Defending the faith: A discussion of Catholic Doctrine

[JLB]

Your interpretation is that these brothers and sisters are Mary's children.

Since mother is used each time in the context, brother is plainly understood to mean son of my mother.

Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Luke 8:19-21


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


Then when we add the following verse, it is undeniable.


Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Matthew 1:24-25


Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.






JLB

 

[Mungo]

Yes. There is something called the natural verses unnatural readings of a text, and when "mother" is here combined with "brothers" in the same phrase, it suggests one of two things. Either:

1. Both were literal relatives of Jesus, or
2. Both were spiritual.

Since most - including most Catholics - are agreed that Luke was talking about the birth mother of Jesus in the flesh here, the natural reading (without any qualifiers present) assumes that any "brothers" referred to in this same phrase would be literal as well.

Certainly the term "brothers" was used in the spiritual sense in the NT, as well as the term "mothers" (Mark 10:29-31). But those who interpret Luke 8:19 to be talking about Mary are in the weaker position contextually by asserting that Jesus did not also have literal brothers in the flesh.

God bless,
Hidden

I agree that they are literal rather than spiritual. The important word you use is relative.
The issue is what is that relationship.

Walpole has shown that the words "brother" and "sister " have a wide range of possibilities in the culture of the time.
I also offer this:
According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17

Indeed even in today's culture there is a range of possibilities.
That there are different kinds of brothers (and sisters) - full blood brothers, half brothers, adoptive brothers. If a man and woman marry and both have children by a previous marriage they will be regarded as brothers and sisters even though they have no genetic relationship. The actual relationship of these “brothers” (& sisters) to Jesus cannot be established unless a genealogy is given, and it is not.

There is some positive indication in scripture that at least some of these brothers were not Mary's children.

Mark says that at the foot of the cross was “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome” This was obviously not Mary the mother of Jesus, so there is another Mary with sons called James and Joseph.

Matthew similarly says of the women at the foot of the cross “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 26:56)

Luke says that at the tomb were “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James” (Lk 24:10)

So there was another Mary whose children were named James, Joses (Joseph) and Salome.
Therefore it is likely that the James, Joseph and Salome described as brothers/sister of Jesus were the sons/daughter of a different Mary.
John writes “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.” (Jn 19:25). Now this could mean that Jesus’ mother’s sister was there (whatever is meant by “sister”) and Mary the wife of Clopas or they were the same person, but either way there were at least three Mary’s at the cross – Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdalene. Now Mary the mother of James and Joseph could have been a fourth or she could have been Mary wife of Clopas. Either way Mary the mother of Jesus was not the mother of James and Joseph mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. And since they were listed first, neither was Simon and Judas, since if the were they would hardly have been listed after non-brothers.

The Church historian Eusebius quoting from Hegesippus (110-180 AD) writes
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

So Symeon (Simeon, Simon) was the cousin of Jesus, and Mary Clopas was therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus. Again note the loose use of relationships. Mary Clopas is referred to as Mary’s “sister” in Jn 19:25 when she is actually her sister-in-law.

In the book of Jude he says “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1) So Jude (or Judas) is probably the brother of James the son of Clopas.

Then also Luke when listing the apostles says James, son of Alpheus. But the Aramaic Alpheus can be rendered in Greek as either Alpheus or Clopas. So again James, the “brother” of the Lord is probably the son of Clopas.

 

[Mungo]

Since mother is used each time in the context, brother is plainly understood to mean son of my mother.

Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Luke 8:19-21


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


Then when we add the following verse, it is undeniable.


Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Matthew 1:24-25


Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.






JLB

See my reply to Hidden In Him just above.

 

[Hidden In Him]

1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17

Well, I read through it Mungo, and I appreciate the in-depth response. My opinion is that your eight options here still boil down to literal or spiritual in one way or another, and I think my argument therefore still holds under the circumstances.

But not something I'm personally invested in. Just posting my own thoughts on the matter is all.

God bless,
Hidden

 

[Mungo]

Mary the Mother of God
It is worth pointing out at the start that this title is not peculiar to Catholicism. The Orthodox also believe this, as do Anglicans (and therefore probably Episcopalians) and Lutherans.

"The Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos) since according to the flesh she brought forth the Word of God made flesh" (Council of Ephesus, 431 AD)

“What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 487)

Let us therefore start with Jesus. The early centuries of Christianity were marked by controversies over the nature of Jesus Christ. Was he God? Was he man? Was he born human and became God?

The definition of Mary as Theotokos (literally “God bearer”) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 was made in response to a fifth century heresy called Nestorianism which said that Mary did not carry God but only carried Christ’s human nature in her womb.

Nestorians claimed that Mary did not give birth to a unified person but tried to separate Jesus’ human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate persons, one human and one divine in a loose affiliation.

But a woman carries a person in her womb, not just a human nature. Mary carried, and gave birth to, the person of Jesus Christ, and that person was God, the second person of the Trinity.

This does not mean Mary is older than God, or that she is the source of her Son’s divinity. She is the Mother of God in that she carried in her womb, and gave birth to, a divine person – Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh”

The definition of Ephesus was not to glorify Mary but to affirm that Jesus’ two natures – divine and human were united in one divine person.

