MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

[Marymog]

You're a missionary?

You "liked" post #609 sooooo I assumed you read it?

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

You "liked" post #609 sooooo I assumed you read it?

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Mary

No Mary.
Dontcha worry none.
It's me.
I think I'm getting old.
Even though I'm STILL only 38!!

I forgot...sorry.
I applaud you.

 

[Marymog]

No Mary.
Dontcha worry none.
It's me.
I think I'm getting old.
Even though I'm STILL only 38!!

I forgot...sorry.
I applaud you.

Lol....thank you.

Wait until you get 54...it gets worse in some ways.....

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Nondenom40]

This is trolling. Try contributing and following the thread with intelligent comments instead of the usual meaningless flaming zingers.

Nothing trolling about what i say. My posts are direct responses to what others have to say. If one person can make a blanket statement i can too. And i can back it up. Was there a catholic church in the first century? Sure, the universal church. Was there a roman catholic church in the first century with its papacy, purgatory, penance, sacerdotal priesthood, marys immaculate conception, assumption? No, not in the least. If youre going to argue for a 'catholic church', its best you define your terms first. Or is that the 'trolling' thing to ask?

 

[Nondenom40]

Hey,
Are you still around?
I just saw the above...sorry about that.

I'd be very happy to give you some history lessons.
And they ARE HISTORY lessons...not catholic church lessons.
It just so happens that the cc has always been around.

See post 624. Go ahead, do your best.

 

[Nondenom40]

The Catholic Church... defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine.

On what grounds, then, can we receive the Canon today except on the authority of the Church in the 5th century? These facts cause insuperable problems for Protestantism and its guiding principle of “Scripture Alone,” but are not a difficulty in the least for Catholics, who believe in Tradition, Church Authority, and development – all crucial elements in the very human process of selection of the biblical Canon.

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph. 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed which grows into a tree (Mt. 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and Doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning. It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” doomed to be increasingly corrupted by an encroaching, “diabolical” Catholicism, as is imagined by millions of Protestants unacquainted with the early Church and the oldest source materials after the New Testament, such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) and St. Clement of Rome (d.c.101).

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

If anything must be described, then, as a corruption of primitive, pure Christianity, it is Protestantism, not Catholicism, since it introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority which was a 180-degree departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of “Scripture Alone.” Protestantism is much more of a corruption, if that word is defined as an essential change of direction or philosophy of an institution or a set of beliefs (in this case theological and spiritual).

One might say that an automobile was “corrupt” if the owner decided that it ran better with no muffler, no shocks, no air or fuel filters, half of its spark plugs, watered-down gas, no rear brakes, one headlight, no heat, three quarts low on oil, with half of its radiator coolant, etc. Corruption can consist of “subtraction” as well as “addition.” Protestantism’s charges against Catholicism, closely scrutinized, only come back to incriminate itself.

By and large, Protestantism merely asserts “sola Scriptura” without much consideration of the seriously-flawed implications of the same, and judges all doctrines accordingly. Therefore, those which are deemed to be either outright unbiblical or insufficiently grounded in Scripture to be authoritative, are jettisoned: the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, Penance, the papacy, etc. Apart from the question of Tradition as a legitimate carrier (alongside and in harmony with Scripture) of Christian belief, much more biblical support can be found in Scripture for these “Catholic” doctrines than Protestants suppose.

One simply needs to become familiar with Catholic biblical apologetic arguments. The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

Theres a lot wrong here which i can detail later. But for starters regarding doctrinal development (which itself is a development) which apostle taught marys assumption? Youre the one arguing it has to be there for there to be a development in the first place. So who taught it? We'll wait.

 

[GodsGrace]

Lol....thank you.

Wait until you get 54...it gets worse in some ways.....

Respectfully, Mary

54!
You don't seem to understand.
I'M ALWAYS GOING TO BE 38!
54...huh...I wish.

Went to a nice Mass just before.
Fra' Lorenzo was there....he's the monk/brother that lives in the sanctuary where about 15 of us study with him. He's very good...deep. Right now we're doing the creation. (there's 4 of them)

Think about this: He said creation started BEFORE the big bang...when there was nothing.

Could YOU imagine nothing?

