Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Wrong Teaching About Mary
Options
Comments
-
Whilst recent comments on this thread have been interesting, the reason that I opened it in the first instance was to compare the Catholic Church's teaching on the subject solely with Scripture. The latter supports the view that Mary had normal sexual relations with Joseph. If they were never meant to have sexual relations, as some claim, then why did Matthew mentioned them at all in a Bible verse ? The views of Luther, Crammer, Wesley etc on the subject are irrelevant- these are just the views of men who lived hundreds of years ago and had no particular insight on this subject.0
-
-
I'll just leave this here...
Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate. I feel the need to say that again, 'Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate'......Our Lady was a tabernacle of sorts and this raises her up as such. A person who can pray for us on request like the prayer of the most righteous. This is a person God listens to. This is a person Most Holy.
...and so we should, ask her to pray for us!
Do you really believe that God chose to become incarnate in just any single lady, and not 'being God' didn't have a plan to chose a perfect vessel? At the perfect time? Of course the same place Our Lord became incarnate would inevitably have 'brothers' - because that's what the Holy does - not!
Jesus and Mary will always end up being under scrutiny from anybody who is examining their faith . It's sad when Christians scrutinize Mary and don't understand that both Jesus and Mary are tied intricately. Question one, and question the other. There is only one faith that never reduces Mary to mere right time and place. She's important. She is not God no...she cannot save no, but she is important, her 'yes' was probably the most important 'yes' ever. A fantastic woman.0 -
I'll just leave this here...
Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate. I feel the need to say that again, 'Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate'......Our Lady was a tabernacle of sorts and this raises her up as such. A person who can pray for us on request like the prayer of the most righteous. This is a person God listens to. This is a person Most Holy.
...and so we should, ask her to pray for us!
Do you really believe that God chose to become incarnate in just any single lady, and not 'being God' didn't have a plan to chose a perfect vessel? At the perfect time? Of course the same place Our Lord became incarnate would inevitably have 'brothers' - because that's what the Holy does - not!
Jesus and Mary will always end up being under scrutiny from anybody who is examining their faith . It's sad when Christians scrutinize Mary and don't understand that both Jesus and Mary are tied intricately. Question one, and question the other. There is only one faith that never reduces Mary to mere right time and place. She's important. She is not God no...she cannot save no, but she is important, her 'yes' was probably the most important 'yes' ever. A fantastic woman.
Good morning!
I watched the first 2 minutes of that, and I could already see numerous counterarguments to the video, that we've already been through here.
That aside, it's worth pointing out a number of things from your post:
1) The stuff about Mary being a tabernacle is extra Biblical. It also doesn't work with the idea that Jesus Himself is the temple that is with us from John chapter 4. Jesus is the temple here with us on earth, He provides us direct access to God anywhere, without the need of being in a physical temple on earth.
2) The idea of Mary or anyone else praying for us on request denotes a lack of faith that we have direct access to God the Father through Jesus Christ as a result of His death and resurrection. To quote what Jesus says about the privilege of prayer in John chapter 16:
That is a huge privilege that you're missing out on if you insist that you need Mary as a go-between to make your prayers better heard. I think we should ask God the Father and pray to Him in Jesus' name like the Bible tells us to do.John 16:26-28 ESVUK wrote:In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
3) The idea that Mary can't have children because she wouldn't be "holy" enough again isn't a Biblical idea. It's just that if we see the concept of Jesus having "brothers" or "sisters" the most logical conclusion is to take it at it's word.
4) As for the question do I think that God chose to be incarnate in just any single lady? Yes. I think He also chose to be born in a stable, which was lowly to say the least. God chooses very ordinary people to show His extraordinary power. The same could be said for Abraham and Sarah and the birth of Issac. If you claim that Mary was sinless or that God had a plan for her to be perfect, the only way you can satisfy a Protestant of that is by Biblical reference.