If we do not accept that what Jesus did and experienced in his humanity was experienced by God (the Son) then we cannot say that God died on the cross and we are not redeemed; we cannot say that God shed his blood for us and our sins are not forgiven.

The logic is:
Jesus is God
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Therefore Mary is the mother of God

Scripture Summary

Jesus is God
Jesus Christ is the Word, the second person of the Trinity.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Jn 1:1)

Mary is the mother of Jesus
He assumed human nature (came in the flesh)
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14)

Where did the Word become flesh? In the womb of Mary
“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” (Lk 1:31).

“God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Gal 4:4).

Mary was the mother of that son. The Word that became flesh, the second Person of the Trinity in human form, though still divine.

“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” (Phil 2:6-8)

Therefore Mary is the mother of God

In Lk 1:43 Elizabeth says (while “filled with the Holy Spirit”) And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kuriou) should come to me? Several times in chapter 1 Luke uses kurios for God (indeed Mary herself does in verse 38). So Elizabeth calling Mary The mother of my Lord is calling her the mother of my God.

Early Christian witness

The early Church Fathers recognised Mary as the Mother of God. Here are a few quotes from them:

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Iranaeus - Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Hippolytus - Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Gregory the Wonderworker Four Homilies 1; 262 AD).

"(Those engaged in the public transport service) came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (Peter of Alexandria The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria; 305 AD).

"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Methodius Oration on Simeon and Anna 7; 305 AD).

"We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Alexander of Alexandria Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12; 324 AD).

"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 10:19; 350 AD).

"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Ephraim the Syrian Songs of Praise 1:20; 351 AD).

"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (Athanasius The Incarnation of the Word of God 8; 365 AD).

"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (Epiphanius of Salamis The Man Well-Anchored 75; 374 AD).

"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (Ambrose of Milan The Virgins 2:2[7]; 377 AD).

This Virgin became a Mother while preserving her virginity;
And though still a Virgin she carried a Child in her womb;
And the handmaid and work of His Wisdom
became the Mother of God
(St Ephraim, Songs of Praise, 1, 20; c. 381 AD)

"If anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Gregory of Nazianz Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101; 382 AD).

 

[Mungo]

Assumption of Mary

There is a precedent for the taking up from this earth of the body and soul of a person in Enoch and Elijah. Also we are told that after Jesus’ death:
"tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many". (Mt 27:52-53)

We are not told what happened to these saints, whether they lived normal lives, died and were buried again, or whether they too were assumed into heaven. There is an early tradition that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into a temporary state often called “paradise”.

It would be fitting for Mary to be assumed into heaven similarly on account of her freedom from sin, her perpetual virginity, her being the mother of God and her particular place in the plan of salvation.

The early Christians gave homage to dead saints, and their relics of saints were especially prized. Even the bones of the martyrs in the Coliseum were collected and preserved. Yet there is no record of Mary’s body being claimed by anyone. She is believed to have ended her life in Jerusalem or Ephesus but neither of those places has ever claimed her remains.

One more point. We believe Mary is the ark of the New Covenant. Because the original ark was so precious, it was made of incorruptible wood.
“Arise, Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark.” (Psalm 132:8)
As the living ark of the New Covenant, Mary is majestic and it is fitting that she is incorruptible too.

Mary is a witness for us that we too will, one day, be in heaven body and soul.

Early Christian Witness - taken verbatim from www.maryimmaculate.tripod.com/

That early Christian believed in Mary's Assumption is proven in the lack of her relics, empty tombs, the existence of Transitus Mariae stories, and quotes from early Christians.

The early Christians were very careful to keep the relics of saints and martyrs, even if it involved great risk (like trying to retrieve the remains of those who were eaten by lions). They did this out of great reverence for the body as a member of Christ and temple of the Holy Spirit (see I Corinthians 6:15, 19).

Because Christians took care of the remains of the saints, we know where the bones of Saint Peter, Mary Magdalene and many other New Testament believers are buried. But where are the remains of the Virgin Mary? There is no record of anyone ever claiming to possess the body of the Mother of Jesus.

This would have been the most prized relic of all; the mortal remains of the Savior's closest blood relative, the very same body which had carried God Incarnate for nine months and nursed and cared for Him afterward! Yet in all of Church history, both biblical and extra-biblical, there is no record of its whereabouts, and the two tombs which are variously said to be Mary's are both empty (see discussion on "Two Tombs" below).

Though no one ever claimed to possess Mary's relics, it seems that early Christians did in fact know the whereabouts of Mary's body! St. John Damascene, a Church Father, relates an interesting historical fact in this regard:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

The early Christians actually knew that something unusual and miraculous had happened to Mary's body soon after her death. This would explain why no one ever possess her mortal remains; her body is not on earth, but in heaven, glorified and united to her soul!

Early Christians expressed their belief in Mary's Assumption by writing various legendary accounts of the event to edify the faithful. These Transitus Mariae stories (as scholars call them) are pious fiction; neither inspired nor part of the Bible. Yet they are still valuable, for they attest to the fact that the Assumption was a widespread belief in the Church. Early Christians knew that God had raptured Mary into heaven, so they wrote various stories describing how it occurred.