Nobody there could...

 

[Marymog]

54!
You don't seem to understand.
I'M ALWAYS GOING TO BE 38!
54...huh...I wish.

Went to a nice Mass just before.
Fra' Lorenzo was there....he's the monk/brother that lives in the sanctuary where about 15 of us study with him. He's very good...deep. Right now we're doing the creation. (there's 4 of them)

Think about this: He said creation started BEFORE the big bang...when there was nothing.

Could YOU imagine nothing?

Nobody there could...

Lol...no, I can't imagine nothing because it seems there always had to be something since you can't get something from nothing!!!!

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Nothing trolling about what i say. My posts are direct responses to what others have to say. If one person can make a blanket statement i can too. And i can back it up. Was there a catholic church in the first century? Sure, the universal church. Was there a roman catholic church in the first century with its papacy, purgatory, penance, sacerdotal priesthood, marys immaculate conception, assumption? No, not in the least. If youre going to argue for a 'catholic church', its best you define your terms first. Or is that the 'trolling' thing to ask?

You're right ND.
But the point is that because the church changed in time does not mean it was not the first church that was around at the time of the Apostles.

The church you call the universal church IS the catholic church.
What we do is we go back....
Where would you like to start?
1,500 the Reformation.
They were reforming the existing church....the CC.
Some could debate that the orthodox church is the original church, but this cannot be because they denied the papacy...and the papacy started in the CC in about the year 600 or so.

So before 325 AD and the Nicene creed we have a church in existance...it's the CC...it was called this by then.

Before that we had the universal church which is where the name catholic comes from.

Before that we had THE WAY, which we find in Acts 24:14

Before that all the Apostles ...

Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter.
Peter passed on the word to the Jews scattered in that area,,both south and north.

If you can show me another church, I'd be interested to see it.
There isn't any.

 

[GodsGrace]

Lol...no, I can't imagine nothing because it seems there always had to be something since you can't get something from nothing!!!!

Mary

I meant 4 monks...not 4 creations!
Sorry about that.

So you haven't heard of Lawrence Krauss.
Scientist.
They're in trouble now because it was believed the universe always existed.
Now with the BIG BANG, it has to be accepted that FROM NOTHING came SOMETHING?????

Well, Dr. Krauss to the rescue.
Seems he believes we CAN get something from nothing!
Stay tuned....

And yes, of course that's what create means...to make from nothing.
We misuse that word every day.

 

[epostle]

Nothing trolling about what i say. My posts are direct responses to what others have to say. If one person can make a blanket statement i can too. And i can back it up. Was there a catholic church in the first century? Sure, the universal church. Was there a roman catholic church in the first century with its papacy, purgatory, penance, sacerdotal priesthood, marys immaculate conception, assumption? No, not in the least. If youre going to argue for a 'catholic church', its best you define your terms first. Or is that the 'trolling' thing to ask?

It was not called the "Roman" Catholic Church in the first century. The prefix "Roman" as a blanket coverage for all Catholics was invented as an insult by the Anglicans in the 16th century. They wanted the name "Catholic" for themselves, so they made the distinction. The center for all Christianity is a matter of history, which you have re-written. There was the main church IN Rome, but "Roman Catholic Church" did not exist in the first century.
I explained in detail the meaning of "development of doctrine", you either didn't get it or refused to receive it.
I said in post #615:

The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.​

You are being intellectually dishonest or you don't understand doctrinal development. Worse, you refuse to understand it, because your system has little or no doctrinal development.

 

[epostle]

Theres a lot wrong here which i can detail later. But for starters regarding doctrinal development (which itself is a development) which apostle taught marys assumption? Youre the one arguing it has to be there for there to be a development in the first place. So who taught it? We'll wait.

DIALOGUE WITH A PROTESTANT (IN BLUE) ON THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY

Since you brought up the supposed “Assumption of Mary” let us deal with that. You suggest that because a thing did happen to others (Enoch, Elijah etcetera) that it could have happened to Mary. That’s a poor argument for the idea that Mary was assumed.
Angels came down many times in the OT and a couple of times in the NT. Should we then say that Moroni visited Joseph Smith?

Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it – for it would have occurred during the apostolic era. And if the Apostles wanted the saints to “venerate” her, they would have mentioned SOMETHING about it? But, no. Catholic apologists take a few words that Jesus spoke to John on the cross, “behold thy mother”, and add to it a dumpster-full of tradition.

Briefly: the Bible does mention the “woman clothed with the sun” in heaven (Rev. 12:1). Her child is clearly Jesus (Rev 12:5). It’s not rocket science to figure out that this is Mary, and that she is portrayed in quite a glorious state in heaven. If you want more Catholic perspectives on this (and Mary as mediatrix and intercessor and spiritual mother), see my Blessed Virgin Mary web page.

Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it.

By Protestant reasoning, “certainly, if sola Scriptura were true, the Bible would have mentioned something about it“. But it never does, which is the topic of my book. That doesn’t stop Protestants from making an entirely non-biblical, anti-biblical concept the very foundation and bedrock and pillar of their authority structure. They do it anyway. Then, having done that, they demand that we adopt the same illogical reasoning with regard to Catholic distinctives like Mary’s Assumption.

We never claimed that absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches this. That is your game, and thus your burden to defend, not ours.

Your statement above is classic. You believe this firmly, yet the Bible never states such a thing. Thus, you supposedly appeal to the Bible itself with a completely non-biblical idea that can’t be found there. Then you try to bind Catholics to this silly notion: so now you are arbitrarily applying an arbitrary tradition of men to us, as if we have to play by those rules . . . We think logically and biblically, so no dice!

I note that Cardinal Newman recognizes that the Madonna figure is an “anachronism” to the apostolic age. That is, the apostles never regarded Mary as a “Madonna”.
______________

I do not have a copy of the Confraternity version with me at present, but I do distinctly recall reading the footnotes of it regarding Rev 12. The writer said that the application to Mary was “useful” but that the Woman represented the church.
____________

Personally I think the Woman represents the Church at the last age, and the “manchild” represents a certain group within her who, like Christ and with Christ, will rule the world with a rod of iron.

The fact that the woman has “other children” indicates that this is not speaking of a “Virgin Mary”. (Rev 12:17)

Yes; in past treatments of the topic I have taken the view that the passage has a dual application: to Mary and the Church (and Mary as a figure of the Church). That is quite common in Scripture. I did this in my first book, which was completed 16 years ago this month, so that is nothing new with me.

However, the part specifically about giving birth to the child (who is Christ) must be about Mary, I contend, if it is about Christ, because Jesus was not a product of the Church, since He preceded it and initiated it. Therefore, that part is specifically talking about Mary. The Bible never uses a terminology of Jesus being a “child” (Rev 12:5) of the Church. He is the child of God the Father (His Divine Nature) and of Mary (as a person with both a Divine and human nature). The Church is “of Christ”; Christ is not “of the Church”; let alone its “child.” Those categories are biblically ludicrous and indeed almost blasphemous.

Your interpretation of “male child” is incoherent. “Rule all nations with a rod of iron” is clearly hearkening back to the messianic passage Psalm 2:7-9, which is again reflected in Rev 19:15 (absolutely about Jesus). It’s true that there is a secondary application along your lines in Rev 2:27, but you still have to deal with the phrase “caught up to God and to his throne” (Rev 12:5; RSV). That can’t mean “the twelve thrones” referred to in Matt 19:18 (cf. Lk 22:30; Rev 4:4; 11:16) because it says “his [i.e., God’s] throne.” Only Jesus is connected directly with that, because He is God.

And so we see Jesus (unlike any created men) sitting on God’s throne (Matt 19:28; 25:31; Heb 1:8; Rev 7:17; 22:1, 3).

Therefore, this proves that Rev 12:5 is referring to Jesus alone, and thus, His mother in this particular passage must be Mary, since it cannot be the Church, per the reasoning above. Other parts of the entire passage also have an application to the Church, as the Catholic Church continues to teach today.

Revelation 12:17 is no problem since it can either be an instance of the dual meaning of “Church” or Mary as a spiritual mother in a different sense (tying into the same John at the cross receiving Mary as his “mother”). We accept the dual application. It is you who are denying the Marian application, which doesn’t fly in light of the exegesis and cross-referencing that I have shown you.

