The Fourth Article
On whether Mary was Ever-Virgin
I would say she is
Obj. 1, It would seem she is not, for Scripture says “And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:25) The language clearly indicates Joseph had relations with Mary afterward.
Obj. 2, Further, it would seem she is not, for Scripture says “…he and his mother and his brethren and his disciples…” (John 2:12) Clearly, they only would’ve been called brethren if they were brothers.
Obj. 3, Further, it would seem she is not, for her continuing virginity is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture. Therefore, she is not ever-virgin.
Obj. 4, Further, it would seem she is not, for there is no mention of her ever-virginity before the first three centuries of Christianity. Therefore, by this evidence of absence of belief, she is not ever-virgin.
On the contrary, it was said that Mary said “As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man.” (Protoevangelium of James, 120 AD)
I answer that, it would’ve been improper for Joseph to have relations with Mary, for she had been specially touched by the Holy Spirit in the manner Christ’s conception, and she had made apparent vows of chastity, as can be shown by her response to the angel’s statement “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son” (Luke 1:31) and her answer “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (Luke 1:34). It appears that the angel’s future tense, will, was in contradiction to Mary’s thoughts that she would remain a virgin.
Reply obj. 1, ‘Firstborn son’ is simply the title given to all first sons, even if they are the only son. This has precedence in Scripture; Exodus 13:2, 34:20. To be firstborn does not require a second born. The language with this proper understanding does not at all imply that Mary knew Joseph afterwards.
Reply obj. 2, There are several reasons why Jesus is not necessarily one of other brothers;
First, he is called ‘the’ son of Mary, not ‘a’ son. (Mark 6:3)
Second, it is said that his brethren reprimanded him (Luke 7:3-4), but for a younger brother to reprimand an older brother would be extremely rude.
Third, Jesus put his mother into John’s care, but not a brother’s (John 19:26-27). If Jesus had had brothers, this would’ve been an extremely rude thing for him to do.
Fourth, brethren is often used to mean kinsmen (Acts 1:12-15, 7:26, 11:1, 13:15, 15:3,23,32, 28:17, and various other references in Scripture).
Fifth, the Greek word used, adelphos, is used to mean cousins in Scripture, as well as anepsios. For instance, Lot is Abraham’s nephew (Genesis 11:26-28), yet he is called ‘brother,’ or, adelphos. (Genesis 13:8, 14:14)
Reply obj. 3, The necessity of something being explicitly stated in Scripture was already handled in Article 1.
Reply obj. 4, There was precedence of this belief before the 3rd century, as shown in my quote. Also, if Mary’s ever-virginity was a falsity, then how come it was never decried as such? The only people to ever say Mary wasn’t ever-virgin were heretics, and for reasons other than their views on Mary, so they can’t be trusted for orthodox doctrines in other respects, since their reasoning will inherently produce different conclusions.
…do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Notice that the angel did not say to take, “Mary your sister”, or “Mary your friend” but he says, “Mary your wife”
…and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.
The text is very clear – Joseph did not know her ’till’ she had brought forth Jesus.
If you simply read what the writer wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you can only come to one conclusion – that Mary and Joseph never had sexual relations until after the birth of Jesus.
The Holy Spirit could have easily directed the writer to record … and Joseph NEVER knew her. – but it is impossible for God to lie so the Holy Spirit inspired the text ….and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.
If Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, then Joseph disobeyed the angel for angel told him to take Mary as his wife, not his maid.
Did you read it?
See reply obj. 1. The writer was only following what was the literary and vernacular precedent. ‘Knew her not till’ is only saying Joseph didn’t know her until then; a work of eisegisis would have to be applied to show Joseph knew her afterwards. To be married to someone /= sexual intercourse, though it is the proper place for it. The two are separate, though oft related, acs.
Also, how do you know to be channeling the Holy Spirit? Can’t I make the same claim? Yet, we contradict each other, so clearly only one of us is telling true prophecy, which does not come of personal interpretation. (2 Peter 1:19-21)
Also, as to it being recorded in Scripture, see my first article on Mary.
Let me apply your same logic to a few more scriptures.
And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. [Mat 18:30]
So, even after the debt is paid, he remains in prison.
for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’ ” [Mat 23:39]
So, even after they say Blessed is He… they still will not seen Him.
And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”
So they will never taste death.
The fact is that the Bible does not teach that Mary remained a virgin. If this were at all important to the believer, God could not say that the word of God is able to make the believer “complete” for the scripture leaves out this important doctrine.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. [2 Tim 3:17]
Incorrect application. My logic extended to the condition of ‘knew her not till.’ It had nothing to do with the word ’till,’ but the phrase. (It appears you have debated this before)
As to your following Scripture, see my first article on Mary. Allow me to quote myself;
“Obj. 1, It would seem that Marian doctrines need to be stated in the Bible, for we know that Scripture is “inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)”
And my reply;
“Reply obj. 1, Knowing that Scripture is “inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) allows us to know that we may be equipped to understand much of Christian doctrine by the Scriptures, but it does not say that only the Scriptures can be inspired by God to help one understand truth and correct one’s doctrine.”
How in the world is ‘knew her not till’ different than, ‘not taste death till’ or, ‘see Me no more till’, or ‘threw him into prison till’? There is no reasonable reason to change your method of interpretation except for your paradigm of Catholicism. If you were to simply read the text, having never been persuaded or influenced by Catholicism, you would never come to the conclusion that Mary remained a virgin.
“…we may be equipped to understand much of Christian doctrine by the Scriptures”
No, the word complete means complete.
I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. [Jude 1:3]
There is no on-going revelation from God. The Christian faith was “once for all delivered to the saints”.
Why do you insist to change the plain meaning of the Word of God and twist it to mean whatever you want it to mean? Wouldn’t it be better to humble yourself before God and change your theology to match His word then to try to change His word to match your theology?
