Catholics want to believe Mary was a virgin so badly? Is it so they can pray to her because they feel Jesus is not enough???????????????

The Catholic response to the verses you cited is in the link I provided previously.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blesse ... _mary.html

The early belief in the virginity of Mary even after giving birth and much of the 'backstory' of Mary can be seen in non-canonical material such as The Infancy Gospel of James. See especially sections 19 and 20. This ties in with the Immaculate Conception of Mary in which Mary is held to have been exempted from Original Sin at the time of her Conception. Part of the punishment of Eve was to suffer the pain of childbirth. Exempting Mary from Original Sin right from the start leads therefore to the idea of a miraculous birth of Jesus.

Here is a painting by William Blake illustrating that idea.

[Burninglight]

I can't help thinking of poor Joseph. He married Mary to leave her a virgin? No man marry's to leave his wife a virgin that I know of. Even couples that can't have children have sex. Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born; let's call a spade a spade! Joseph had respect to wait until after her pregnancy to come in unto her. She was no virgin when he got done with her unless Joseph was a born a eunuch.

Look at these verses and tell me if you still think she remained virgin:


•Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
•Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
•Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
•Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
•John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
•Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
•1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
•Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."
"An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

•Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
•Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers."
Why do Catholics want to believe Mary was a virgin so badly? Is it so they can pray to her because they feel Jesus is not enough???????????????

The Catholic response to the verses you cited is in the link I provided previously.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blesse ... _mary.html

The early belief in the virginity of Mary even after giving birth and much of the 'backstory' of Mary can be seen in non-canonical material such as The Infancy Gospel of James. See especially sections 19 and 20. This ties in with the Immaculate Conception of Mary in which Mary is held to have been exempted from Original Sin at the time of her Conception. Part of the punishment of Eve was to suffer the pain of childbirth. Exempting Mary from Original Sin right from the start leads therefore to the idea of a miraculous birth of Jesus.

Here is a painting by William Blake illustrating that idea.

Thanks for your response. Are you Catholic? I look at that website link, and they use all inferences to support their view of Mary. Here is one such example: "Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother."

Moreover, the phrase 'the son of Mary" is mostly used by Muslims. They don't realize it, but it is a way of insulting Christ, because no prophet has ever been referred to as the son of their mother. It is insulting and demeaning. Even the context it is used in the Bible is in such a way that does not honor Jesus as even a prophet let alone the son of the living God.

IMO, using the argument the people didn't say "a son" and said "the son" is a grasping at straws to support an unscriptural claim. "The son" was used because he was the subject of the issue they had with him. If they said a son, that would mean they had issues with all Mary's sons.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I was raised Catholic but became a.... .... (read my usergroup list, OK?) by the age of 13. However I know the religion very well and can provide the standard answers plus I believe more than average insight. But actually defend it...not my thing, I am afraid. Maybe a real Catholic like jedicri may care to, assuming they have the time to spare.

[Burninglight]

I was raised Catholic but became a.... .... (read my usergroup list, OK?) by the age of 13. However I know the religion very well and can provide the standard answers plus I believe more than average insight. But actually defend it...not my thing, I am afraid. Maybe a real Catholic like jedicri may care to, assuming they have the time to spare.

What is a and where is the user group list?