5) You're somehow interpreting questioning the Roman Catholic position with denegrating Mary. This isn't true. Most Protestants regard Mary as hugely important, and it's quite wrong to claim that we reduce her to a "time and a place", but to go to the extent of referring to her as the Queen of Heaven amongst other things is quite frankly where people find it ghastly, because it goes way way to far. It's more beautiful that Mary was an ordinary woman who submitted to God's command in bearing Jesus, than it is to elevate her nearly to the status of a demi-god.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
Totally agree with your final paragraph. Mary was blessed among women.
As to asking for her to pray for me?
Nah, Jesus told his disciples to pray "our father" not "hey Mary, put a word in for me"0 -
Advertisement
-
I'll just leave this here...
Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate. I feel the need to say that again, 'Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate'......Our Lady was a tabernacle of sorts and this raises her up as such. A person who can pray for us on request like the prayer of the most righteous. This is a person God listens to. This is a person Most Holy.
...and so we should, ask her to pray for us!
Do you really believe that God chose to become incarnate in just any single lady, and not 'being God' didn't have a plan to chose a perfect vessel? At the perfect time? Of course the same place Our Lord became incarnate would inevitably have 'brothers' - because that's what the Holy does - not!
Jesus and Mary will always end up being under scrutiny from anybody who is examining their faith . It's sad when Christians scrutinize Mary and don't understand that both Jesus and Mary are tied intricately. Question one, and question the other. There is only one faith that never reduces Mary to mere right time and place. She's important. She is not God no...she cannot save no, but she is important, her 'yes' was probably the most important 'yes' ever. A fantastic woman.
Excellent post.
It is subjects like these which iterate the importance of language, and people's ability to understand language.
This is the danger with various "versions" of the Bible.
The content of the Bible was settled long before 16th century. In the 16th century, heretics such as Martin Luther decided to create his own "bible" and as such Luther and all the various adherents lost their way and have done since.
In Catholicism, I'd urge that the Church return to the use of the Latin language. It is a language which contains far more precision than the English language.
To reiterate the point.
In Catholicism, the worship of God and God-alone is referred to as Latria.
Latria is translated in to English as Adoration. It is the highest form of worship and is reserved solely for God.
Dulia is the veneration of saints in Catholicism. Dulia translates as veneration in English.
Dulia and Latria are wholly different forms of worship.
There is an intermittent form of worship that sits between Dulia and Latria, this worship is called HyperDulia. In Catholicism, only Mary is subject to HyperDulia.
It is wholly correct that Mary is in receipt of this special veneration. It is God's will.0 -
-
Good evening!
A few questions:It is subjects like these which iterate the importance of language, and people's ability to understand language.
This is the danger with various "versions" of the Bible.
What version of the Bible teaches that Mary was perpetually a virgin?
How does Matthew 1:24-25 read in that translation?The content of the Bible was settled long before 16th century. In the 16th century, heretics such as Martin Luther decided to create his own "bible" and as such Luther and all the various adherents lost their way and have done since.
The Protestant Old Testament is the same as the Hebrew Bible canon in the first century. This is the canon that Jesus would have used and have been familiar with during His ministry. We see that in Luke 11:51 in his ordering of the prophets. From Abel to Zechariah.
Isn't that just Luther insisting on using the same canon as Jesus did? You can interpret that as creating his own Bible but wouldn't that be dishonest?In Catholicism, I'd urge that the Church return to the use of the Latin language. It is a language which contains far more precision than the English language.
So to clarify - a translation of Hebrew and Greek into Latin is better than a translation from Hebrew and Greek into English? Why?In Catholicism, the worship of God and God-alone is referred to as Latria.
Latria is translated in to English as Adoration. It is the highest form of worship and is reserved solely for God.
How does this help with finding a Biblical basis for this view of Mary? Why should we just take the Roman Catholic Church's word for it?Dulia is the veneration of saints in Catholicism. Dulia translates as veneration in English.
Doesn't Paul call all Christian believers saints in his letters?Dulia and Latria are wholly different forms of worship.