If I read tomorrow something in His word that I never saw or understood before that goes against what I believe, I don’t try to change it to match what my church teaches or what my mother taught me when I was young. Instead, I search the scriptures to see if these things are true.
These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. [Acts 17:11]
Jesus said, “you shall know the truth and the truth will make you free”, and, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”
I am sorry to say that you cannot trust man, including me, no matter how holy they may appear. But, you can trust God’s word.
The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever. [Psalm 119:60]
I challenge you to forget what others may have taught you, right or wrong. Erase it from your heart and mind and allow the Holy Spirit to write His word anew upon your heart.
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. [Rom 12:1,2]
Prayers to statues is not freedom, it is bondage. Ritual is not freedom, it is bondage. Can you honestly say that praying repeatedly over and over again the same words is what Jesus had in mind when He said, “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”?
What you have is dead religion. Jesus has more for you then you can imagine if you will trust Him at His word.
Having been where you are now for many years I can honestly say that you have nothing to loose and everything to gain.
Again, it has nothing to do with the word ’till,’ but the entire phrase. Other places where this word means the opposite than it seems to imply;
“And behold I am with you all days, even to the [finishing] of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)
But, Christ will certainly still be with us afterwards?
“And the child grew and was strengthened in spirit: and was in the deserts until the day of his manifestation to Israel.” (Luke 1:80)
But, Christ certainly returned to the desert during His tempting?
There are many other places where this meaning of the word ’till’ is used. You see, the Greek is ‘heos,’ which is in the past tense, not the present. So yet, if I were to read only the Scriptures, with their meanings made plain, then I should yet nowhere see any contradiction, but rather, concerting agreement that Mary is ever-virgin.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 is saying a man has what is complete to be thoroughly equipped for ever good work, nowhere does it say anything about teaching, truth, or doctrine, anything like that.
I know there is no ongoing revelation about God that must be accepted; it is called ‘general revelation.’ Very good!
That doesn’t mean there isn’t development of doctrine. ‘Development of doctrine is as the sharpening of the sword, not the adding unto it.’
Acts 17:11 is good to show that the life of Christ was tested by Jews against the prophecies in the existing Scripture of the time.
So, if I were to read something in God’s word that I did not understand, I would go to the Church, as Scripture plainly instructs;
“And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church: let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.” (Matthew 18:17)
“But if I tarry long: That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)
I know there is no hope for me to perfectly interpret Scripture alone;
“Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20)
Challenge done; this changes nothing. Read my about me; you realize I only recently decided to become Catholic?
I do not pray to statues, and I don’t know why you would even bring this up.
I do not go through with meaningless rituals, I don’t know why you would bring that up, either.
Repeated prayer helps quiet the mind for meditation; it is one form of prayer.
I do not know why you would say I have dead religion; I have Catholicism, which has existed with the same deposit of faith, unchanged, for 2,000 years.
Having been where I was (Baptist), I see that I have everything to gain.
From Scott Hahn: This verse seems to be often translated as “he knew her not until after…” This is not, however, what is meant. The Greek original, eos, indicates the true meaning, of “he had no sexual relations with her prior to her giving birth.” The Evangelist makes this statement in order to assure us that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. The term eos ou does not require the understanding that he had relations with her after Christ was born. It merely indicates that, as regards the birth of Jesus, Joseph had not had relations with Mary prior to the birth, thus, he was not the father of Jesus. This is merely a usual turn of phrase, the use of a standard and familiar form of expression. This same term and meaning is used elsewhere in the Bible as a standard expression, and it clearly does not indicate what the heterodox (non-Orthodox) claim it does. At 2 Samuel 6:23, for instance, we read, “And Milchal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until [eos] her death. Did she, then, have children after her death? Of course not!, and neither did Joseph “know” Mary after the birth of Jesus. At Genesis 8:7, we read that Noah “sent forth a raven; and it went forth and did not return till [eos] after the water had gone from off the face of the earth.” We know from Scripture that in fact, the raven never returned to the ark. It says that it did not return “until after,” but in fact, it never returned at all. The Scripture says that “Joseph knew her not till after…”, but in fact, he never “knew” her at all. In another example, the Bible says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until [eos] I make Thine enemies Thy footstool” (Mark 12:36). Does this mean that Christ will cease to sit at the right hand of the glory of the Father once His enemies have been overcome? Of course not! Hence, the Bible does not say that “Joseph knew her not until after she brought forth her first born, but then he did.” The Bible says, “He did not know her before (up until) she had brought forth her firstborn,” meaning simply and clearly, “Joseph was not the father. He had not come together with her before her pregnancy, thus he was not involved in the conception of Jesus.”
The Greek word used for the word “till” in 2 Samuel 6:23 and Genesis 8:7 is NOT the same Greek word used in Mat 1:25. The word used in Mat 1:25 (Joseph did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son…) is word # 2193 in the Strongs Greek dictionary but the word for “till” used in 2 Samuel 6:23 and Genesis 8:7 word # 5704 and is a completely different word. There is no way that Scott Hahn could have confused these words. He is not being honest with you. He is purposely deceiving you.
However, just one chapter later in Matt 2:13 we read, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word…” And again in Matt 2:15, “and (they were) there until the death of Herod…” The exact same Greek phase is used by the exact same author (Mathew) and it is clear that the condition of the situation changes. Joseph stayed in Egypt UNTIL the death of Herod. Joseph did not know Mary as His wife until the birth of Jesus. Same word, same meaning.
Concerning Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father, “until I make your enemies…” we read in Mat 24:30, “and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” In other words, Jesus will not forever “sit at the right hand of the Father”. He will return to earth and sit on the seat of David and rule the earth from Jerusalem. The reason this word is used here is because this condition will also change in the future when Jesus arises from His seat and returns to the earth.
Considering the fact that Scott Hahn is not being completely honest with you I would take anything else he says with a grain of salt.