Scholars possess numerous compies of the Transitus Mariae legends in various languages, including Syriac, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Coptic and Ethiopian. These were the major languages spoken by Christians at that time! Since these manuscripts date back to the fourth and fifth centuries, it is clear that belief in Mary's Assumption was widespread by then. This would in turn indicate that the belief originated at a much earlier date. Indeed, some scholars date one Syrian manuscript back to the third century - the 200's!

The early Church Fathers were very zealous for the faith. They strenuously fought all new heresies which threatened the Faith delivered to the Apostles. If the Assumption of Mary were a novel belief at the time, we would expect to find Christian writers of the third to fifth centuries condemning it as a newfangled heresy. Yet none do! Nowhere in the writings of the early Church Fathers do we find the slightest condemnation of this doctrine.

In fact, many Chuch Fathers positively teach the Assumption of Mary, as seen in the following quotes:

"If therefore it might come to pass before the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death does reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your mother and take her with you, rejoicing into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: 'Be it done according to your will" (Pseudo-Melito The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17; 300 AD).

"Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption" (Timothy of Jerusalem Homily on Simeon and Anna; 400 AD).

"And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise" (John the Theologian, The Falling Asleep of Mary; 400 AD)

"The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoinedd to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..." (Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4; 575-593 A.D.)

"As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him." (Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306, before A.D. 634)

"It was fitting...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinized, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God." (Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption; before 650 A.D.)

 

[Mungo]

Mary's Sinlessness

Salvation is not just being raised up from sin. It is being raised up to glory to share the in life of God, to an intimate union with God.

“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.” (2Pet 1:3-4).

This is a gift from God - grace, the grace that only Jesus can give.

“Be holy because I am holy”.
How holy is God? – 100%

“Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect”
How perfect is our heavenly Father? – 100%

We must be 100% holy and perfect without even the slightest hint of a shadow of a spot or wrinkle if we are to be united with an all holy God. Pretence (covering up) will not do. We must be totally purified, full of grace.

When Gabriel greeted Mary he said Chaire Ketcharitome, which is often badly translated as Hail, favoured one.
Kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle of the Greek charitoo. It means endowed with grace. The Greek perfect tense denotes something which took place in the past and continues in the present.

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, (University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166; H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge Harvard University Press, 1968, sect 1852:b. - citation from Dave Armstong's A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, p178))

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“chaire kecharitomene”

“chaire” - Means "hail” or “rejoice”

"charis" – Means “grace”

"charitoo" – Greek verb ending in omicron omega (“oo”) means to put the person or thing into the state indicated by the root. The root being "charis" or “grace,” "charitoo" means “to put into a state of "grace.”

"ke" – Greek perfect tense prefix indicates a perfected, completed present state as a result of past action. Thus, a perfected, completed present state of "charis," or “grace,” as a result of past action.

"mene" – Greek passive participle suffix indicates action performed on subject by another. Thus, a perfected, completed present state of "charis," or “grace,” as a result of the past action of another. As the speaker is the angel Gabriel, the "other" is God.

Therefore, "chaire kecharitomene" means: “Hail, who has been perfectly and completely graced by God.” The common Catholic rendering, "full of grace," while good, may actually fall short!

See: http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=288189

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mary was completely, perfectly, enduringly filled with grace from the moment of her conception. She was not just saved from the effects of original sin but was made fit for an intimate union with God, both in this life (she carried God in her womb) and in the life to come.

She was totally holy as a fitting mother for Jesus. Why would God allow his only Son to be born by a fallen sinful woman when he could fill her with grace to be holy and pure?

As Job said “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.” (Job 14:4).

As Mary herself said “he who is mighty has done great things for me” (Lk 1:49)

The original ark of the Covenant was made from incorruptible wood and covered inside and out with pure gold, yet the shenikar cloud only rested on the ark not inside as God dwelt in Mary’s womb. Thus the anti-type was incorruptable.

Moreover Jude says: ¬"Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever." (Jude 24-25) Why would Jesus not keep his mother from falling and to present her without blemish before the presence of his glory?

"Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin" (Ambrose of Milan, Commentary on Psalm 118 22::30; c. 387 AD).

"Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins--for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?--so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?" (St. Augustine Nature and Grace 36:45, c. 415 AD).

I honour my Queen who was greatly honoured by her son and sits at his right hand; the Son who is the “King of kings and Lord of lords”, who himself sits on the throne of David and whose kingdom has no end.

You can believe this or not. You can honour Mary or not. It's your choice.

 

[JLB]

See my reply to Hidden In Him just above.

Please address these scriptures and explain why you believe that
“His mother” and “His brothers” and “His sisters” does not refer to His family that was born from His mother?


Since mother is used each time in the context, brother is plainly understood to mean son of my mother.

Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Luke 8:19-21


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


Then when we add the following verse, it is undeniable.


Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Matthew 1:24-25


Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.



JLB

 

[Mungo]

Please address these scriptures and explain why you believe that
“His mother” and “His brothers” and “His sisters” does not refer to His family that was born from His mother?


Since mother is used each time in the context, brother is plainly understood to mean son of my mother.

Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Luke 8:19-21


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


Then when we add the following verse, it is undeniable.


Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Matthew 1:24-25


Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.