There is an intermittent form of worship that sits between Dulia and Latria, this worship is called HyperDulia. In Catholicism, only Mary is subject to HyperDulia.
It is wholly correct that Mary is in receipt of this special veneration. It is God's will.
This is all well and good but as I've asked previously why should I take the Roman Catholic Church's word on it?
How does this help with a Biblical basis for these doctrines?
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »but as I've asked previously why should I take the Roman Catholic Church's word on it?
Because you and your ilk took the word for it for the preceding 1,400 years.
That's why.
Good evening.:rolleyes:0 -
It is subjects like these which iterate the importance of language, and people's ability to understand language.
This is the danger with various "versions" of the Bible.
The content of the Bible was settled long before 16th century. In the 16th century, heretics such as Martin Luther decided to create his own "bible" and as such Luther and all the various adherents lost their way and have done since.
In Catholicism, I'd urge that the Church return to the use of the Latin language. It is a language which contains far more precision than the English language.
Might I point out a self-defeating issue here (one which has consequences for you beyond just language)
In placing your trust in another to correctly interpret God's word for you, you express faith in your own ability to discern their occupying a loftier position than you.
You might say "but these people have studied the language more than I". To which I say "so what?" If you decide the studying of a language a most important element in correct communing with God ... then that is a faith expression regarding your own discernment.
There is no escape: the ultimate authority of your faith is you, whether you decide to be a "heretic" and study/draw conclusions for yourself. Or whether you decide to receive wholesale, the study/conclusions of The Magisterium (a.k.a. someone else).
It is you doing the deciding in both cases.0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Might I point out a self-defeating issue here (one which has consequences for you beyond just language)
In placing your trust in another to correctly interpret God's word for you, you express faith in your own ability to discern their occupying a loftier position than you.
You might say "but these people have studied the language more than I". To which I say "so what?" If you decide the studying of a language a most important element in correct communing with God ... then that is a faith expression regarding your own discernment.
There is no escape: the ultimate authority of your faith is you, whether you decide to be a "heretic" and study/draw conclusions for yourself. Or whether you decide to receive wholesale, the study/conclusions of The Magisterium (a.k.a. someone else).
It is you doing the deciding in both cases.
Nope.
In Catholicism, one is required to accept the teaching of the Church. One is required to adhere to what the Church teaches.
Of course the choice to adhere remains with the individual.
The canon of the Bible was settled in the 4th century A.D.0 -
Nope.
This doesn't compute. You say you do precisely what I suppose you do. Yet you say nope?
Compare:
ME: "you decide to receive wholesale, the study/conclusions of The Magisterium (a.k.a. someone else)."
YOU: "In Catholicism, one is required to accept the teaching of the Church. One is required to adhere to what the Church teaches. Of course the choice to adhere remains with the individual.
The point is that you are the ultimate authority of your faith and where it is placed.The canon of the Bible was settled in the 4th century A.D.
Relevance (other than a person deciding the canon settled by folk something to which they will bow or otherwise)?0 -
kieranwaldron wrote: »When I went through the Bible for my other thread in this section of the site titled " Beware of false Christian theologies ", I could not help but notice that Mary has been misrepresented by the Catholic Church in their teachings about her. One of those teachings is that she remained a virgin all her life. This assertion contradicts Scripture. In the following paragraphs, I examine this using the NIV (New International Version) of the Bible in my references.
The first clue lies in what is said in the Bible after the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, as recorded in Matthew 1:25 as follows : " But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." The clear indication here is that he did consummate the marrage after Jesus was born, as the use of the word " until " implies.
The second clue is in the the birth of Jesus as recorded in Luke 2:7: " and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. " The word " firsborn " in the context used should be interpreted as " oldest child ", which strongly implies that she had other children. The very same biblical author in Luke 1:57 reported the birth of a sole child to Elizabeth and Zacharias as follows : " When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby, she gave birth to a son. " Note the word firstborn is not used in the verse as it relates to the birth of the only child the couple had.