It occurred to me after posting my last post that Scott Hahn may be referring to the Septuagint when pointing out the word used for the word “till”. I still maintain that Mathew uses the same word “till” only one chapter later to refer to Joseph fleeing into Egypt “until” the death of Herod.
I also maintain that Scott Hahn is not being completely honest. If he were being honest, he would not only point those occurrences where his theory is supported but also those places were it is not as in Mat: 2:13 and 2:15 as I have already shown.
So, how does this negate that the use of the word until does not necessarily mean a positive in the latter?
It does not negate the fact that the word can be used either way. So how do we know which is meant by the author? We know by the context. The context makes the meaning obvious. Joseph was in Egypt until… The meaning is obvious.
So, what is the context of the verse in question? Before we read, “Joseph did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son…” we read this:
After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. [Mat 1:18]
And, we read this:
…an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife… [Mat 1:20]
The context is, “before they came together” and, “Do not be afraid to take to you Mary as your wife”.
The purpose of the writer is to clearly state that Jesus was born of a virgin. But, in so doing, the writer also clearly states that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph came together as husband and wife. Again, the meaning is clear.
Also, consider the larger context of Mathew’s gospel.
Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses,* Simon, and Judas? [Mat 13:55]
The context does not at all necessarily imply that Joseph knew Mary afterwards.
On top of that, it is quite well proved that Jesus’ brothers were not biological. See obj. 2. Or do I need to even more defend the assertion that Mary was ever-virgin?
I contend that your assertion that Mary was ever-virgin is based on the teaching of men. Then, after receiving and believing that teaching from men, you approach the Bible with a pre-conceived idea of what the truth is.
However, if you had not first believed the teaching of men and simply read the text in the context, you would not dogmatically insist on this doctrine. You may say, “it is possible that Mary was ever virgin” but you would not absolutely state that she was based solely on the text alone.
In addition, the doctrine that Mary may have remained ever virgin does not change the fact that she was 100% human and was not without sin. It is clear from the Bible that Jesus is without sin, but the doctrine that Mary was without sin is 100% man-made. There is absolutely no basis for this doctrine in scripture. The fact that every generation calls her blessed does not mean that she was sinless; it means that she is blessed.
The idea that Jesus could not be sinless unless His mother was also sinless is circular reasoning. How then was Mary sinless unless both of her parents were also sinless? And so on and so on.
The main point of contention here is that of authority. Does the church have authority or does the word of God have authority? Was the church established to have authority over the word of God or was the word of God entrusted to the church to teach her and lead her in the truth? If we correctly answer this question, all other questions will also find there answer.
Russ . . . in the spirit of the TRUTH I share with you more. But these are all very old (hundreds of years) arguments.
Great point on authority but let me address your assertion that the teaching of Mary is from men’s teaching.
For nearly 2000 years the Catholic Church has taught that Mary was ever virgin. Let’s review some Catholic and ORIGINAL Protestants views.
1. The teaching of Helvidius and Jovinian: This doctrine is shared with the MODERN protestant view and was condemned as heretical by Saint Augustine of Hippo and Saint Jerome, which understands the references to the ‘brothers and sisters’ of Jesus Christ in the literal sense as biological children of Blessed Mary and Saint Joseph, and hence biological brothers and sisters of Jesus. This interpretation of Scripture was held to be entirely novel, and erroneous, by the Church of the fourth century.
2. The teaching of Saint Jerome: Saint Jerome, the biblical EXPERT thoroughly familiar with Jewish tradition and history, as well as Hebrew literary styles and forms, instructs that the references to Our Lord’s sisters and brothers are in truth references to blood relations of Our Lord, members of His extended family who are not biological children of Mary and Joseph. Hebrew terminology lacks a specific word for a cousin or more distant relation, and so the New Testament utilises the Greek word adelphos, ‘brother’, to describe a biological brother or a cousin, a relative in the family unit. Saint Jerome’s biblical exegesis takes into account the Hebraicism of the New Testament. Saint Jerome’s version is the view usually maintained in the Roman Catholic Church.
3. The teaching of Saint Epiphanius of Salamis: This venerated fourth-century monk and theologian of the Eastern Church asserts that the ancient tradition reveals the brothers and sisters of Jesus to be children of Saint Joseph sired by him in a previous marriage. Ancient Christian traditions describe Saint Joseph, the guardian and foster father of Our Lord, as a much older person than the Blessed Virgin, which explains his rather brief appearance in the Gospel narratives and his quick disappearance from the story of Our Lord and His Mother. Saint Epiphanius teaches that Saint Joseph married earlier in life and had children by his first wife, who later died. Saint Joseph was then called to marry the Blessed Virgin in order to protect her and her Divine Son. The brothers and sisters of Jesus are therefore held to be the step-brothers and step-sisters of Jesus, children of Saint Joseph but not of the Blessed Virgin. Saint Epiphanius’ doctrine is today generally held in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
More . . . soon.
. . . continued from previous post
4. The teaching of Martin Luther: ‘Christ, our Saviour, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.’ Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)
‘Christ was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him. I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.’ Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)
‘A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ.’ That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)
‘Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity. When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. This babble is without justification; he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.’ That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)
5. The teaching of John Calvin: ‘Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.’ Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562)
‘The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words; as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us. No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.’ (sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), / From Calvin’s Commentaries vol. I, p. 107)
Now that let’s look how the Catholic Church weighs in with her authority: The expression “ever virgin” was taken up by the Second Council of Constantinople (553), which affirms: the Word of God, “incarnate of the holy and glorious Mother of God and ever virgin Mary, was born of her” (DS 422). This doctrine is confirmed by two other Ecumenical Councils, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) (DS 801) and the Second Council of Lyons (1274) (DS 852).
