Biblical Mary

[Mungo]

Clever, but not clever enough. For the statement isn’t about the matter of committing the sin of fornication, but about the matter of husband and wife sleeping together.

Can you to tell the difference?

1. He did not sleep with his wife until they got married.

2. He did not sleep with his wife before they got married.

What reasonable conclusion can you get out of that, as pertains to him sleeping with his wife?

It's not a matter of cleverness. It's a matter of English.
Did you not read post #1725?
"If someone tells you that he did not sleep with his wife until they got married" focussed on the time period before they got married.
You inferred that they had sex afterwards but the statement does not say or imply that. You inferred it because that is your expectation after a couple get married.

Here’s another.

1. Mary was not a mother until she gave birth to Jesus.

2. Mary was not a mother before she gave birth to Jesus.

What reasonable conclusion can you get out of that, as pertains to Mary being a mother?

The thoughts of others who reads this post would be appreciated.

Tong
R4618

I can conclude that Jesus was her first child - because the word mother in this context means giving birth to a child. Therefore the sentence explicitly says that she had no children before Jesus.
mother
n noun
1 a woman in relation to her child or children.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

 

[amigo de christo]

BTW to correct one of your misquotes of Scripture you parrotted by Romanist sources:

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee

It is not Mary who crushes the head of the seprent, but her seed Jesus! And seed before you go crazy means descendants. And jesus is the descandant of Eve.!

One day I hope you will elarn that though Mary is blessed among woman, she is not what the Romansits teach. that was brough tinto teh cvhurch when gentiles became th epredominant race in teh church and brough tin many of their false ideologies with them.

Among them is the reverence for the Queen of Heaven, and that teh mother of the savior is to be venerated above all mortals! this wireship began with semiramis ansd nimrod and kept going under vartious guises and names.

Good thing you type like i do , i can understand the mistypes .
Your right MARY IS BLESSED . BUT DONT FOLLOW ROME OR WHAT THEY TEACH CONCERING HER .
They turned that dear lady into an IDOL .
Just like the isralites did unto the staff with the golden serpent . ITS WHY IT WAS DESTROYED .
FLEE ROME and NEVER LOOK back is all i have to say . LET US learn our bibles and continue in CHRIST .

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
They were settled before. Only that, certain men sent from the Jerusalem church came unsettling such by teaching a false doctrine. And because of that trouble that they created in the churches where they went, such as at Antioch, that Paul and Barnabas were compelled to meet with the leaders of the church where these men belonged and were sent from to see whether the apostles have given them such commandment to those men to teach such false teaching, to the point of requiring the brethren that were of the Gentiles in Antioch to be circumcised and are to keep the Mosaic Law.

No, it wasn't settled. That is why "Paul and Barnabas and some of the others from Judea had a dissension (disagreement) and debated with them." They were then appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. And then in Jerusalem some believers stood up and said gave their reason they disagreed with them. So now we have dissension from church leaders in Judea AND Jerusalem. It was only "After there had been much debate" that the matter was settled. Peter then stood up and said, " I have reached the decision". What decision did Peter have to make if it was already a settled matter Tong???? What was there to discuss and debate in the meeting if the matter was already settled BEFORE the meeting Tong??? There was no established teaching on the matter BEFORE the meeting but there was AFTER the meeting. That means there could not be a "false teaching" until AFTER the matter was settled in the meeting at Jerusalem. If anyone rejected that teaching from the Apostles AFTER they made their decision in Jerusalem on what was to be taught THEN it was a false teaching. Because.......as you.... Jesus told his Apostles; 'Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.’

Bible study Mary

Well, we have said our position and we apparently do not have contrary positions. I think we just have to leave it at that, at least at this point.

It seems here that you are suggesting that the teaching of the men who came down from Judea, those in the letter who are said to have went out from the apostles, the elders, and the brethren in the church at Jerusalem, that the brethren who are of the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved, is not a false teaching, until after the council of Jerusalem’s meeting?

Well, I do not agree with that too. For I believe that such teaching is a false teaching regardless of the meeting.

Besides, the apostles, the elders, the brethren in Jerusalem did not say that the teaching was false teaching, but only said that they gave no such commandment to those men who went out from them.

Tong
R4619

 

[Tong2020]

By their fruits you shall know them
Is Francis a valid pope? What does he teach the catholic faith or the modernist apostasy of religious indifferentism?

I have my doubts but could not declare him to be invalid

Who elects the successor of Peter, the Pope of the RCC?

Who says whether a Pope is valid or invalid?

Could an ordinary member of the RCC have a say on that, whether the Pope is an invalid Pope or a valid Pope?

<<<I have my doubts but could not declare him to be invalid>>>

So, what are you saying? You doubt the teachings of your Pope, the successor of Peter?

Tong
R4620

 

[Tong2020]

I think I phrased both of those quotes badly so I will try withdraw them and rephrase them and just say:

People are allowed to speculate but should not contradict official Catholic doctrine.



I don't know that anyone is proposing that Mary is a co-redeemer, certainly not the Pope.
Perhaps you mean Co-Redemptrix. There are people who would like that to be official but it is not, and according to the sources I gave, not likely to be.

As for fount of all grace, the Catholic Catechism clearly states that grace come from God. He is the source of grace. Therefore I would say that a suggestion that Mary is the fount of all grace would contradict that.
fount1
n noun
1 a source of something desirable.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

<<<I think I phrased both of those quotes badly so I will try withdraw them and rephrase them and just say:

People are allowed to speculate but should not contradict official Catholic doctrine.>>>

No problem. Consider them withdrawn.

So, people are allowed to speculate but should not contradict Catholic doctrine. I would presume that by “people” you refer to as among the catholics.

You say that there are “people” who would like that Mary be co-Redemptrix to be official. How about you, do you like that? If not, why not? Do you think that such contradict official Catholic doctrine? Do you think that such contradict the Holy scriptures?

If in the future, it would be made an official Catholic doctrine, would you believe and accept it as correct and true?

On a general note, would you believe and accept whatever is made as official Catholic doctrine as correct and true?

<<<As for fount of all grace, the Catholic Catechism clearly states that grace come from God. He is the source of grace. Therefore I would say that a suggestion that Mary is the fount of all grace would contradict that.>>>

Do you think that such contradict the Holy scriptures?

If that would later be made an official Catholic doctrine, would you believe and accept that as not contradicting other Catholic doctrines and the Holy scriptures?

Tong
R4621

 

[Bruce Atkinson]

Going by what is contained in the letter, and I quote:

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

<<<restating part of the Mosaic law that they followed>>>

Do they not follow the ten commandments? It would not take ten statements to state those. Their exclusion leads the reader to the intent and purpose of the letter made by the Jerusalem council.

And this I think should not be taken as to support the position that the church is establishing doctrines, new doctrines even.

The gospel had been preached by the apostles. And it is what the first believers have received and believed. The gospel is not about some set of instructions and commandments that they are to follow to get saved, but about what God had accomplished to save His people, through Jesus Christ.

Tong
R4608

The Mosaic law STARTS with the 10 commandments. God gave Moses 603 more while Israel spent 40 years in the wilderness.

It's interesting to note that in the years between Moses and Jesus, that Pharisees came into being the 'elite' of the Jews, and created oral laws (none written, as I'm given to understand), to make clearer and 'to make a protective fence around' the laws passed down from Moses. One I can think of is the forbidding of doing ANY work on the sabbath...even cooking! Things such as going into the woods for wood to keep warm with was prohibited. Jews were limited to staying a 100 yards or so from their homes. Even picking up sticks to start a fire was prohibited on the sabbath. Many of the things Jesus did broke the Pharisaical law. He never broke the Mosaic law...He was a Jew after all, and lived under the law. Jesus aggravated the Pharisees by healing on the sabbath and other 'work' prohibited by Pharisaical law. That's why that they wanted Him killed.

 

[Bruce Atkinson]

The Catechism has a major section on the Ten Commandments - all of them.
In my paper copy that covers pages 445 - 542, 98 pages.

So we can murder, lie, worship false gods etc. and it doesn't affect our salvation?

YUP! If, while in the bunker in his final hours, Hitler became a believer in Christs' shed blood for ALL his sins, Hitler would be saved! Believing in anything less than 100% remission of our sins by Jesus' shed blood end with a one way trip to hell.

 

[Bruce Atkinson]

Please explain why that would make Joseph an adulterer.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (KJV)

Mark 6:3 clearly states that Jesus had half brothers and sisters. The contention that Mary was a perpetual virgin and did not have intercourse with Joseph is nonsense. Where did the brothers and sisters come from if not Mary? If true, it would therefore be that Joseph was 'sleeping around', aka, an adulterer. After the FIRST 'Joseph is the father of my child' became known, they, the Israel 'police', would bring Joseph to trial and convict him of adultery and he would be stoned to death per the law. He wouldn't be around to procreate additional half-siblings of Jesus.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Clever, but not clever enough. For the statement isn’t about the matter of committing the sin of fornication, but about the matter of husband and wife sleeping together.

Can you to tell the difference?

1. He did not sleep with his wife until they got married.

2. He did not sleep with his wife before they got married.

What reasonable conclusion can you get out of that, as pertains to him sleeping with his wife?

It's not a matter of cleverness. It's a matter of English.
Did you not read post #1725?
"If someone tells you that he did not sleep with his wife until they got married" focussed on the time period before they got married.
You inferred that they had sex afterwards but the statement does not say or imply that. You inferred it because that is your expectation after a couple get married.

<<<You inferred that they had sex afterwards but the statement does not say or imply that.>>>

That is the thought of the statement.

You reasoned “the statement does not say or imply that”. Using your line of reasoning, the statement does not say that they had no sex after Mary had given birth to Jesus.

Regarding the question, What reasonable conclusion can you get out of that, as pertains to him sleeping with his wife?

Most, if not all, can correctly conclude that he did have sex with his wife after they got married.

The focus is on the matter of sleeping with his wife, for that is the subject matter of the statement. Apparently you can’t tell the difference in the two statements. Well, I am willing to leave it at that and perhaps others will share their thoughts on this.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Here’s another.

1. Mary was not a mother until she gave birth to Jesus.

2. Mary was not a mother before she gave birth to Jesus.

What reasonable conclusion can you get out of that, as pertains to Mary being a mother?

The thoughts of others who reads this post would be appreciated.

I can conclude that Jesus was her first child - because the word mother in this context means giving birth to a child. Therefore the sentence explicitly says that she had no children before Jesus.
mother
n noun
1 a woman in relation to her child or children.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

Your conclusion is about Jesus who is not the subject of the statement, but Mary. So, you take the statement out of focus.

And most, if not all, can correctly conclude that Mary was not a mother before she gave birth to Jesus, but was a mother after and continues to be a mother thereafter.

Tong
R4622

 

[Bruce Atkinson]

thanks for sharing

no Jesus sits at the right hand of the father on the great white throne rev. 20

All graces are from God merited by Christ and do not belong to Mary, only come thru Mary
Jn 1:16-17 Jesus came thru Mary
Jn 1:23

it is in the Bible

Luke 1:28
Wycliffe Bible

28 And the angel entered to her, and said, Hail, full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed bethou among women.

you will also find it in gen 3:15 and rev 12:1
See more below

I have no idea why you inserted that Jesus is at the right hand of God the Father. That was not part of my post you quoted and I decline to mix that with this discussion of grace and Mary.

Let me start by reporting what I found with a quick Google of the Wycliffe Bible. According to Wikipedia, its original text was translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible, which, when Googled, Wikipedia shows it was the first Bible of the Catholic Church. That explains why Luke 1:28 contains 'full of grace'. I'm not trying to create a 'battle of translations' here...only an explanation of why Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims appear to be the only versions that contain 'full of grace'.

Let's look at John 1:14-17 in more detail -

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made 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.
Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Joh 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (KJV)

As verse 14 shows, Jesus is the one full of grace. Your statement concerning Jesus came through Mary, while being accurate, seems to me to imply that Jesus' grace 'came through Mary' as well. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you wrote. Grace is not genetically inherited, and it didn't 'pass through' Mary, either. One might argue that the 'sperm' that God the Father supplied to fertilize the chosen egg within Mary contained grace. Perhaps. But it didn't come from Mary's egg. Since Jesus is 100% God and 100% human, He was automatically full of grace as He is God. One could debate 'when' he first became full of grace endlessly, so it is not and should not be part of this or any other discussion. As an aside, medicine confirmed many years ago that the blood of the mother never mixes with that of the zygote, embryo, fetus, child growing within her. If it did, it would be impossible for a mother to bear a child of a different blood type or different RH factor, both of which happen frequently. It would kill the baby and possibly the mother as well. Which is why they always make sure that transfusions match the donor type and RH with the recipient.

I'm not sure why you included a reference to John 1:23. John 1:19-28 speaks solely of John the Baptist, not John the disciple and author of the Book of John, 3 Epistles, and Revelation.

Joh 1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
Joh 1:20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
Joh 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Joh 1:22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
Joh 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
Joh 1:24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
Joh 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
Joh 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh 1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
Joh 1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. (KJV)

I'm also not sure why you referenced Genesis 3:15 in relation to Jesus' grace. That is the very first verse of prophecy in the Bible, and must be looked at in the context of Genesis 3:14-16 to fully understand -

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (KJV)

Verse 14 shows that God is talking the the serpent, aka, Satan. Even knowing that, it's somewhat difficult to understand who's who in verse 15. 'And I will put enmity between thee (Satan) and the woman (Eve). 'and between thy seed (Satans' descendants) and her seed (Eves' descendants)'. 'it (Jesus) shall bruise thy head' (a moderately severe concussion to Satan, perhaps?, and ties to Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. (KJV)) 'and thou (Satan) shalt bruise his (Jesus) heel (He overcame the curse of death and rose again on the 3rd day).

One of the interesting things about the Bible is various symbolism consistently used except when very obvious it's talking about something physical. One of those is the use of 'woman'. It's clear that throughout Revelation, 'woman' always symbolizes Israel. Multiple sources I've read and heard indicate that Genesis 3:15 refers to Eve in the present tense and simultaneously refers to Israel in the future tense. Why is Israel the most hated nation in the world since Jacob? Because if Satan can destroy all Israel (descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (renamed Israel by God), that would be 'proof' that God lied about Israel being His chosen people and the very numerous prophecies and covenants God made to Israel are null and void, thus making the entire Bible worthless fiction.

Even though God temporarily 'set aside' Israel in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed and went to the Gentiles through Paul and his writings for almost 2000 years thus far, Israel's re-creation in 1948 clearly shows God has started dealing with Israel once again, fulfilling Ezekiel 37 bringing the dried bones - the House of Israel - back together and putting them back in the land He covenanted to the descendants of Abraham in Genesis 15-18 -

Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Gen 15:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
Gen 15:20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
Gen 15:21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites. (KJV)

The war that immediately followed Israels' becoming a nation again (By the way, President Truman was the first world leader to publicly acknowledge Israel as a nation), the 6-Day War and the Yom Kippur War are all evidence that God is once again guiding Israel to victories. Trumps' declaration that Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel is further fulfillment of Israels' prophetic restoration. No other nation, once scattered around the globe, has ever come back together again other than Israel. God is in control!

 

[Mungo]

<<<I think I phrased both of those quotes badly so I will try withdraw them and rephrase them and just say:

People are allowed to speculate but should not contradict official Catholic doctrine.>>>

No problem. Consider them withdrawn.

So, people are allowed to speculate but should not contradict Catholic doctrine. I would presume that by “people” you refer to as among the catholics.

Yes, Catholics.

You say that there are “people” who would like that Mary be co-Redemptrix to be official. How about you, do you like that? If not, why not? Do you think that such contradict official Catholic doctrine? Do you think that such contradict the Holy scriptures?

I don't see it bas helpful or necessary.
As I said in post #1554

Some time ago this came up on a forum and a participant asked for clarification from Rome.
I can't quote the whole response but this from an article in L' Observatore Romano (Weekly Edition N.23 4 June 1997 - p. 12) is entitled "Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy".

1. The titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways. Furthermore, the theological direction taken by the Second Vatican Council, which did not wish to define any of these titles, should not be abandoned. The Second Vatican Council did not used the title "Coredemptrix" and uses "Mediatrix" and "Advocate" in a very moderate way (cf Lumen gentium, n. 62).... (snip) : In the first decades of this century the Holy See entrusted the possibility of its definition to three different commissions, the result of which was that the Holy See decided to set the question aside.
   
   2. Even if the titles were assigned a content which could be accepted as belonging to the deposit of the faith, the definition of these titles, however, in the present situation would be lacking in theological clarity, as such titles and the doctrines inherent in them still require further study in a renewed Trinitarian, ecclesiastical and anthropological perspective. Finally, the theologians, especially the non-Catholics, were sensitive to the ecumenical difficulties which would be involved in such a definition.

So not an official dogma and not likely to be one either.

If in the future, it would be made an official Catholic doctrine, would you believe and accept it as correct and true?

If it was infallibly declared doctrine then yes I would accept it.

On a general note, would you believe and accept whatever is made as official Catholic doctrine as correct and true?

Yes

<<<As for fount of all grace, the Catholic Catechism clearly states that grace come from God. He is the source of grace. Therefore I would say that a suggestion that Mary is the fount of all grace would contradict that.>>>

Do you think that such contradict the Holy scriptures?

I think it would contradict Scripture. There are many places in Scripture that say grace comes from God.
The Catholic Dictionary defines grace:
In biblical language the condescension or benevolence (Greek charis) shown by God toward the human race; it is also the unmerited gift proceeding from this benevolent disposition. Grace, therefore, is a totally gratuitous gift on which man has absolutely no claim. Where on occasion the Scriptures speak of grace as pleasing charm or thanks for favors received, this is a derived and not primary use of the term.

If that would later be made an official Catholic doctrine, would you believe and accept that as not contradicting other Catholic doctrines and the Holy scriptures?

Tong
R4621

I don't see that it could be.

 

[Mungo]

YUP! If, while in the bunker in his final hours, Hitler became a believer in Christs' shed blood for ALL his sins, Hitler would be saved! Believing in anything less than 100% remission of our sins by Jesus' shed blood end with a one way trip to hell.

No repentance necessary then?

And if we do confess our sins and repent and are forgiven, but then go out an murder do we go to heaven?

 

[Mungo]

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (KJV)

Mark 6:3 clearly states that Jesus had half brothers and sisters. The contention that Mary was a perpetual virgin and did not have intercourse with Joseph is nonsense. Where did the brothers and sisters come from if not Mary? If true, it would therefore be that Joseph was 'sleeping around', aka, an adulterer. After the FIRST 'Joseph is the father of my child' became known, they, the Israel 'police', would bring Joseph to trial and convict him of adultery and he would be stoned to death per the law. He wouldn't be around to procreate additional half-siblings of Jesus.

Scripture does not say that these "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus are either children of Mary or children of Joseph.
The term brother and sister can be used very loosely.

From Catholic Answers
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).


No Word for Cousin
Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)


John says “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]

<<<You inferred that they had sex afterwards but the statement does not say or imply that.>>>

That is the thought of the statement.

You reasoned “the statement does not say or imply that”. Using your line of reasoning, the statement does not say that they had no sex after Mary had given birth to Jesus.

Regarding the question, What reasonable conclusion can you get out of that, as pertains to him sleeping with his wife?

Most, if not all, can correctly conclude that he did have sex with his wife after they got married.

The focus is on the matter of sleeping with his wife, for that is the subject matter of the statement. Apparently you can’t tell the difference in the two statements. Well, I am willing to leave it at that and perhaps others will share their thoughts on this.

Those are just your opinions.
I clearly showed in post #1725 that until does NOT mean that anything changed after the until point in time.
Why have you ignored that post and the 10 quotes from Scripture that clearly show that.

Matthew states that Mary did not consummate their marriage between the time the Angel spoke to him in a dream and the time Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Have you asked yourself why Matthew chose to report that?

Your conclusion is about Jesus who is not the subject of the statement, but Mary. So, you take the statement out of focus.

No, my conclusion was about Mary.
I said
I can conclude that Jesus was her first child - because the word mother in this context means giving birth to a child. Therefore the sentence explicitly says that she had no children before Jesus.
mother
n noun
1 a woman in relation to her child or children.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
My focus was on Mary

And most, if not all, can correctly conclude that Mary was not a mother before she gave birth to Jesus, but was a mother after and continues to be a mother thereafter.

Tong
R4622

I did not suggest otherwise.

 

[Tong2020]

Yes, Catholics.


I don't see it bas helpful or necessary.
As I said in post #1554




If it was infallibly declared doctrine then yes I would accept it.



Yes



I think it would contradict Scripture. There are many places in Scripture that say grace comes from God.
The Catholic Dictionary defines grace:
In biblical language the condescension or benevolence (Greek charis) shown by God toward the human race; it is also the unmerited gift proceeding from this benevolent disposition. Grace, therefore, is a totally gratuitous gift on which man has absolutely no claim. Where on occasion the Scriptures speak of grace as pleasing charm or thanks for favors received, this is a derived and not primary use of the term.



I don't see that it could be.

Thank you for your clear and honest answers.

I would just like to make some comments on your response regarding the Co-redemptrix matter. It is clear that it is not Catholic dogma. It is freely and widely talked about and the Co-Redemptrix title is used or referred to, I would presume in the Catholic circles. And this, despite of the fact the "Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy" which says,

1. The titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways.

2. the definition of these titles, however, in the present situation would be lacking in theological clarity

It seems to have catholics at a lost on the matter, left hanging, and even somehow divided. Some think that it should be made a dogma and some do not. Others seem to just take what they hear about it as if it were dogma and ending up believing it. So that, those catholics who end up believing it and taking it like it is Catholic dogma, are in danger of being guilty of passing a non Catholic dogma to their children, even friends and neighbors. And this matter had been unsettled for how many tens or hundreds of years now? Why is it not settled yet?

Tong
R4632

 

[Mungo]

Thank you for your clear and honest answers.

I would just like to make some comments on your response regarding the Co-redemptrix matter. It is clear that it is not Catholic dogma. It is freely and widely talked about and the Co-Redemptrix title is used or referred to, I would presume in the Catholic circles. And this, despite of the fact the "Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy" which says,

1. The titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways.

2. the definition of these titles, however, in the present situation would be lacking in theological clarity

It seems to have catholics at a lost on the matter, left hanging, and even somehow divided. Some think that it should be made a dogma and some do not. Others seem to just take what they hear about it as if it were dogma and ending up believing it. So that, those catholics who end up believing it and taking it like it is Catholic dogma, are in danger of being guilty of passing a non Catholic dogma to their children, even friends and neighbors. And this matter had been unsettled for how many tens or hundreds of years now? Why is it not settled yet?

Tong
R4632

I'm not sure it is widely talked about in Catholic circles. As commonly in society, a small number can make a lot of noise but I doubt that most Catholics either know of the issue, or care about it if they do.

Added: On this forum at least it's the Protestants making the noise about the title Co-Redemptrix.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<You inferred that they had sex afterwards but the statement does not say or imply that.>>>

That is the thought of the statement.

You reasoned “the statement does not say or imply that”. Using your line of reasoning, the statement does not say that they had no sex after Mary had given birth to Jesus.

Regarding the question, What reasonable conclusion can you get out of that, as pertains to him sleeping with his wife?

Most, if not all, can correctly conclude that he did have sex with his wife after they got married.

The focus is on the matter of sleeping with his wife, for that is the subject matter of the statement. Apparently you can’t tell the difference in the two statements. Well, I am willing to leave it at that and perhaps others will share their thoughts on this.

Those are just your opinions.
I clearly showed in post #1725 that until does NOT mean that anything changed after the until point in time.
Why have you ignored that post and the 10 quotes from Scripture that clearly show that.

Matthew states that Mary did not consummate their marriage between the time the Angel spoke to him in a dream and the time Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Have you asked yourself why Matthew chose to report that?

I did not ignore any of your post. In fact I replied to it. What we are discussing about is with a particular scripture. While you cited a number to make your point about the word “until”, I on the other hand showed you the thought that is being conveyed by the subject scripture. For the word “until” there is only part of the statement.

<<<Those are just your opinions.>>>

That would go both ways if we go with your reasoning there.

<<<Matthew states that Mary did not consummate their marriage between the time the Angel spoke to him in a dream and the time Mary gave birth to Jesus.>>>

Yes, and that until that time. That is clearly where it leads. You argued that is says nothing as to what happened after that. And again, if we will take your line of reasoning, that should go either way. Maybe they did not consummate their marriage after that or maybe they did, right? However, going by the way the statement was made, of the two, the latter is the one strongly implied.

<<<Have you asked yourself why Matthew chose to report that?>>>

Yes I did. It has to do for one with the fulfillment of this “Behold, the virgin shall be with child…” ~ the virgin birth of the Messiah. Was that about Mary or about the Messiah?

Tong2020 said: ↑
Your conclusion is about Jesus who is not the subject of the statement, but Mary. So, you take the statement out of focus.

No, my conclusion was about Mary.
I said
I can conclude that Jesus was her first child - because the word mother in this context means giving birth to a child. Therefore the sentence explicitly says that she had no children before Jesus.
mother
n noun
1 a woman in relation to her child or children.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
My focus was on Mary

Perhaps. But it not about her status as a mother, which is the thought/idea in focus and relates to the “until” and “before”.

Anyway, we both said our side regarding that. We can leave it at that.

Tong2020 said: ↑
And most, if not all, can correctly conclude that Mary was not a mother before she gave birth to Jesus, but was a mother after and continues to be a mother thereafter.

I did not suggest otherwise.

That’s is because perhaps you agree that that is what is strongly implied by the use of the word “until” in the statement, more than anything else.

Tong
R4633

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Thank you for your clear and honest answers.

I would just like to make some comments on your response regarding the Co-redemptrix matter. It is clear that it is not Catholic dogma. It is freely and widely talked about and the Co-Redemptrix title is used or referred to, I would presume in the Catholic circles. And this, despite of the fact the "Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy" which says,

1. The titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways.

2. the definition of these titles, however, in the present situation would be lacking in theological clarity

It seems to have catholics at a lost on the matter, left hanging, and even somehow divided. Some think that it should be made a dogma and some do not. Others seem to just take what they hear about it as if it were dogma and ending up believing it. So that, those catholics who end up believing it and taking it like it is Catholic dogma, are in danger of being guilty of passing a non Catholic dogma to their children, even friends and neighbors. And this matter had been unsettled for how many tens or hundreds of years now? Why is it not settled yet?

I'm not sure it is widely talked about in Catholic circles. As commonly in society, a small number can make a lot of noise but I doubt that most Catholics either know of the issue, or care about it if they do.

Added: On this forum at least it's the Protestants making the noise about the title Co-Redemptrix.

You just have to make a google work and you will get an idea. It may not be as wide as it is at this present time and technology. But the question remains unanswered, “this matter had been unsettled for how many tens or hundreds of years now? Why is it not settled yet?”

It is no wonder that protestants, who objects to many catholic doctrines about Mary in this case, will protests about that as well, where they don’t find them as scriptural doctrines taught and preached by the chosen apostles who were commanded to preach the gospel and teach all that Jesus had taught them, even those the Holy Spirit taught them about Jesus Christ, all of which were caused by the Holy Spirit to be written by the chosen writers of scriptures under divine inspiration.

Tong
R4634

 

[GodsGrace]

That really isn’t necessary. For my point is that you, as one who knows what RCC official doctrines are about Mary, don’t believe that Mary is co-redeemer nor is fount of grace, since it is not a doctrine of RCC since 2000 years ago. So that, if say any member of your church, more so a leader, a priest, would say and teach that Mary is co-redeemer and is fount of grace, you would be able to tell him that he is is preaching a doctrine that is not an official doctrine of the RCC and should not be doing such. It is disobedience to the RCC church leaders, to the Pope, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles. I guess you will not object that legitimate members and leaders even, teaching what is not official doctrine of RCC is bad and dangerous, and must be stopped by all means, if not, strongly and emphatically discouraged under pain of penalty of some sort of disciplinary action against such.

Tong
R4612

I never heard a priest state the above and do not know one that believes this.

 

[Tong2020]

I never heard a priest state the above and do not know one that believes this.

A google work may be a way for you to have an idea about that.

Tong
R4635