To get the third piece of confirmation, I first need to set the context for the biblical quote. Jesus was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth with his mother, step-father, Joseph, and their family. Until about the age of 30 he remained in Nazareth in waiting for his ministry to begin. He then went away from his home town, got babtised by JohnThe Babtist and began his ministry commencing preaching and declaring himself the son of God etc. Susequently, when he returned to Nazareth to declare his new status, the Jews who lived there queried who he was as recorded in Matt 13: 55-56: "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things. ? "
It is clear from the above quotation that his former neighbours were trying to place him by reference to those who used to live around him- Joseph, Mary and their children. The reference to brothers and sisters are the sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph. The Greek words giving rise to the translations brothers and sisters were alelphos and adelphe respectively. If these were his cousins or relatives, as some have claimed, then Matthew would have used different Greek words more appropriate to that relationship.
During the ministry of Jesus, lasting a little over three years in duration, not all the children of Mary and Joseph supported his claim to be the Messiah, giving rise to the following verse in John 7:5 in the Bible : " For even his own brothers did not believe in him." The translation here for brothers is from the Greek word meaning blood-brothers, gining us the fourth confirmation that Jesus had siblings.
The last confirmation comes after Jesus had died on the cross. Whilst his siblings did not support him during his live ministry, at least one of them, James, had a change of heart after Jesus resurrection, and then went on to play a significant role in the early church. Consequently, we get the following quotation from Paul in Galatians 1:19 in relation to a trip to Jerusalem : " I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.". This is confirmation from Paul that Jesus had at least one brother.
On this subject Scripture is the only source of true information, and it reveals that Mary had children other than Jesus Christ thereby disepelling the myth that she remained a virgin all her life. The fact that Mary had children by her husband Joseph, and raised them alongside Jesus, enhances her reputation. Mary was therefore normal, and not abnormal as taught by the " ever-virgin" brigade.
The word "adelphos" is also used to describe the "...five hundred brothers and sisters..." that Jesus appeared to in I Cor 15:6. By your insistent stance that the inspired author could have chosen a different word, but didn't, to distinguish between blood-brothers and kin (cousins being called the same as blood-brothers is a common occurrence in Hindu/Indian, African languages, Spanish - I think - and the old Irish...), Mary, God bless her, had 500 babies after Jesus. Maybe we should re-dub her 'The never-Virgin Mary'? :eek:
(But even with so many brothers, why did Jesus give her to John? As a Jewish woman, she 'belonged' to her father, her husband or son. When her husband passed away, she passed to Jesus and then to another son...but...wait...)
Also, two of the four brothers you say are Jesus' blood-siblings are called the children of a different Mary in Mt 27. So, if scripture is the only true source of information on this subject, why does it contradict itself? And where does scripture say it is the only true source of information?
And lastly....being a virgin isn't abnormal; unless you consider Jesus to be abnormal? Or maybe He had kids too? Would love to hear your thoughts on that one.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Relevance (other than a person deciding the canon settled by folk something to which they will bow or otherwise)?
It's relevant because what constitutes the Bible was settled in the 4th century.
And deviation from what has already been settled is heresy.0 -
-
lazybones32 wrote: »The word "adelphos" is also used to describe the "...five hundred brothers and sisters..." that Jesus appeared to in I Cor 15:6. By your insistent stance that the inspired author could have chosen a different word, but didn't, to distinguish between blood-brothers and kin (cousins being called the same as blood-brothers is a common occurrence in Hindu/Indian, African languages, Spanish - I think - and the old Irish...), Mary, God bless her, had 500 babies after Jesus. Maybe we should re-dub her 'The never-Virgin Mary'? :eek:
(But even with so many brothers, why did Jesus give her to John? As a Jewish woman, she 'belonged' to her father, her husband or son. When her husband passed away, she passed to Jesus and then to another son...but...wait...)
Also, two of the four brothers you say are Jesus' blood-siblings are called the children of a different Mary in Mt 27. So, if scripture is the only true source of information on this subject, why does it contradict itself? And where does scripture say it is the only true source of information?