Let me take a more pragmatic view. If in fact no man has seen the Father except the Son as we know that all the great Prophets that came before Jesus was shielded from ANY face to face conversation with the Father. With our limited understanding of the Trinity (which is a word and doctrine taught by the authority of the Catholic Church NOT spelled-out in the bible) we know that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons that form one God.
Better stated: There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).
So if the Father, who’s name is Holy, has not been face to face with any man since Adam & Eve, tell me how Holy Spirit, first, could enter a un-clean vessel of clay and impregnate a girl and the second person spend the next nine months in a woman’s womb, shared her blood and very probable her identical DNA? Justice alone would cause that woman to explode due to the original sin’s or other sin’s large or small.
Now from a different pragmatic and biblical view: Let’s look at the Ark of the Covenant. God’s design and preparation was critical, point by point, instructed to Moses to be made from only the best wood (acacia: dense, lightweight, naturally resistant to bugs infiltration) and gold was used to lien both the inside and outside with a solid top (Mercy seat). The Ark of the Covenant was for the purpose of storing three prefigures of Christ (the new Covenant). The Covenant and words for God (Ten Commandments), the staff of Aaron (Highest priest of the priestly clan) and the gold jar of Manna (collected daily and used to make the daily bread dished).
Now, let’s consider Mary. What did she have in her womb? How about the Word made flesh, true High Priest, the true Bread from heaven . . . Jesus was know as the New Covenant. So Mary is what? How about the name of New Ark of the Covenant? Where is that in the bible, you are asking? Where is the word Trinity in the bible? It’s a doctrine of the Catholic Church, which leads us back to the authority given to her by Christ.
Russ there comes a point in time that we must put away the books, PCs and our own ideas and simple ask God to send forth his spirit to show us the truth.
If Mary is the women that God made mention in genesis, how cunning do you think the devil would be to diminish her role in the Church? I say that she ranks number 2, right behind Jesus as the most despised human. It sounds like you a good Christian, but I would be carful and ask yourself who’s side you are supporting.
If, Jesus is true God and true man, he is the Son of both Mary and the Father. Let’s put the Justice aside for now: How could the Father let His beloved Son be born of a sinner?
What is the point? Honestly, it does not matter if Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. I believe that the Bible indicates that she had normal relations with her husband and that Jesus had half-brothers, but what does it really matter? If Mary did not remain a virgin it does not make her less blessed nor Jesus less of a Savior and if she did remain a virgin it does not make her more blessed nor Him more of a Savior.
Most important, if she did remain a virgin, it does not make her another savior or a co-redemptoress or another mediator between God and men. Such a teaching is blasphemous, 100% man-made, heretical and completely unscriptural.
I have no doubt, however, that you will take this teaching of men and then turn to the scriptures and attempt to find evidence for your position. And this is the problem. Instead of beginning with God’s word, you begin with man’s traditions as your point of reference. Why not begin with God’s word instead of man’s? For there is ONE mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Does the apostle Paul have no authority?
Nowhere in scripture are we ever instructed to pray to anyone but God. Nowhere in scripture are we ever instructed to make an image and bow before it – we are instructed against it. Not Paul nor James nor John, not Peter nor Mary ever prayed to anyone but God. Jesus said, “…pray to your Father in heaven…” The only way to insist that God is pleased with repetitious prayers to dead saints before lifeless images is to place the traditions of men above the plain teaching of the word of God.
You might say that the traditions of the church are on par with the Bible but it is not true for whenever the traditions of the church conflict with the plain teaching of the word of God, the traditions of men are held while the word of God is made of no effect.
One more point and I will stop – What is wrong with going directly to God in prayer as the Bible instructs all believers to do? Why in the world would you put anyone between yourself and the One who made you and who loves you and who gave Himself for you? Honestly, what have I lost by having a living personal relationship with the God of the universe that you have gained by placing someone else between yourself and Him?
Is Jesus not God? How could God spend 30+ years eating and drinking with tax collector and sinners? Jesus is God yet he appeared face to face with the sinner and murder Paul. Your argument, my heart breaks to say, sounds more and more like the argument of a Pharisee. The fact is that God loves sinners and is not ashamed to be called our brother.
Is Jesus not God? For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. [2 Cor 5:21]
And, God, including the God the Father, still indwells sinful man to this day.
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. [2 Cor 4:7]
If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. [John 14:23]
The ark of the covenant was a dead, lifeless box never to be prayed to not worshiped nor bowed before. The mystery of the New Covenant is that God dwels in sinful men, yet we do not pray to each other nor do we worship each other. That fact that Mary carried Jesus in her womb is no greater than that of the Spirit of God dwelling any sinful person. Jesus Himself said so when someone was blessing His mother instead of blessing Him. “Rather, blessed is he who hears the word of God and keeps it.” He did not say, “…who hears the traditions of men”, but, “who hears the word of God”.
Russ asks: Does the church have authority or does the word of God have authority? Was the church established to have authority over the word of God or was the word of God entrusted to the church to teach her and lead her in the truth? If we correctly answer this question, all other questions will also find there answer.
1 Timothy 3:15 “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of TRUTH.”
There was no bible at the time of Paul’s letters. But clearly, Paul supports the church as supporter of Christ’s authority.
Martin Luther’s commentary on John 16: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess the word of God, which we received from them. Otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”
Luther acknowledges that without the Catholic Church there is no bible. If this is true, then if a fallible Catholic Church, who canonized the bible, then the bible could also be in error. Therefore, there is no reason to believe in Sola Scriptura. A fallible cause can not produce an infallible effect. The church is the reason there is a canon because she wrote it. She defined its canon. The conclusion is obvious: If the church is fallible, then the scripture are fallible as well.
The canon of Old Testament Scripture is a sore issue between Catholics and Protestants. Catholic tradition holds that the Council of Rome in AD 382, under Pope Damasus I, and re-iterated by Pope Gelasius I at the end of the 5th century) put forth the canon of Scripture that was already supported by local synods held a few years prior. The Old Testament and New Testament books listed match the Catholic canon of Scripture which was not changed when it was dogmatically defined by the Council of Trent in 1546. Thus, the Bible as a whole was canonically accepted by the Church by the late 4th century, or possibly the late 5th century.