And if it is Mary in this passage (as well as the Church), then we have an indication of both her veneration and glorification in heaven, akin to the Assumption (whereas you claimed there was nothing in Scripture at all about it: as if the Assumption were solely an arbitrary tradition of men, like sola Scriptura is .

I never said “absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in scripture”. This is a straw man.

Is that so? You stated:

“Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it – for it would have occurred during the apostolic era. And if the Apostles wanted the saints to “venerate” her, they would have mentioned SOMETHING about it?”

BUT if there is a MAJOR DOCTRINE of the church, then the scriptures must surely say SOMETHING about it.

Yes, and I showed that it does: by analogy (Enoch, Elijah, and Paul’s experience in the second heaven), and the data of Revelation 12, just discussed. Therefore I have demonstrated “SOMETHING about it.” You just disagree (on inadequate grounds). I showed implicit grounds, which is what you want, since you deny that you require explicit grounds. Therefore, I succeeded in my task, according to your challenge. I provided what you asked for. It continues to be the case, on the other hand, that sola Scriptura is entirely absent from the Bible and massively contradicted in it at every turn. So you hang by your own false premise, whereas we are not harmed at all by it because we reject it as unscriptural in the first place.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Mary, I do respect theCatholic Church. But your missionary efforts really taint the otherwise positive experiences I've had.

Translation: I don't have an answer to your legitimate point which is backed up by Scripture and Christian history so I will go on believing what I can't back up with Scripture or facts.

That's not remotely what I said nor meant, but you can think whatever. I don't care.

 

[Nondenom40]

It was not called the "Roman" Catholic Church in the first century. The prefix "Roman" as a blanket coverage for all Catholics was invented as an insult by the Anglicans in the 16th century. They wanted the name "Catholic" for themselves, so they made the distinction. The center for all Christianity is a matter of history, which you have re-written. There was the main church IN Rome, but "Roman Catholic Church" did not exist in the first century.
I explained in detail the meaning of "development of doctrine", you either didn't get it or refused to receive it.
I said in post #615:

The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.​

You are being intellectually dishonest or you don't understand doctrinal development. Worse, you refuse to understand it, because your system has little or no doctrinal development.

The term 'roman' occurs a little earlier than the 16th century. In Unam Sanctum 1302 the pope said that submission to the 'roman pontiff' was necessary for salvation. Also, the current ccc uses the term 'roman' over 30 times. They obviously don't have an issue using the term.

And i understand doctrinal development, i simply reject the catholic spin they've put on it. I've listed several distinctly roman catholic beliefs none of which you engaged in. Its not 'doctrinal development' when you can't even find it in the bible. Thats called inventing out of thin air. If the faith was 'once for all delivered to the saints': Jude 3, then we would see a purgatory, penance, papacy....in the bible, we don't because none of that is biblical teaching. Its 100% man made.

 

[Nondenom40]

DIALOGUE WITH A PROTESTANT (IN BLUE) ON THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY

Since you brought up the supposed “Assumption of Mary” let us deal with that. You suggest that because a thing did happen to others (Enoch, Elijah etcetera) that it could have happened to Mary. That’s a poor argument for the idea that Mary was assumed.
Angels came down many times in the OT and a couple of times in the NT. Should we then say that Moroni visited Joseph Smith?

Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it – for it would have occurred during the apostolic era. And if the Apostles wanted the saints to “venerate” her, they would have mentioned SOMETHING about it? But, no. Catholic apologists take a few words that Jesus spoke to John on the cross, “behold thy mother”, and add to it a dumpster-full of tradition.

Briefly: the Bible does mention the “woman clothed with the sun” in heaven (Rev. 12:1). Her child is clearly Jesus (Rev 12:5). It’s not rocket science to figure out that this is Mary, and that she is portrayed in quite a glorious state in heaven. If you want more Catholic perspectives on this (and Mary as mediatrix and intercessor and spiritual mother), see my Blessed Virgin Mary web page.

Youre leaving out an important part of Rev 12. It doesn't merely say 'woman clothed with the sun' it says 'I saw a SIGN of a woman...'. Thats important because signs aren't literally the thing they designate. Signs point to something else. When you drive to chicago, eventually you'll see a sign that says 'Chicago'. The sign isn't chicago, it points you to Chicago. The sign of a woman is not a literal woman. Neither is the 'sign of a red dragon' a real dragon. The sign of the red dragon is satan, satan is an angel, not a dragon. So youre already off on the wrong foot by misquoting the verse.

Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it.

By Protestant reasoning, “certainly, if sola Scriptura were true, the Bible would have mentioned something about it“. But it never does, which is the topic of my book. That doesn’t stop Protestants from making an entirely non-biblical, anti-biblical concept the very foundation and bedrock and pillar of their authority structure. They do it anyway. Then, having done that, they demand that we adopt the same illogical reasoning with regard to Catholic distinctives like Mary’s Assumption.

No one goes to hell by rejecting sola scriptura. But you are damned, excommunicated, anathematized, ship wrecked your faith AND incur the wrath of God for rejecting marys assumption. THAT would be in scripture if it indeed were true. Its not true which is why there is zero in Gods word regarding it.

We never claimed that absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches this. That is your game, and thus your burden to defend, not ours.

Your statement above is classic. You believe this firmly, yet the Bible never states such a thing. Thus, you supposedly appeal to the Bible itself with a completely non-biblical idea that can’t be found there. Then you try to bind Catholics to this silly notion: so now you are arbitrarily applying an arbitrary tradition of men to us, as if we have to play by those rules . . . We think logically and biblically, so no dice!

I note that Cardinal Newman recognizes that the Madonna figure is an “anachronism” to the apostolic age. That is, the apostles never regarded Mary as a “Madonna”.
______________

I do not have a copy of the Confraternity version with me at present, but I do distinctly recall reading the footnotes of it regarding Rev 12. The writer said that the application to Mary was “useful” but that the Woman represented the church.
____________

Personally I think the Woman represents the Church at the last age, and the “manchild” represents a certain group within her who, like Christ and with Christ, will rule the world with a rod of iron.

The fact that the woman has “other children” indicates that this is not speaking of a “Virgin Mary”. (Rev 12:17)

Yes; in past treatments of the topic I have taken the view that the passage has a dual application: to Mary and the Church (and Mary as a figure of the Church). That is quite common in Scripture. I did this in my first book, which was completed 16 years ago this month, so that is nothing new with me.

However, the part specifically about giving birth to the child (who is Christ) must be about Mary, I contend, if it is about Christ, because Jesus was not a product of the Church, since He preceded it and initiated it. Therefore, that part is specifically talking about Mary. The Bible never uses a terminology of Jesus being a “child” (Rev 12:5) of the Church. He is the child of God the Father (His Divine Nature) and of Mary (as a person with both a Divine and human nature). The Church is “of Christ”; Christ is not “of the Church”; let alone its “child.” Those categories are biblically ludicrous and indeed almost blasphemous.

Your interpretation of “male child” is incoherent. “Rule all nations with a rod of iron” is clearly hearkening back to the messianic passage Psalm 2:7-9, which is again reflected in Rev 19:15 (absolutely about Jesus). It’s true that there is a secondary application along your lines in Rev 2:27, but you still have to deal with the phrase “caught up to God and to his throne” (Rev 12:5; RSV). That can’t mean “the twelve thrones” referred to in Matt 19:18 (cf. Lk 22:30; Rev 4:4; 11:16) because it says “his [i.e., God’s] throne.” Only Jesus is connected directly with that, because He is God.

And so we see Jesus (unlike any created men) sitting on God’s throne (Matt 19:28; 25:31; Heb 1:8; Rev 7:17; 22:1, 3).

Therefore, this proves that Rev 12:5 is referring to Jesus alone, and thus, His mother in this particular passage must be Mary, since it cannot be the Church, per the reasoning above. Other parts of the entire passage also have an application to the Church, as the Catholic Church continues to teach today.

Revelation 12:17 is no problem since it can either be an instance of the dual meaning of “Church” or Mary as a spiritual mother in a different sense (tying into the same John at the cross receiving Mary as his “mother”). We accept the dual application. It is you who are denying the Marian application, which doesn’t fly in light of the exegesis and cross-referencing that I have shown you.

And if it is Mary in this passage (as well as the Church), then we have an indication of both her veneration and glorification in heaven, akin to the Assumption (whereas you claimed there was nothing in Scripture at all about it: as if the Assumption were solely an arbitrary tradition of men, like sola Scriptura is .

I never said “absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in scripture”. This is a straw man.

Is that so? You stated:

“Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it – for it would have occurred during the apostolic era. And if the Apostles wanted the saints to “venerate” her, they would have mentioned SOMETHING about it?”

BUT if there is a MAJOR DOCTRINE of the church, then the scriptures must surely say SOMETHING about it.

Yes, and I showed that it does: by analogy (Enoch, Elijah, and Paul’s experience in the second heaven), and the data of Revelation 12, just discussed. Therefore I have demonstrated “SOMETHING about it.” You just disagree (on inadequate grounds). I showed implicit grounds, which is what you want, since you deny that you require explicit grounds. Therefore, I succeeded in my task, according to your challenge. I provided what you asked for. It continues to be the case, on the other hand, that sola Scriptura is entirely absent from the Bible and massively contradicted in it at every turn. So you hang by your own false premise, whereas we are not harmed at all by it because we reject it as unscriptural in the first place.

The woman is Israel. The child is Jesus birthed through ancestry. Read Matt and Luke regarding Jesus' lineage. Nothing too difficult about this, unless you have an agenda to prop up. Like a late arriving dogma.

 

[bbyrd009]

none of which you engaged in.

ha ya get used to that here bro lol

 

[epostle]

Youre leaving out an important part of Rev 12. It doesn't merely say 'woman clothed with the sun' it says 'I saw a SIGN of a woman...'. Thats important because signs aren't literally the thing they designate. Signs point to something else. When you drive to chicago, eventually you'll see a sign that says 'Chicago'. The sign isn't chicago, it points you to Chicago. The sign of a woman is not a literal woman. Neither is the 'sign of a red dragon' a real dragon. The sign of the red dragon is satan, satan is an angel, not a dragon. So youre already off on the wrong foot by misquoting the verse.

The verse does not say, "I saw a sign of a woman." and the verse does not say "sign of a red dragon". It's not me misquoting scripture.

No one goes to hell by rejecting sola scriptura. But you are damned, excommunicated, anathematized, ship wrecked your faith AND incur the wrath of God for rejecting marys assumption. THAT would be in scripture if it indeed were true. Its not true which is why there is zero in Gods word regarding it.

There is not a single Catholic document in a 2000 year period that says " you are damned, excommunicated, anathematized, ship wrecked your faith AND incur the wrath of God for rejecting marys assumption" or anything remotely like it. If Protestantism of your flavor didn't reject the reformers Mariology, you wouldn't have such a hard time understanding it. You have no frame of reference for even the basics.

The woman is Israel. The child is Jesus birthed through ancestry. Read Matt and Luke regarding Jesus' lineage. Nothing too difficult about this, unless you have an agenda to prop up. Like a late arriving dogma.

The woman can be a personification of Israel, but that is the third meaning. Ancestries don't give birth to persons, and neither do nations, mothers do. Jesus is a Person, so Mary as "woman" is the primary interpretation of Rev. 12. Now you are left with re-defining who Jesus is to force fit your recent views into your system.

 

[epostle]

The woman is Israel. The child is Jesus birthed through ancestry. Read Matt and Luke regarding Jesus' lineage. Nothing too difficult about this, unless you have an agenda to prop up. Like a late arriving dogma.

From a Protestant questioner on the Coming Home Network board, with my replies:
*
It kind of bugs me. Why did the Church have to announce those dogmas in the 1800s anyway? I’ve read that previous clarifications are in response to heresy.

Exactly. The Church defined them at the highest dogmatic levels, because we Catholics believe that God is working in His Church, and that we can think and reflect upon things for centuries (development of doctrine) before making them absolutely binding on the faithful. It is deemed an “opportune” time to define, due to historical circumstances.

Example: The Trinity needed clarification due to the Arian heresy. Well, what kind of heresy was so prominent in the 1800s, anyway, that the Catholic church felt so obliged that it had to pronounce Mary as Immaculate and also her Assumption?

Well, theological liberalism was running rampant for a couple of generations. The Immaculate Conception (as with all Marian dogmas) safeguarded the deity of Christ, which was under attack. Jesus was so special that even His mother had to be given a special grace of sinlessness to bear Him.

Catholic convert Louis Bouyer gives another rationale:

If there is any Catholic belief that shows how much the Church believes in the sovereignty of grace, in its most gratuitous form, it is this one. It is remarkable that the Orthodox controversialists, contrary to the Protestants, reproach Catholics for admitting, in this one case of Our Lady, something analogous to what strict Calvinists admit for all the elect – a grace that saves us absolutely independently of us, not only without any merit of our own, but without any possibility of our cooperation, . . . whereas the Protestant view seems, not merely against reason, but completely absurd. To say that Mary is holy, with a super-eminent holiness, in virtue of a divine intervention previous to the first instant of her existence, is to affirm in her case as absolutely as possible that salvation is a grace, and purely a grace, of God.​

(The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, translated by A. V. Littledale, London: Harvill Press, 1956, p. 247)

As for the Assumption, Fr. John Saward gives one interpretation of why it was defined when it was:

The New Testament regards the resurrection of Our Lord not as an isolated event with only isolated repercussions for mankind, but as the beginning of the universal resurrection of the dead [see 1 Cor 15:13,16] . . . Resurrection, we must say again, is communal . . .​

The heart of the doctrine of the resurrection is this sense of the communal, inclusive body of glory. Now I believe that it is precisely this sense of ‘resurrection-relatedness’ that is the foundation of the doctrine of the Assumption of Our Blessed Lady . . . while the victory over death that has taken place in Mary may not be general, there is an important sense in which it can be said to be thoroughly ‘normal’, a direct upshot and fruit of Christ’s own victory over sin and death . . .

It is precisely the typological role of the Assumption, its prefiguring of the general resurrection, which we find most consistently stressed in our earliest witnesses . . . The resurrection of Jesus is not simply typological but effective; it has a causal and not simply iconic relation to the general resurrection. It does not simply prefigure the reassembly of all men but actually sets it in motion. Now Our Lady receives resurrection as we all shall through the power of God; the difference in her case being only its anticipation, its role as sign and type . . .

Pope Pius saw that the Assumption struck a prophetic blow against the institutionalized individualism of the modern world, its competitive and alienated spirit, demonstrated in a global way in the Second World War, which had ended only five years before, and daily seen in men’s lives. A dogma that is based on an indestructible relationship of Mother and Son, and of the Son with humanity, has much to offer the world . . Mary: The Blessed Virgin (Index Page)
This is not bumper sticker theology, it's development of doctrine and highly advanced. Again, you lost the Mariology of the reformers and have no frame of reference.

 

[Marymog]

That's not remotely what I said nor meant, but you can think whatever. I don't care.

Well.....you didn't answere and still don't have an answer soooooo it is obvious that you don't care.

 

[Daniel Veler]

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.


Jesus had siblings, brothers and sisters. Mary had other children. Jesus had siblings, conceived by Mary and Joseph.

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Brother in the Bible means brother.

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Paul clearly speaks of James as being the Lord's brother.

1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Paul speaks of being able to to have a sister as a wife; not a sibling sister, but rather a believer. This differentiation is derived strictly from an unbiased and natural common sense consideration of the text and context. By utilizing the same common sense, it can be also determined that the brethren of the Lord are siblings rather than believers.

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

Here Paul is speaking of Sosthenes as being a brother in the sense of being a fellow believer.

Mark 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren

3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

In this scriptural passage, is one last example of the ready distinction between family and fellow believers. If viewed honestly, it is apparant that in Mark 3:31-32 Jesus's brethren and mother is his family; in Mark 3:34-35 Jesus is speaking of those who believe.

your looking at this through the eyes of men and not God. It is written the Christ had neither Mother, sister or brother. Christ was the second creation of God. As the apostle wrote that God created to Adams. The first having a soul. The second being Christ created in the spirit. Any other children that Mary may have had after Christ were not conceived in the way God created Christ. Mary was the vessel God used. So no Christ didn’t have brothers or sisters. The children of Mary would have been conceived with Joseph. Christ was the second Adam created by God.