And lastly....being a virgin isn't abnormal; unless you consider Jesus to be abnormal? Or maybe He had kids too? Would love to hear your thoughts on that one.
I reply to your points as follows:
1. The NIV Bible translates 1 Corinthians 15:16 as " brothers and sisters " while the KJV translates it as " brethren". Clearly the last is the correct translation because of the context applicable. It seems in the Greek language they do not have a separate word, other than adelphos, for brethren.
2. The fact that Jesus gave the care of Mary to one of his apostles is irrelevant, as he may have other family considerations in his decision.
3.Matthew 27:56 does not disprove that Jesus had brothers and sisters; it means Mary, the wife of Zebedee, had two sons with similar names to two of Jesus Christ's four brothers.
4. Jesus Christ was abnormal (i.e. not normal) because God set it up that way. The Bible tells us that " all have sinned " but he never did; he did not marry because God just wanted a son and not a line of His progeny; and he performed miracles like raising people from the dead to prove that he had God-given qualities.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Relevance to the point being made to you, namely:
".. you are the ultimate authority of your faith and where it is placed."
That's not a point that I made.:o0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »The word "adelphos" is also used to describe the "...five hundred brothers and sisters..." that Jesus appeared to in I Cor 15:6. By your insistent stance that the inspired author could have chosen a different word, but didn't, to distinguish between blood-brothers and kin (cousins being called the same as blood-brothers is a common occurrence in Hindu/Indian, African languages, Spanish - I think - and the old Irish...), Mary, God bless her, had 500 babies after Jesus. Maybe we should re-dub her 'The never-Virgin Mary'? :eek:
(But even with so many brothers, why did Jesus give her to John? As a Jewish woman, she 'belonged' to her father, her husband or son. When her husband passed away, she passed to Jesus and then to another son...but...wait...)
Also, two of the four brothers you say are Jesus' blood-siblings are called the children of a different Mary in Mt 27. So, if scripture is the only true source of information on this subject, why does it contradict itself? And where does scripture say it is the only true source of information?
And lastly....being a virgin isn't abnormal; unless you consider Jesus to be abnormal? Or maybe He had kids too? Would love to hear your thoughts on that one.
Good morning!
Let's unpack this further.
Firstly - on 1 Corinthians you need to take some time on your bible handling. The first thing is context. In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul is referring to his brothers in the Christian church who are brought together by their heavenly Father. The passage in the gospel refers to Jesus' biological mother and "his brothers and sisters". Unlike the 1 Corinthians example it isn't referring to brothers in the church because it speaks of his siblings while referring to His mother. Your comment about Mary having 500 children is crude. We can regard these passages as referring to different things because the context is different. This is why I believe we need to spend more time in our Bibles to learn how to read them with God's help.
Secondly - there's potentially numerous explanations one could offer. Speculation isn't good though. The honest answer is we don't know. Jesus refers to two families in the Gospels. Our biological family and the truer more real family of believers. It's not illegitimate to give her to John, particularly if Mary had believed by then.
Thirdly - please make your point more clear on Matthew 27. Please quote the passage and explain what you mean.
Finally - being a virgin is not abnormal if you are single. It is weird if you're married. Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph didn't know Mary until Jesus was born. That implies that he did afterwards. So does having brothers and sisters.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
kieranwaldron wrote: »I reply to your points as follows:
1. The NIV Bible translates 1 Corinthians 15:16 as " brothers and sisters " while the KJV translates it as " brethren". Clearly the last is the correct translation because of the context applicable. It seems in the Greek language they do not have a separate word, other than adelphos, for brethren.
2. The fact that Jesus gave the care of Mary to one of his apostles is irrelevant, as he may have other family considerations in his decision.
3.Matthew 27:56 does not disprove that Jesus had brothers and sisters; it means Mary, the wife of Zebedee, had two sons with similar names to two of Jesus Christ's four brothers.