JLB

Walpole has shown that the words "brother" and "sister " have a wide range of possibilities in the culture of the time.
I also offer this:
According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17

Indeed even in today's culture there is a range of possibilities.
That there are different kinds of brothers (and sisters) - full blood brothers, half brothers, adoptive brothers. If a man and woman marry and both have children by a previous marriage they will be regarded as brothers and sisters even though they have no genetic relationship. The actual relationship of these “brothers” (& sisters) to Jesus cannot be established unless a genealogy is given, and it is not.

There is some positive indication in scripture that at least some of these brothers were not Mary's children.

Mark says that at the foot of the cross was “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome” This was obviously not Mary the mother of Jesus, so there is another Mary with sons called James and Joseph.

Matthew similarly says of the women at the foot of the cross “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 26:56)

Luke says that at the tomb were “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James” (Lk 24:10)

So there was another Mary whose children were named James, Joses (Joseph) and Salome.
Therefore it is likely that the James, Joseph and Salome described as brothers/sister of Jesus were the sons/daughter of a different Mary.
John writes “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.” (Jn 19:25). Now this could mean that Jesus’ mother’s sister was there (whatever is meant by “sister”) and Mary the wife of Clopas or they were the same person, but either way there were at least three Mary’s at the cross – Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdalene. Now Mary the mother of James and Joseph could have been a fourth or she could have been Mary wife of Clopas. Either way Mary the mother of Jesus was not the mother of James and Joseph mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. And since they were listed first, neither was Simon and Judas, since if the were they would hardly have been listed after non-brothers.

 

[JLB]

Walpole has shown that the words "brother" and "sister " have a wide range of possibilities in the culture of the time.
I also offer this:
According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17

Indeed even in today's culture there is a range of possibilities.
That there are different kinds of brothers (and sisters) - full blood brothers, half brothers, adoptive brothers. If a man and woman marry and both have children by a previous marriage they will be regarded as brothers and sisters even though they have no genetic relationship. The actual relationship of these “brothers” (& sisters) to Jesus cannot be established unless a genealogy is given, and it is not.

There is some positive indication in scripture that at least some of these brothers were not Mary's children.

Mark says that at the foot of the cross was “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome” This was obviously not Mary the mother of Jesus, so there is another Mary with sons called James and Joseph.

Matthew similarly says of the women at the foot of the cross “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 26:56)

Luke says that at the tomb were “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James” (Lk 24:10)

So there was another Mary whose children were named James, Joses (Joseph) and Salome.
Therefore it is likely that the James, Joseph and Salome described as brothers/sister of Jesus were the sons/daughter of a different Mary.
John writes “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.” (Jn 19:25). Now this could mean that Jesus’ mother’s sister was there (whatever is meant by “sister”) and Mary the wife of Clopas or they were the same person, but either way there were at least three Mary’s at the cross – Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdalene. Now Mary the mother of James and Joseph could have been a fourth or she could have been Mary wife of Clopas. Either way Mary the mother of Jesus was not the mother of James and Joseph mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. And since they were listed first, neither was Simon and Judas, since if the were they would hardly have been listed after non-brothers.

Who does mother refer to in the context of this passage?

It refers to Mary His mother.


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


Good sound exegesis requires we remain with the contextual flow of mother, meaning natural birth mother of Jesus, Mary into the rest of verse where we see brothers and sisters.

We can only conclude if mother refers to natural birth mother which is Mary, that brothers and sisters refer to Mary’s natural offspring.

To lift the foundational meaning out of it’s context and try to twist the natural meaning of brothers and sisters to mean distant relatives is a gross distortion of the plain and clear meaning of the context and text.


Then when we add the following verse, it strengthens the position.


Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Matthew 1:24-25


Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.





JLB

 

[Mungo]

Who does mother refer to in the context of this passage?

It refers to Mary His mother.


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


Good sound exegesis requires we remain with the contextual flow of mother, meaning natural birth mother of Jesus, Mary into the rest of verse where we see brothers and sisters.

There is no reason to assume that.

We can only conclude if mother refers to natural birth mother which is Mary, that brothers and sisters refer to Mary’s natural offspring.

There is no reason to assume that given the wide possibilities in the culture. You would wish it to be so but your wishes are not reality.

To lift the foundational meaning out of it’s context and try to twist the natural meaning of brothers and sisters to mean distant relatives is a gross distortion of the plain and clear meaning of the context and text.

No it isn't
Even in today's culture there is a range of possibilities.
That there are different kinds of brothers (and sisters) - full blood brothers, half brothers, adoptive brothers. If a man and woman marry and both have children by a previous marriage they will be regarded as brothers and sisters even though they have no genetic relationship. The actual relationship of these “brothers” (& sisters) to Jesus cannot be established unless a genealogy is given, and it is not.

There is some positive indication in scripture that at least some of these brothers were not Mary's children.

Mark says that at the foot of the cross was “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome” This was obviously not Mary the mother of Jesus, so there is another Mary with sons called James and Joseph.