Of the 300 quotes in the New Testaments, about 250 of them are from the Septuagint. As I’m sure you knw, the Septuagint is basically the scripture that Jesus and the Apostles studied. Some will say that the deuterocanonical books are not quoted in the New Testament or by the early fathers of the church and therefore should be considered apocryphal.
If quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. This would include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament. Also, none of these books are quoted in the New Testament – therefore that’s not a good disputing point. But the 7 deuterocanonical books are quoted and referred to in the New Testament and some of the early Christian writers.
Without the Catholic Church there is no bible. If you don’t believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church there is no logical reason to accept the canonicity of the sacred scripture.
Now, to answer your question: The word of God trumps all. But what is the word of God? The word of God comes to us in both the Canon of scripture and the Traditions of the Church.
1 Corinthians 11:2 “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. ”
2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
Russ asked – What is wrong with going directly to God in prayer as the Bible instructs all believers to do?
Because that is how God set it all up. Praying to the saint for intercession is exactly how the bible suggests that we might pray. The saints are the body of Christ as we are. Russ, we are asked by God to have charity for each other, there is no greater form of charity than to love your brother. Col 1:9 “Therefore we also, from the day that we heard it, cease not to pray for them and to beg that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding”
Look at the way the prayers of the saints are offered up to God in Revelations: Rev 5:8 “And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.”
Jesus had many opportunities to turn away the people that asked for intersession but scripture NEVER records any such denial.
Matt. 8:8-13:‘The centurion said in reply, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed. For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come here,’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel 7 have I found such faith. I say to you, 8 many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom will be driven out into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” And Jesus said to the centurion, “You may go; as you have believed, let it be done for you.” And at that very hour (his) servant was healed.’
In fact, God encourages us to pray for each other: James 5:16”Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.”
We are created with other people to form the body of Christ; your exclusive “Pray only to Jesus” was not promoted by Jesus himself. We don’t live on islands.
Russ asks – Why in the world would you put anyone between yourself and the One who made you and who loves you and who gave Himself for you?
Seriously, Russ. You sound like a very nice Christian. I doubt that you, when asked to pray for a close friend or a loved one, would turn to them and said “pray for yourself, and get your own personal relationship.”
Russ asks – Honestly, what have I lost by having a living personal relationship with the God of the universe that you have gained by placing someone else between yourself and Him?
For one reason, you are joined to me in the body of Christ, assuming you are baptized with water in the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, and you could pray for me and me for you.
You going only to Jesus leaves me out of an opportunity for a very charitable act of prayer. Scripture, as seen above, shows God’s plans for the prayers of the saints on our behalf, prayers for others and Jesus listening and cooperating and answering the prayers.
I simply do not have time to address all of your post but I will address this:
Without the Catholic Church there is no bible. If you don’t believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church there is no logical reason to accept the canonicity of the sacred scripture.
Was Israel infallible? They also received the word of God but they were led into captivity in Babylon and crucified the Messiah. Being entrusted with the word of God does not prove infallibility. Consider these verses:
For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. [Acts 20:29]
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. [3 John 3:9]
And, to the Catholic Church in Laodicea Jesus writes, “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.”
God never tells us to trust His church. He tells us to trust His word. Consider these verses concerning the word of God:
Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. [Psalm 119:89]
The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever. [Psalm 119:160]
Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. [John 17:17]
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. [2 Tim 3:16, 17]
Praying to the saint for intercession is exactly how the bible suggests that we might pray…
The Bible does not suggest this – ever. Jesus taught us to pray to the Father. No one in the entire Bible ever prayed to anyone but God. Can you show me one person who prayed to anyone but God?
The apostles could have prayed to the Old Testament saints; David, Moses or Abraham, but they did not.
You are following the traditions of men rather than the truth that is plainly taught in God’s word.
Russ asks – Is Jesus not God? How could God spend 30+ years eating and drinking with tax collector and sinners?
During the transfigured of Christ, His glory was revealed by God in a vision and NOT in full Glory. Matt. 17:9 “Do not tell the vision to anyone until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” That alone tells us that God shielded us from His Glory as we would have been destroyed.
Yes, Jesus, in the form of the Eucharist and the Holy Spirit does come to dwell in us, only because of the sanctifying graces which were ransomed by Jesus for us for the Justice of God. There is no other way that Holy Spirit and Jesus can inter into these earthen clay vessels.
Russ points out – Jesus Himself said so when someone was blessing His mother instead of blessing Him. “Rather, blessed is he who hears the word of God and keeps it.” He did not say, “…who hears the traditions of men”, but, “who hears the word of God”.
It is clear that in Jesus’ time, many wished to accord His Mother special treatment or honour by virtue only of the fact that she was His Mother. The first century Jew was well ingrained with the wrong example by the Pharisees and Sadducees. Jesus refused to let His mother, his first and most perfect disciple, be reduced to a holy woman by virtue of her biological relationship with Christ. No rather, he pointed out again and again that the Mother of God is holy and worthy of veneration and emulation precisely because she “hears the word of God and acts on it”. Jesus does not want a biological relationship with us, He wants us to hear the word of God and observe it, to be true disciples, as Mary was and is.
Russ suggests – “That fact that Mary carried Jesus in her womb is no greater than that of the Spirit of God dwelling any sinful person.”
Luke 1:48 “For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.”
I don’t think God likes for anyone talking about His Mother, Bride and Daughter in this way.
I have not dishonored Mary. I have repeated called her blessed in my references to her. She is exactly what the Bible says she is, “blessed”.
However, Mary was a sinner just the same as you and I are. She no doubt sinned much less than I do, but she was a sinner just the same. Mary herself testifies to the fact that she is a sinner and needes salvation just as you and I do.
And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior…” [Luke 1:46, 47]
She clearly testifies that God is her Savior. Only a sinner needs a savior. If she were without sin she would have no need for salvation.
Russ says: The Bible does not suggest this – ever. Jesus taught us to pray to the Father. No one in the entire Bible ever prayed to anyone but God. Can you show me one person who prayed to anyone but God?
That’s like asking me to answer if my car is republican or democratic, the question is incorrect. If the question were: Paul’s True Child in Faith – could you please show me where in the bible is the scripture that shows how you can pray for the intersession of others –
I would answer – I already have.
Russ says – Most important, if she did remain a virgin, it does not make her another savior or a co-redemptoress or another mediator between God and men. Such a teaching is blasphemous, 100% man-made, heretical and completely unscriptural.
I have never, nor does the Church say that Mary is a savior or mediator between the FATHER. As far Mary the co-Redemptress, No Mary, there is NO Jesus. Mary had to say Yes in order for our Lord to be born.
I like this play on words: NO MARY, NO MARRY. KNOW MARY, KNOW MARRY. LOVE IT!!!
However, what is “man-made” the 500 year old false doctrine: Sola Scripta and not the 200 year old Church. This Sola Scripta concept is totally unbiblical. Show me anywhere in the bible that Sola Scripta is in the bible. PLEASE don’t show me the old stand-by: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. [2 Tim 3:16, 17]
This scripture just says NOTHING about isn’t the ONLY form of inspired canon.
Russ – And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior…” [Luke 1:46, 47]
She clearly testifies that God is her Savior. Only a sinner needs a savior. If she were without sin she would have no need for salvation.
Agree with some but not all of what you said: Mary needed Jesus, her savior but she had NO SIN.
The teaching of the Church “Immaculate Conception”: In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”
Paul’s True Child in Faith – CORRECTION – However, what is “man-made” the 500 year old false doctrine: Sola Scripta and not the 200 year old Church.
Should be 2000 (missed a number), sorry fast typing will do that.
The word of God comes to us in both the Canon of scripture and the Traditions of the Church…
The Bible teaches that the “faith” was delivered “once and for all” to the saints.
I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. [Jude 3]
There is no ongoing revelation. The faith that saves was delivered “once and for all” to the saints. Again, when your tradition contradicts the word of God, the word of God is made of no effect by your tradition.
“…in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”
There is none righteous, no, not one…
…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God… [Rom 3:10, 23]
Again, your tradition directly contradicts the word of God and makes the word of God of no effect.
This gospel message tells us that all have sinned and that salvation can ONLY be found in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ – says NOTHING about what I said.
“The word of God comes to us in both the Canon of scripture and the Traditions of the Church.”
The Holy Spirit reveals at His will and he reveals it to the Church on His design. Not man’s own understanding of scripture or time table. I’m sure your interpretation of scripture would be interesting for the Holy Spirit to learn, “hey Holy Spirit, no ongoing revelation is needed.”
God gave us the Catholic Church to discern scripture through the Holy Spirit. We can already see how many different churches differ from each other and if you ask them, they would say “We got the Holy Spirit and therefore our interpretation is right.” Come on Russ, that’s a tuff one even for you to believe. Last count, over 33,000 Protestant denominations.
2 Peter 1:20-21“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”
Peter warned us that there would be those of you that believe their own interpretation for your own destruction.
2 Peter 3:15-17 “And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant (unlearned) and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.”
Peter is referencing “these things” as the salvation Paul writes about. He is very concerned about how Paul’s writing of salvation will be misinterputed by the unlearned.
There is a huge difference between going to my brother or sister and asking them to pray for me then there is in asking a dead person to pray for me. The Bible forbids communicating with the dead for you do not know if you are truly communicating with Mary or with the devil when you attempt to communicate with a dead person. Communicating with the dead is forbidden in the Bible. Making and bowing before a lifeless image is forbidden in the Bible. Repeating over and over the same repetitions is not the way that Jesus taught us to pray. Again, it is tradition superseding the word of God and making the word of God of no effect.
Please show me anywhere in the Bible where anyone prayed to anyone but God. Saying that praying to the dead is the same as asking the living to pray is not a reasonable answer.
Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. [Col 2:18,19]
Praying to a dead saint is “intruding into those things which [you] have not seen”. It is dangerous. Rather, we are to hold fast to the Head, Jesus Christ. Can you honestly say that you are not intruding into things that you have not seen?
Jesus, who is from heaven and who has seen, has instructed me to pray to the Father, in His name and in the power of the Holy Spirit. Anything beyond this is presumption and is intruding into things that you know nothing about.
Russ – Why do you think God wanted, needed, desired, predestined (you pick whatever adjective best fits your own interpution) His mother to be a virgin?
Russ says – There is a huge difference between going to my brother or sister and asking them to pray for me then there is in asking a dead person to pray for me.
So your telling me that the saint’s in heaven are DEAD? Their more alive than you or I am.
Who’s prayers are the saints presenting to God?
Rev 5:8 “And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.”
There own? Why are they praying to God? What possible reason would they need to be praying? Mind you, their in HEAVEN. Let me answer for you, their praying for US because we are the Body of Christ. The Church Triumphant prayers for the Church Militant.
You say – I’m sure your interpretation of scripture would be interesting for the Holy Spirit to learn, “hey Holy Spirit, no ongoing revelation is needed.”
You are accusing God of being unable to communicate clearly to His people. To say that the Bible is not clear and understandable and that only the church can understand it is again, wrong tradition that makes the word of God of no effect.
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple… [Psalm 19:7]
God says His word is for the “simple” to make them wise. The church says that the simple can’t understand the word but must listen to the church instead. Whom should I believe, God or you?
Again, your traditions make the word of God of no effect.
“In addition, the doctrine that Mary may have remained ever virgin does not change the fact that she was 100% human and was not without sin. It is clear from the Bible that Jesus is without sin, but the doctrine that Mary was without sin is 100% man-made. There is absolutely no basis for this doctrine in scripture. The fact that every generation calls her blessed does not mean that she was sinless; it means that she is blessed.”
I would add that your plain outright denial of the possibility of it, from Scripture, is equally without basis in Scripture.
That is where we would seek out the teachings of the early Church Fathers, which are all unanimous on Mary being ever-virgin. So, then, the teaching from the time of the apostles being that Mary was ever-virgin, and explained by the early Church Fathers, it would be prudent to accept their judgment in a general sense; this general sense speaking to Mary’s ever-virginity.
And considering the rest of you point goes off topic, I find it unnecessary to reply.
The passage does not tell us who or what the saints are praying for, it only tells us that they are praying. Most likely they are praying that God will judge the earth and bring the current age to an end.
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” [Rev 6:10]
That has nothing to do with the fact that I am forbidden to call upon the dead in prayer. Jesus taught me to pray to the Father in spirit and in truth – Your tradition tells me to make a dead image of a dead saint and to call upon the dead in prayer. Which should I believe?
Of course the saints are alive in heaven but that does not mean that I have access to them nor does it mean that God desires me to pray to them.
You said – I would add that your plain outright denial of the possibility of it, from Scripture, is equally without basis in Scripture.
It is impossible that Mary was without sin according to the Bible as I have stated before,
There is none righteous, no, not one…
…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God… [Rom 3:10, 23]
If Mary were without sin, this scripture is a lie. Again, the traditions of the church make the word of God of no effect.
Luke 16:24-25 “And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’
Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. ”
Not only was there a prayer to your “so called” dead but Abraham responded.
Jesus also prayed for the dead and talked with the dead. But I’m sure even if I showed you this in scripture, you would find a reason, from your own interpution, to discount it, so I will stop here.
bryce1618 is correct, were off topic.
Russ said – If Mary were without sin, this scripture is a lie. Again, the traditions of the church make the word of God of no effect. and ref. Romans 3:23
First of all, Jesus fully God and He is fully human. As the Son of Man, Jesus is included as us in all ways except sin. To deny any part of the humanity of Jesus results in the denial of that part of our redemption. Secondly, while infants and young children are born with original sin the quote says that “all have sinned”. This than presumes an action resulting in a sin. Infants and small children would have to be an exception to this if taken literally because an infant does not have personal sin. Thirdly, Adam and Eve were without sin prior to their choice to sin. So for an undetermined time this quote could not apply to them s well.
We must realize that Paul emphasizes with the term “all” but God did make exceptions for Jesus, His mother Mary, baby’s in the womb, new born, infants and for a limited time Adam and Eve. There are so many typological supports for the understanding of Mary’s sinlessness. We cannot build a doctrine around one biblical verse.
All you have shown by referring to the rich man and Abraham is that the dead are conscious and able to communicate with each other. But the dead rich man was prohibited to go to his brothers. I am not permitted to communicate with the dead – nor are you.
Obviously, Jesus, being God, does not have sin and I will not argue your point about infants being excluded from “all have sinned” but Mary is not God nor was she an infant when she conceived Jesus in her womb.
For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all [points] tempted as we are, yet without sin. [Heb 4:15]
The Bible clearly states that Jesus has no sin so He is obviously excluded from “all” but Mary is not excluded anywhere in scripture. Therefore, if she is not excluded then, “all have sinned” is a lie.
You said – Peter warned us that there would be those of you that believe their own interpretation for your own destruction.
Peter also said, “as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby…” [1 Pet 2:2]
Who should grow by the word? Theologians? No, newborn babes in Christ.
You said – 2 Peter 1:20-21“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”
This verse has nothing to do with how to interpret scripture. It is a verse proclaiming that the Bible is God’s word and not man’s word. It proclaims that, “no scripture is a matter of personal interpretation” meaning that those who wrote it did not write from their own personal understanding but, “were moved by the Holy Spirit”. If you read the entire verse in context you will see that this is the case.
God wants us to understand His word and holds us accountable to it. In fact, Jesus often rebuked His disciples when they failed to understand His words.
How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?–but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. [Mat 16:11]
And Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they were unable to hear His word.
He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God. [John 8:47]
Russ – writes – It proclaims that, “no scripture is a matter of personal interpretation” meaning that those who wrote it did not write from their own personal understanding but, “were moved by the Holy Spirit”. If you read the entire verse in context you will see that this is the case.
“meaning that those who wrote it” As I have said, this is your interpretation. Which is the right interpretation, yours or the other 32,999 doctrins?
Russ wrote – This verse has nothing to do with how to interpret scripture. It is a verse proclaiming that the Bible is God’s word and not man’s word.
What are you talking about? There was no bible when this was written. Only the Hebrew Text and the Septuegent (greek translation of the Hebrew Text). 2 Peter 2:1-2 “There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.” The verses, read in context, follows 2 Peter 1:21
Were false prophets . . . point clearly to interpretation.
…who will introduce destructive heresy…
The adoration of statues clearly spoken against in the 10 commandments is not a destructive heresy? The calling upon the dead rather then calling upon the living God is not a destructive heresy? The repeating of vain repetitions before a dead image is not a destructive heresy?
Again, we come down to the question of authority. Does the word of God have authority over the church or do the traditions of the church have authority over the word of God?
You trust in the traditions of a church. Does not the Bible tell us to trust God’s word and not the traditions of men? Are the teachings of the Catholic Church infallible?
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. [3 John 1:9]
If the Catholic Church is infallible, why would they not receive the words of the apostle John less then 100 years after the birth of Jesus? We have not even entered the 2nd century and the church is rejecting the words of the apostle John.
Jesus writes to the Catholic Church in Thyatira, “I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.”
If the church is infallible, why is the church allowing Jezebel to teach?
And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. [1 Tim 2:12]
If Mary is a godly woman, and she is, would she not remain silent and have no authority in the church as the word of God teaches? Mary IS a godly woman and therefore it is not the voice of Mary that is speaking today through various apparitions.
For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. [2 Cor 11:14]
It is the voice of another that is seducing you to break the commandments by making idols and to bow down before them.
The Bible does not teach that the church is infallible. But the Bible DOES teach that the word of God is infallible, perfect, and eternal. “Heaven and earth will pass away but My word will never pass away.”
…it is impossible for God to lie… [Heb 6:18]
So the question is, which is more reliable, the words of the eternal God who cannot lie or the traditions of sinful men?
…let God be true but every man a liar. [Rom 3:4]
The fear of man brings a snare, But whoever trusts in the LORD shall be safe. [Pro 29:25]
I asked a question on the TOPIC. Why did God see fit to have Jesus born of a virgin?
The reason that I did not answer your question is that any answer I give is pure speculation and not based upon the word of God. If you have an answer based on the word of God, I would be very interested to hear it.
So I will speculate. Most likely, I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign to Israel that Jesus is the Messiah. Israel should have been looking for the promised Messiah and Mathew tells us that Jesus was born of virgin as fulfillment of prophecy:
So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” [Mat 1:21, 22]
“It is impossible that Mary was without sin according to the Bible as I have stated before.”
On-topic, at all? I am staying on topic, and your lack of ability to stay on topic clearly shows you are either not willing to discuss the point of my post, that Mary is ever-virgin, or that you simply cannot refute me.
If you would like to discuss Mary’s sin or sinlessness, there is another post I made about that specific point, you can bring it there if you would like my reply.
“…your plain outright denial of the possibility of it, from Scripture, is equally without basis in Scripture.”
I have not denied the possibility of this being the case. I previously wrote:
What is the point? Honestly, it does not matter if Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. I believe that the Bible indicates that she had normal relations with her husband and that Jesus had half-brothers, but what does it really matter? If Mary did not remain a virgin it does not make her less blessed nor Jesus less of a Savior and if she did remain a virgin it does not make her more blessed nor Him more of a Savior.
So, please tell me, why does it matter if Mary remained a virgin or not?
Well, if we want to get technical, the Bible indicates that celibacy is more blessed than marriage.
And why does it matter? It matters because that’s what the teaching has been since apostolic times. To claim she isn’t is to be in contradiction with all orthodox teachers of the faith up to more recent times.
There is also the matter of her having been a sanctified virgin. Mary married Joseph, for he was to be her protector or guardian.
Then there is the matter of her being a perfect role model for women to follow.
It also matters because her womb held Jesus, who is God. Who else could possibly reside in such a holy and sacred place?
bryce1618 – I asked the question of Russ “Why did God see fit to have Jesus born of a virgin?” to prove a point and he walked right into the point.
There are COUNTLESS references in the bible that is written about God’s love and desire for HOLYNESS, PURITY and DEVOTION to and for his daughter Zion, in other words Zion’s virginity. The Old Testament prefigures the New Testament; Matt. 5:17-18 Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”
Making this reasonable, logical and biblical tie between God chosen people and Mary (His chosen bride, mother and spouse) would not be a difficult jump for those who read the scripture with the Holy Spirit in their heart. I’m happy to report that now some Protestants Theologians are beginning and are in various stages of understaning more deeply Mary’s role in the Church.
But, for those that prescribe to the “unbiblical notion” of Sola Scriptoria, their argument hold NO bases of fact and have gone on to mislead many souls for nearly 500 years. Sola Scriptoria is a false man-made tradition that is a great heresy of the True Church which has its grips on Russ. As you have said very well in your other Sola Scriptoria blog subjects, there is nothing in scripture (oral or the bible) that says anything that proves or defines Sola Scriptoria.
I’m only grateful that the doctrine of the Blessed Holy Trinity was defined before they (Protestants) left the Catholic Church. As you should know, neither of the words nor the formulated concept of the “Trinity” nor “Triunity” appears in the Old Testament or New Testament, and the doctrine was developed in the second and third centuries.
Russ – I will no longer debate you on unbiblical notions of Sola Scriptoria. The Catholic Church has been given to all of us and you either see it and your pride keeps you from her doors or you are blind which gives me 2 possiblities reasons to pray for your soul. The Catholic Church holds all the Truths of the faith in both the “oral and written word”.
My biblical suggestion, go to Jesus and the Holy Spirit and ask Him what to do. Let Him lead you, mold you and hold you.
With all my heart and love for you, God bless you and your family – I will pray for you.
For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted–you may well put up with it! [2 Cor 11:2-4]
Should not the bride find her joy and her fulfillment in her husband? Should not the church find her satisfaction and her love in Christ? But rather than remaining the chaste virgin of Jesus, you find your fulfillment in another.
When the bride finds her love in another – in a woman rather than in her husband – is not such a relationship fornication of the worst kind? Is it not spiritual lesbianism?
…you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. [Rev 2:20-22]
Do not the commandments of God proclaim that God is jealous for you? “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God”. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.”
You are very concerned about the ever-virginity of Mary. You should be more concerned about your own spiritual fornication.
…those who commit adultery with her [Jesus will cast] into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.
So your entire point comes down to an ad hominen attack, and nothing to do with Mary virginity that is in question?
Nice. If you don’t mind, I’ll chalk this up as a win (and Paul’s too).
The Bible explains why you are not able to hear or understand or recieve the word of God.
The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
The work of men’s hands.
They have mouths, but they do not speak;
Eyes they have, but they do not see;
They have ears, but they do not hear;
Nor is there any breath in their mouths.
Those who make them are like them;
So is everyone who trusts in them. [Psalm 135]
And you further in your ad hominen.
Is there bonus points to be had?