4. Jesus Christ was abnormal (i.e. not normal) because God set it up that way. The Bible tells us that " all have sinned " but he never did; he did not marry because God just wanted a son and not a line of His progeny; and he performed miracles like raising people from the dead to prove that he had God-given qualities.
I was away on holiday but now I'll reply to your points as follows:
1. The point was that adelphos doesn't specifically mean blood-brothers or siblings when used in the NT. Yet you insist, in your first post, that it does. It is the correct Greek word to describe a sibling but it doesn't only mean that.
2: It was relevant enough for the author to include it and God allowed it to become part of scripture, so it must have some value to us.
I already wrote that if Jesus had other brothers or sisters, the care of Mary would pass to them with the death of Jesus. Jesus, from the cross, gave John to Mary and gave Mary to John. If Mary had another son or daughter, they would be required to care for her, not John, regardless of other considerations. Scripture is littered with lists of duties and requirements toward parents and Jesus even reprimanded the scribes for allowing people to give gifts as a sacrifice to God when the gift should have been given to help the donors parents (This is corban).
3: Neither does it prove the point you are making. You are filling in gaps without biblical evidence. The only definitive relationship that scripture tells us exists between Mary and any child, is the relationship to Jesus as his Mother. It doesn't say she had other sons or daughters.
I haven't made a claim that Mary didn't have children. You made a claim that Mary had. I asked where the other children were when it was their time to fulfill their God-given duty towards their mother...and the best you can reply with is conjecture about other considerations?
4: Jesus was normal. True God, true Man. Scripture doesn't give personal details about the choices and decisions Jesus made, so it is not right for anyone to definitively say why he didn't marry.0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »I was away on holiday but now I'll reply to your points as follows:
1. The point was that adelphos doesn't specifically mean blood-brothers or siblings when used in the NT. Yet you insist, in your first post, that it does. It is the correct Greek word to describe a sibling but it doesn't only mean that.
2: It was relevant enough for the author to include it and God allowed it to become part of scripture, so it must have some value to us.
I already wrote that if Jesus had other brothers or sisters, the care of Mary would pass to them with the death of Jesus. Jesus, from the cross, gave John to Mary and gave Mary to John. If Mary had another son or daughter, they would be required to care for her, not John, regardless of other considerations. Scripture is littered with lists of duties and requirements toward parents and Jesus even reprimanded the scribes for allowing people to give gifts as a sacrifice to God when the gift should have been given to help the donors parents (This is corban).
3: Neither does it prove the point you are making. You are filling in gaps without biblical evidence. The only definitive relationship that scripture tells us exists between Mary and any child, is the relationship to Jesus as his Mother. It doesn't say she had other sons or daughters.
I haven't made a claim that Mary didn't have children. You made a claim that Mary had. I asked where the other children were when it was their time to fulfill their God-given duty towards their mother...and the best you can reply with is conjecture about other considerations?
4: Jesus was normal. True God, true Man. Scripture doesn't give personal details about the choices and decisions Jesus made, so it is not right for anyone to definitively say why he didn't marry.
I reply to your post in the order of your points as follows:
1. The word adelphos is used in the NT in all instances of blood brothers. However, a person has to be careful of it in certain instances because there isn't a separate Greek word for brethren. Corinthians 15:16 is an example of this where the correct translation of it is brethren (meaning "followers") because of the context used.
2.The fact that Jesus Christ gave the care of Mary from the cross to John is irrelevant to the topic under discussion on this thread, which is the perpetual virginity of Mary.
3. The assertion made by you in your post dated the 6.1.17 that two of the four brothers listed as Jesus siblings belonged to " the other Mary " is incorrect, as Matthew in the Bible is taking about two different sets of brothers in the applicable quotations.
4. Jesus Christ had two natures -that of man and God at the same time, which makes him abnormal because no other human being who ever lived had this.0 -
Advertisement
-
@ Kieran,
"The second clue is in the the birth of Jesus as recorded in Luke 2:7: " and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. " The word " firsborn " in the context used should be interpreted as " oldest child ", which strongly implies that she had other children.