Matthew similarly says of the women at the foot of the cross “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 26:56)

Luke says that at the tomb were “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James” (Lk 24:10)

So there was another Mary whose children were named James, Joses (Joseph) and Salome.
Therefore it is likely that the James, Joseph and Salome described as brothers/sister of Jesus were the sons/daughter of a different Mary.
John writes “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.” (Jn 19:25). Now this could mean that Jesus’ mother’s sister was there (whatever is meant by “sister”) and Mary the wife of Clopas or they were the same person, but either way there were at least three Mary’s at the cross – Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdalene. Now Mary the mother of James and Joseph could have been a fourth or she could have been Mary wife of Clopas. Either way Mary the mother of Jesus was not the mother of James and Joseph mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. And since they were listed first, neither was Simon and Judas, since if the were they would hardly have been listed after non-brothers.

Then when we add the following verse, it strengthens the position.


Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Matthew 1:24-25


Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.





JLB

The word until (or till) denotes a point in time up to which some action occurred. Neither it, nor the Greek heos from which is translated, mean that the action changed, only that there was something significant about that point in time. That point in time may be significant for reason other than a change in the action. What happened after that may be explicitly stated or may be inferred from the context, or may just be left unknown. To claim it always means the action changes is not valid and leads to absurdities.


Mt 1:25 cannot be used to prove that Mary had a sexual relationship with Joseph. To infer it is to claim what has yet to be proved.


Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23 - NRSV).
Are we to assume therefore she had children after her death?


“There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage, and then as a widow until (heos) she was eighty-four.” Lk 2:36-37).
Does that imply she got married at the age of 84?

Jesus said to the Apostles “And remember, I am with you always, to (heos) the end of the age.” (Mt 28:20).
Does that mean he won’t be with us after the end of the age?


Here are some more
"but to [until] this day no one knows the place of his [Moses] burial" (Deut 34:6)
Do we know the place of Moses burial? NO


"For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." (1Cor 15:25)
Will Christ stop reigning after he has put all his enemies under his feet? NO


"Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching."(1Tim 4:13)
After Paul arrives will Timothy stop reading, exhortation and teaching? NO


"We know that all creation is groaning in labour pains even until now;" (Rom 8:22)
Has creation stopped groaning? NO


"except that you must hold fast to what you have until I come." (Rev 2:25)
Do we stop holding fast after Christ comes? NO


"To the victor, who keeps to my ways until the end, I will give authority over the nations."(Rev 2:26)
Do the victors stop keeping Christ’s ways at the end? NO


"keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1Tim 6:14)
Could Timothy stop keeping the commandments when Jesus appeared? NO

 

[Mungo]

A further point regarding these "brothers" of Jesus


The Church historian Eusebius quoting from Hegesippus (110-180 AD) writes
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.


So Symeon (Simeon, Simon) was the cousin of Jesus, and Mary Clopas was therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus. Again note the loose use of relationships. Mary Clopas is referred to as Mary’s “sister” in Jn 19:25 when she is actually her sister-in-law.


In the book of Jude he says “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1) So Jude (or Judas) is probably the brother of James the son of Clopas.


Then also Luke when listing the apostles says James, son of Alpheus. But the Aramaic Alpheus can be rendered in Greek as either Alpheus or Clopas. So again James, the “brother” of the Lord is probably the son of Clopas.

To get a full picture we need scripture, but also cultural and historical evidence.

 

[JLB]

In the book of Jude he says “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1) So Jude (or Judas) is probably the brother of James the son of Clopas.

So you agree brother means brother.


Great, so now just apply that same common sense to these passages.


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


Good sound exegesis requires we remain with the contextual flow of mother, meaning natural birth mother of Jesus, Mary into the rest of verse where we see brothers and sisters.

We can only conclude if mother refers to natural birth mother which is Mary, that brothers and sisters refer to Mary’s natural offspring.

To lift the foundational meaning out of it’s context and try to twist the natural meaning of brothers and sisters to mean distant relatives is a gross distortion of the plain and clear meaning of the context and text.


Then when we add the following verse, it strengthens the position.


Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Matthew 1:24-25







JLB

 

[Mungo]

So you agree brother means brother.

No I haven't You infer too much

Great, so now just apply that same common sense to these passages.


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


Good sound exegesis requires we remain with the contextual flow of mother, meaning natural birth mother of Jesus, Mary into the rest of verse where we see brothers and sisters.

We can only conclude if mother refers to natural birth mother which is Mary, that brothers and sisters refer to Mary’s natural offspring.

To lift the foundational meaning out of it’s context and try to twist the natural meaning of brothers and sisters to mean distant relatives is a gross distortion of the plain and clear meaning of the context and text.



JLB

You keep making assumptoion and ignoring what I have written.

So here it is again:
Even in today's culture there is a range of possibilities.
That there are different kinds of brothers (and sisters) - full blood brothers, half brothers, adoptive brothers. If a man and woman marry and both have children by a previous marriage they will be regarded as brothers and sisters even though they have no genetic relationship. The actual relationship of these “brothers” (& sisters) to Jesus cannot be established unless a genealogy is given, and it is not.


There is positive indication in scripture that at least some of these brothers were not Mary's children.

Mark says that at the foot of the cross was “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome” This was obviously not Mary the mother of Jesus, so there is another Mary with sons called James and Joseph.

Matthew similarly says of the women at the foot of the cross “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 26:56)

Luke says that at the tomb were “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James” (Lk 24:10)

So there was another Mary whose children were named James, Joses (Joseph) and Salome.
Therefore it is likely that the James, Joseph and Salome described as brothers/sister of Jesus were the sons/daughter of a different Mary.

John writes “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.” (Jn 19:25). Now this could mean that Jesus’ mother’s sister was there (whatever is meant by “sister”) and Mary the wife of Clopas or they were the same person, but either way there were at least three Mary’s at the cross – Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdalene. Now Mary the mother of James and Joseph could have been a fourth or she could have been Mary wife of Clopas. Either way Mary the mother of Jesus was not the mother of James and Joseph mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. And since they were listed first, neither was Simon and Judas, since if the were they would hardly have been listed after non-brothers.

The Church historian Eusebius quoting from Hegesippus (110-180 AD) writes
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.


So Symeon (Simeon, Simon) was the cousin of Jesus, and Mary Clopas was therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus. Again note the loose use of relationships. Mary Clopas is referred to as Mary’s “sister” in Jn 19:25 when she is actually her sister-in-law.

 

[Mungo]

Then when we add the following verse, it strengthens the position.


Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Matthew 1:24-25



JLB

It doesn't strengthen it at all because it doesn't say what you would like it to say.

The word until (or till) denotes a point in time up to which some action occurred. Neither it, nor the Greek heos from which is translated, mean that the action changed, only that there was something significant about that point in time. That point in time may be significant for reason other than a change in the action. What happened after that may be explicitly stated or may be inferred from the context, or may just be left unknown. To claim it always means the action changes is not valid and leads to absurdities.


Mt 1:25 cannot be used to prove that Mary had a sexual relationship with Joseph. To infer it is to claim what has yet to be proved.

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23 - NRSV).
Are we to assume therefore she had children after her death?

“There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage, and then as a widow until (heos) she was eighty-four.” Lk 2:36-37).
Does that imply she got married at the age of 84?

Jesus said to the Apostles “And remember, I am with you always, to (heos) the end of the age.” (Mt 28:20).
Does that mean he won’t be with us after the end of the age?

Here are some more
"but to [until] this day no one knows the place of his [Moses] burial" (Deut 34:6)
Do we know the place of Moses burial? NO


"For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." (1Cor 15:25)
Will Christ stop reigning after he has put all his enemies under his feet? NO

"Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching."(1Tim 4:13)
After Paul arrives will Timothy stop reading, exhortation and teaching? NO

"We know that all creation is groaning in labour pains even until now;" (Rom 8:22)
Has creation stopped groaning? NO

"except that you must hold fast to what you have until I come." (Rev 2:25)
Do we stop holding fast after Christ comes? NO

"To the victor, who keeps to my ways until the end, I will give authority over the nations."(Rev 2:26)
Do the victors stop keeping Christ’s ways at the end? NO

"keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1Tim 6:14)
Could Timothy stop keeping the commandments when Jesus appeared? NO

 

[Mungo]

Apart from ignoring the points I made about "brothers here is more of what you are ignoring.

Mary the Mother of God
It is worth pointing out at the start that this title is not peculiar to Catholicism. The Orthodox also believe this, as do Anglicans (and therefore probably Episcopalians) and Lutherans.


"The Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos) since according to the flesh she brought forth the Word of God made flesh" (Council of Ephesus, 431 AD)


“What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 487)


Let us therefore start with Jesus. The early centuries of Christianity were marked by controversies over the nature of Jesus Christ. Was he God? Was he man? Was he born human and became God?
The definition of Mary as Theotokos (literally “God bearer”) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 was made in response to a fifth century heresy called Nestorianism which said that Mary did not carry God but only carried Christ’s human nature in her womb.
Nestorians claimed that Mary did not give birth to a unified person but tried to separate Jesus’ human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate persons, one human and one divine in a loose affiliation.


But a woman carries a person in her womb, not just a human nature. Mary carried, and gave birth to, the person of Jesus Christ, and that person was God, the second person of the Trinity.


This does not mean Mary is older than God, or that she is the source of her Son’s divinity. She is the Mother of God in that she carried in her womb, and gave birth to, a divine person – Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh”
The definition of Ephesus was not to glorify Mary but to affirm that Jesus’ two natures – divine and human were united in one divine person.

If we do not accept that what Jesus did and experienced in his humanity was experienced by God (the Son) then we cannot say that God died on the cross and we are not redeemed; we cannot say that God shed his blood for us and our sins are not forgiven.
The logic is:
Jesus is God
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Therefore Mary is the mother of God

Scripture Summary

Jesus is God
Jesus Christ is the Word, the second person of the Trinity.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Jn 1:1)

Mary is the mother of Jesus
He assumed human nature (came in the flesh)
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14)
Where did the Word become flesh? In the womb of Mary
“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” (Lk 1:31).
“God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Gal 4:4).
Mary was the mother of that son. The Word that became flesh, the second Person of the Trinity in human form, though still divine.
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” (Phil 2:6-8)

Therefore Mary is the mother of God
In Lk 1:43 Elizabeth says (while “filled with the Holy Spirit”) And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kuriou) should come to me? Several times in chapter 1 Luke uses kurios for God (indeed Mary herself does in verse 38). So Elizabeth calling Mary The mother of my Lord is calling her the mother of my God.

Early Christian witness
The early Church Fathers recognised Mary as the Mother of God. Here are a few quotes from them:
"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Iranaeus - Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Hippolytus - Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Gregory the Wonderworker Four Homilies 1; 262 AD).

"(Those engaged in the public transport service) came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (Peter of Alexandria The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria; 305 AD).
"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Methodius Oration on Simeon and Anna 7; 305 AD).

"We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Alexander of Alexandria Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12; 324 AD).

"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 10:19; 350 AD).

"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Ephraim the Syrian Songs of Praise 1:20; 351 AD).
"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (Athanasius The Incarnation of the Word of God 8; 365 AD).

"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (Epiphanius of Salamis The Man Well-Anchored 75; 374 AD).

"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (Ambrose of Milan The Virgins 2:2[7]; 377 AD).

This Virgin became a Mother while preserving her virginity;
And though still a Virgin she carried a Child in her womb;
And the handmaid and work of His Wisdom
became the Mother of God
(St Ephraim, Songs of Praise, 1, 20; c. 381 AD)

"If anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Gregory of Nazianz Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101; 382 AD).

 

[Mungo]

And you have ignored this.

Assumption of Mary
There is a precedent for the taking up from this earth of the body and soul of a person in Enoch and Elijah. Also we are told that after Jesus’ death:
"tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many". (Mt 27:52-53)


We are not told what happened to these saints, whether they lived normal lives, died and were buried again, or whether they too were assumed into heaven. There is an early tradition that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into a temporary state often called “paradise”.


It would be fitting for Mary to be assumed into heaven similarly on account of her freedom from sin, her perpetual virginity, her being the mother of God and her particular place in the plan of salvation.


The early Christians gave homage to dead saints, and their relics of saints were especially prized. Even the bones of the martyrs in the Coliseum were collected and preserved. Yet there is no record of Mary’s body being claimed by anyone. She is believed to have ended her life in Jerusalem or Ephesus but neither of those places has ever claimed her remains.


One more point. We believe Mary is the ark of the New Covenant. Because the original ark was so precious, it was made of incorruptible wood.

“Arise, Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark.” (Psalm 132:8)
As the living ark of the New Covenant, Mary is majestic and it is fitting that she is incorruptible too.
Mary is a witness for us that we too will, one day, be in heaven body and soul.


Early Christian Witness - taken verbatim from www.maryimmaculate.tripod.com/
That early Christian believed in Mary's Assumption is proven in the lack of her relics, empty tombs, the existence of Transitus Mariae stories, and quotes from early Christians.


The early Christians were very careful to keep the relics of saints and martyrs, even if it involved great risk (like trying to retrieve the remains of those who were eaten by lions). They did this out of great reverence for the body as a member of Christ and temple of the Holy Spirit (see I Corinthians 6:15, 19).


Because Christians took care of the remains of the saints, we know where the bones of Saint Peter, Mary Magdalene and many other New Testament believers are buried. But where are the remains of the Virgin Mary? There is no record of anyone ever claiming to possess the body of the Mother of Jesus.


This would have been the most prized relic of all; the mortal remains of the Savior's closest blood relative, the very same body which had carried God Incarnate for nine months and nursed and cared for Him afterward! Yet in all of Church history, both biblical and extra-biblical, there is no record of its whereabouts, and the two tombs which are variously said to be Mary's are both empty (see discussion on "Two Tombs" below).


Though no one ever claimed to possess Mary's relics, it seems that early Christians did in fact know the whereabouts of Mary's body! St. John Damascene, a Church Father, relates an interesting historical fact in this regard:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.


The early Christians actually knew that something unusual and miraculous had happened to Mary's body soon after her death. This would explain why no one ever possess her mortal remains; her body is not on earth, but in heaven, glorified and united to her soul!


Early Christians expressed their belief in Mary's Assumption by writing various legendary accounts of the event to edify the faithful. These Transitus Mariae stories (as scholars call them) are pious fiction; neither inspired nor part of the Bible. Yet they are still valuable, for they attest to the fact that the Assumption was a widespread belief in the Church. Early Christians knew that God had raptured Mary into heaven, so they wrote various stories describing how it occurred.


Scholars possess numerous compies of the Transitus Mariae legends in various languages, including Syriac, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Coptic and Ethiopian. These were the major languages spoken by Christians at that time! Since these manuscripts date back to the fourth and fifth centuries, it is clear that belief in Mary's Assumption was widespread by then. This would in turn indicate that the belief originated at a much earlier date. Indeed, some scholars date one Syrian manuscript back to the third century - the 200's!


The early Church Fathers were very zealous for the faith. They strenuously fought all new heresies which threatened the Faith delivered to the Apostles. If the Assumption of Mary were a novel belief at the time, we would expect to find Christian writers of the third to fifth centuries condemning it as a newfangled heresy. Yet none do! Nowhere in the writings of the early Church Fathers do we find the slightest condemnation of this doctrine.


In fact, many Chuch Fathers positively teach the Assumption of Mary, as seen in the following quotes:
"If therefore it might come to pass before the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death does reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your mother and take her with you, rejoicing into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: 'Be it done according to your will" (Pseudo-Melito The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17; 300 AD).


"Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption" (Timothy of Jerusalem Homily on Simeon and Anna; 400 AD).


"And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise" (John the Theologian, The Falling Asleep of Mary; 400 AD)


"The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoinedd to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..." (Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4; 575-593 A.D.)


"As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him." (Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306, before A.D. 634)


"It was fitting...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinized, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God." (Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption; before 650 A.D.)

 

[Mungo]

And this.

Mary's Sinlessness
Salvation is not just being raised up from sin. It is being raised up to glory to share the in life of God, to an intimate union with God.
“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.” (2Pet 1:3-4).


This is a gift from God - grace, the grace that only Jesus can give.
“Be holy because I am holy”.
How holy is God? – 100%


“Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect”
How perfect is our heavenly Father? – 100%

We must be 100% holy and perfect without even the slightest hint of a shadow of a spot or wrinkle if we are to be united with an all holy God. Pretence (covering up) will not do. We must be totally purified, full of grace.

When Gabriel greeted Mary he said Chaire Ketcharitome, which is often badly translated as Hail, favoured one.
Kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle of the Greek charitoo. It means endowed with grace. The Greek perfect tense denotes something which took place in the past and continues in the present.s permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, (University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166; H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge Harvard University Press, 1968, sect 1852:b. - citation from Dave Armstong's A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, p178))

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“chaire kecharitomene”
“chaire” - Means "hail” or “rejoice”
"charis" – Means “grace”
"charitoo" – Greek verb ending in omicron omega (“oo”) means to put the person or thing into the state indicated by the root. The root being "charis" or “grace,” "charitoo" means “to put into a state of "grace.”
"ke" – Greek perfect tense prefix indicates a perfected, completed present state as a result of past action. Thus, a perfected, completed present state of "charis," or “grace,” as a result of past action.
"mene" – Greek passive participle suffix indicates action performed on subject by another. Thus, a perfected, completed present state of "charis," or “grace,” as a result of the past action of another. As the speaker is the angel Gabriel, the "other" is God.
Therefore, "chaire kecharitomene" means: “Hail, who has been perfectly and completely graced by God.” The common Catholic rendering, "full of grace," while good, may actually fall short!
See: http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=288189
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary was completely, perfectly, enduringly filled with grace from the moment of her conception. She was not just saved from the effects of original sin but was made fit for an intimate union with God, both in this life (she carried God in her womb) and in the life to come.

She was totally holy as a fitting mother for Jesus. Why would God allow his only Son to be born by a fallen sinful woman when he could fill her with grace to be holy and pure?

As Job said “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.” (Job 14:4).

As Mary herself said “he who is mighty has done great things for me” (Lk 1:49)

The original ark of the Covenant was made from incorruptible wood and covered inside and out with pure gold, yet the shenikar cloud only rested on the ark not inside as God dwelt in Mary’s womb. Thus the anti-type was incorruptable.


Moreover Jude says: "Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever." (Jude 24-25) Why would Jesus not keep his mother from falling and to present her without blemish before the presence of his glory?

"Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin" (Ambrose of Milan, Commentary on Psalm 118 22::30; c. 387 AD).

"Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins--for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?--so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?" (St. Augustine Nature and Grace 36:45, c. 415 AD).

I honour my Queen who was greatly honoured by her son and sits at his right hand; the Son who is the “King of kings and Lord of lords”, who himself sits on the throne of David and whose kingdom has no end.

You can believe this or not. You can honour Mary or not. It's your choice.

 

[JLB]

You keep making assumptoion and ignoring what I have written.

You aren’t using scripture. You are using cultural opinion without addressing the scriptures I gave.

The scriptures themselves and the context plainly establish the truth.

You have yet to address the scriptures I have given, and have only tried to distract from them without ever acknowledging or addressing them.


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


Good sound exegesis requires we remain with the contextual flow of mother, meaning natural birth mother of Jesus, Mary into the rest of verse where we see brothers and sisters.

We can only conclude if mother refers to natural birth mother which is Mary, that brothers and sisters refer to Mary’s natural offspring.

To lift the foundational meaning out of it’s context and try to twist the natural meaning of brothers and sisters to mean distant relatives is a gross distortion of the plain and clear meaning of the context and text.


Then when we add the following verse, it strengthens the position.


Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Matthew 1:24-25



Again we see the natural contextual sentence construction whereby His mother natural birth mother, is directly related in subject to His brothers, natural birth brothers. Not some distant relative that is supposedly referred as brother.



Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Luke 8:19-21


Once again, Catholic doctrine is found to be false when compared to scripture.






JLB

 

[JLB]

The logic is:
Jesus is God
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Therefore Mary is the mother of God

Where in your “logic” is the missing information of God becoming flesh?

It’s totally missing. Any mention of God becoming flesh is nowhere in your preconceived “logic”.


QUESTION: Is God flesh or is God Spirit?


Mary gave birth to the flesh and blood man Jesus Christ.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6

God is Spirit.

God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. John 4:24

Mary gave birth to flesh. Mary didn’t give birth to God who is Spirit.


Jesus Christ was made (became) a little lower than the angels, which is to say He was made (became) a man, (flesh).

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

God became flesh. God was made flesh.

God was manifested in the flesh.


And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16

The virgin Mary gave birth to flesh, the man Jesus Christ.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 2:5


Once again, Catholic doctrine is found to be false when compared to scripture.



JLB