Why do you interpret this as "stongly implying" Mary had other children? And if I could also ask as to why you use the word "should".
From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops they state the implication here is that First Born means Jesus has all the rights of a first born child.
" Firstborn son: the description of Jesus as firstborn son does not necessarily mean that Mary had other sons. It is a legal description indicating that Jesus possessed the rights and privileges of the firstborn son (Gn 27; Ex 13:2; Nm 3:12–13; 18:15–16; Dt 21:15–17)."
http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/2
The significance of First Born is more important in other cultures, in particular for inheritance purposes. Whereas in some other cultures all children have equal standing etc.0 -
Good evening!
Could someone please respond to my posts? I think the only way you can make brothers and sisters mean cousins is by adding lots of assumptions to the passage.
The simpler explanation in particular with Matthew 1:25 is that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth and had children later.
We don't need to worship Mary's womb in order to conclude that God used it to bring Jesus into the world.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Good evening!
Could someone please respond to my posts? I think the only way you can make brothers and sisters mean cousins is by adding lots of assumptions to the passage.
The simpler explanation in particular with Matthew 1:25 is that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth and had children later.
We don't need to worship Mary's womb in order to conclude that God used it to bring Jesus into the world.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria
You are generally in agreement with me on this subject.0 -
@ Kieran,
"The second clue is in the the birth of Jesus as recorded in Luke 2:7: " and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. " The word " firsborn " in the context used should be interpreted as " oldest child ", which strongly implies that she had other children.
Why do you interpret this as "stongly implying" Mary had other children? And if I could also ask as to why you use the word "should".
From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops they state the implication here is that First Born means Jesus has all the rights of a first born child.
" Firstborn son: the description of Jesus as firstborn son does not necessarily mean that Mary had other sons. It is a legal description indicating that Jesus possessed the rights and privileges of the firstborn son (Gn 27; Ex 13:2; Nm 3:12–13; 18:15–16; Dt 21:15–17)."
http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/2
The significance of First Born is more important in other cultures, in particular for inheritance purposes. Whereas in some other cultures all children have equal standing etc.
Catholic doctrine on any subject is enforced centrally from Rome, and therefore the views of a collection of Catholic bishops in the US on this subject is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
If Jesus Christ was Mary's only child, then there was no need at all to mention "firstborn" in the verse, as Luke didn't do in verse 1:57 relating to the birth of an only child to Elizabeth.0 -
Is there a doctrinal view from Rome which you feel is at odds with what the Bishops say?kieranwaldron wrote: »Catholic doctrine on any subject is enforced centrally from Rome, and therefore the views of a collection of Catholic bishops in the US on this subject is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
If Jesus Christ was Mary's only child, then there was no need at all to mention "firstborn" in the verse, as Luke didn't do in verse 1:57 relating to the birth of an only child to Elizabeth.0 -
-
Wouldn't that make their views relevant then?kieranwaldron wrote: »I am not aware of one; and there isn't likely to be one as the bishops task within the Catholic Church is to enforce doctrine worldwide which is centrally determined.0 -
-
But you said there job is to enforce doctrine worldwide, and that what they're saying is in line with the doctrinal view. Which surely makes it relevant?kieranwaldron wrote: »On the subject under review on this thread, that would make their view irrelevant as I am essential attacking the Catholic Church's doctrine emanating from Rime.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is there a doctrinal view from Rome which you feel is at odds with what the Bishops say?
Good afternoon!
I think the overarching point is that we should be always be willing to see the Bible afresh irrespective of what bishops or popes, or a particular church says about it.
God has made his Word available to the world through His Son. It isn't confined to how a particular church see it. That is simply their opinion as far as I see it. If there are sound reasons to see that Mary did have other children, then it matters little what a church happens to say about it.
This is the crux of the issue. We should be willing to hear God primarily through His Word in the Bible. God has given us the church through the Gospel. But the church is subject to God and His Word, it isn't Lord over it and how we understand it.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement