Jesus as the Son of God. A question.

[JerseyDiamond]

*Originally posted by dwalin *
Ever hear of the Immaculate Conception? Mary was born without original sin. (Yes, I know, that’s Catholic doctrine)

Is it Biblical? Also, why would Mary have to be born without sin?

Why not?

Because we have God we can pray to. Why would you need to pray to a saint?
The Bible is pretty clear in that the only mediator is Jesus.

Interstingly enough, the words translated as various forms of ‘siblings’ can also be translated as ‘cousins’.

(Gal 1:19 KJV) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

Brother as in (Mark 6:3 KJV) 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
is translated from adelphos (as a connected particle) delphus (the womb)

Cousin as in KJV is translated from suggenes: a relative by blood, cousin, kin

And I like what someone said in this thread, although I can’t seem to find it now: Mary carried the Son of God in her womb for 9 months. How could she carry another child in the womb that carried Jesus?

Uhmm, so what. How could a cross have a person hung on it when Jesus was hung on a cross?
How could another person walk on the same road that Jesus walked.

[More_Cowbell]

The ignorance of fundamentalists always amazes me. They practice their 150 year old cult like they are the only ones who know what Christianity is, history be damned. I actually miss Kirkland at times like these.

*Originally posted by crazy grady *
Mary was not without sin. She was a sinner just like everyone else. The “Immaculate Conception” crowd states that she was born sinless. So, was Mary’s mother a sinner? Where does one draw the line? Mary was undoubtably a special person, one could claim a religious holy person, because she was the one who raised the Christ.

The “Immaculate Conception” crowd? You mean the billion or so members of the Roman Catholic church backed by thousands of years of scholarship and history. Your ignorance of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is evident.

Mary had original sin removed through the sanctifying grace of God at her conception in the womb. She was given the sanctifying grace to remove original sin, normally bestowed at baptism, in her womb due to her special circumstance. You know, being the mother of God and all. It had nothing to do with Mary’s parents. And with the immaculate conception, the human Jesus was born of both mother and father devoid of sin, hence the inheritance of original sin was not an issue.

Yes, Mary had other children. Jesus’ first younger brother was St. James. The bible clearly speaks of Jesus having brothers or sisters. I mean she was married. what was poor Joseph supposed to do with himself?

Clearly? Couldn’t have been cousins? Could have been Joseph’s children from a previous marriage? But of course, you know better than 2000 years of church history. Even non-Catholic leaders recognized the perpetual virginity of Mary. Ever hear of Martin Luther? John Calivn? Zwingli? Wesley? They all agreed that Mary was a perpetual virgin until her death. As did early church leaders such as Origen, Iraneus, Ignatius, Polycarp and Jerome to name a few.

And what of the writings that have Mary being a temple virgin, dedicating her life as such, and Joseph being a widower with children already when he agreed to marry Mary and avowed to protect her virginity. It’s written in the Protoevangelium of James, written about 120 A.D. It’s called church history, look into it sometime. “Where is THAT in the Bible” is not an answer to everything.

And speaking of, on to the other one.

Originally posted by JerseyDiamondBecause we have God we can pray to. Why would you need to pray to a saint?
The Bible is pretty clear in that the only mediator is Jesus.

[sarcasm]Do you ask your friends and family to pray for you? Why? The Bible is pretty clear in that the only mediator is Jesus.[/sarcasm] I know this point has been explained to you and your ilk before, yet you continue to trot out your willful ignorance. It’s shameful.

Brother as in (Mark 6:3 KJV) 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 is translated from adelphos (as a connected particle) delphus (the womb)

Cousin as in KJV is translated from suggenes: a relative by blood, cousin, kin

But Jesus and his followers wouldn’t use the word adelphos or delphus. They spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. So please, give me the Aramaic or Hebrew word for “cousin”. When the words Jesus and his followers used were translated into Greek, they used the word adelphos, just as was done in the writing of the Septuagint. They did this for brothers and cousins. Can you tell me why this is Jersey? Little hint, it has to do with that word in Aramaic or Hebrew I asked you to get.

[Dogface]

*Originally posted by Innanna *
Mary was also born without Original Sin, otherwise known as Immaculate Conception.

That is a Roman Catholic doctrine, not shared by Protestants or Orthodox Christians.

[Dogface]

The All-Blessed, the Panagia, the most Blessed Theotokos, the First Fruits of the saved, the best of us all, was not born without Original Sin. Only Jesus Christ was born without Original Sin, for He is both God and human.

[Dogface]

Oh, one more thing, could somebody please give the specific and unmistakable quotes from the Bible that specify the following:

We are to use only the Bible to determine doctrine.
More importantly: Quotes WITHIN THE TEXT as to which books, SPECIFICALLY, are to be in the Bible.

[smiling_bandit]

Mary was not without sin. She was a sinner just like everyone else. The “Immaculate Conception” crowd states that she was born sinless. So, was Mary’s mother a sinner? Where does one draw the line? Mary was undoubtably a special person, one could claim a religious holy person, because she was the one who raised the Christ.

Actually, we believe she was sinless, by choice, but also washed of Original Sin.

Yes, Mary had other children. Jesus’ first younger brother was St. James. The bible clearly speaks of Jesus having brothers or sisters. I mean she was married. what was poor Joseph supposed to do with himself?

That is a rather unfounded assumption, based on rather shaky grounds.

3.: According to Catholic (and Orthodox) belief only an ordained priest can consecrate the bread and wine of the Eucharist. In Lutheran belief any baptized member of the congregation can consecrate the bread and wine.

Yes and No. Under ordinary circumstances, the priest is supposed to do this. However, given certain problems, such as being lost at sea or stranded in the Himalayas, I think any of the faithful may consecrate the etc., etc., and, should the situation last long enough, proclaim the sacraments. But I could be wrong. Its not a question that comes up real often in church.

We are to use only the Bible to determine doctrine.
More importantly: Quotes WITHIN THE TEXT as to which books, SPECIFICALLY, are to be in the Bible.

I would like to know what your goal here is. Those who believe in biblical innacurracy do not demand that the Bible itself must say its innaccurate (and what would the point be?), but rather that God would not send his followers a false book. Ergo, any faithful translation is acceptable. So its the question that is lacking.

[yBeayf]

Yes and No. Under ordinary circumstances, the priest is supposed to do this [consecrate the Eucharist]. However, given certain problems, such as being lost at sea or stranded in the Himalayas, I think any of the faithful may consecrate the etc., etc., and, should the situation last long enough, proclaim the sacraments.

This is definitely false for Orthodox, and I would be shocked if it were true for Catholics. Traditional Orthodox and Catholic doctrine is that only bishops, or their duly authorized deputies the priests, are empowered to consecrate the Gifts. Laymen may baptise, but that’s it.

quote:

We are to use only the Bible to determine doctrine.
More importantly: Quotes WITHIN THE TEXT as to which books, SPECIFICALLY, are to be in the Bible.

I would like to know what your goal here is. Those who believe in biblical innacurracy do not demand that the Bible itself must say its innaccurate (and what would the point be?), but rather that God would not send his followers a false book. Ergo, any faithful translation is acceptable. So its the question that is lacking.

I believe the point Dogface is making is that certain Protestant Christians state that their entire belief is founded on the Bible, and only on the Bible; however, nowhere in the Bible does it state that only the Bible is the basis for the faith, ergo these individuals have a contradiction in their beliefs. Likewise, nowhere does the Bible state what books are contained within it, so Christians who reject any religious authority other than the Bible have no way of knowing what the Bible should consist of other than tradition.

[smiling_bandit]

I believe the point Dogface is making is that certain Protestant Christians state that their entire belief is founded on the Bible, and only on the Bible; however, nowhere in the Bible does it state that only the Bible is the basis for the faith, ergo these individuals have a contradiction in their beliefs. Likewise, nowhere does the Bible state what books are contained within it, so Christians who reject any religious authority other than the Bible have no way of knowing what the Bible should consist of other than tradition.

There’s no contradiction, as they believe (or at least say) that God would not lead his people astray, and therefore will give them the right Bible, and punish those who mess with it, which might be why the gnbostics are now somewhat, well, gone.

This is definitely false for Orthodox, and I would be shocked if it were true for Catholics. Traditional Orthodox and Catholic doctrine is that only bishops, or their duly authorized deputies the priests, are empowered to consecrate the Gifts. Laymen may baptise, but that’s it.

I might be wrong, but how many people get shipwrecked in the Mediterranean and simply can’t find a priest on their deserted Isle?

[Genghis_Bob]

*Originally posted by Mr. B *
**catholic refers to “universal,” not Roman Catholic, hence the lower case. **

Mr. B, that’s the understanding of this Lutheran also. The Apostle’s Creed we say has small-c “catholic” in it, straight from the hymnal.

[Mycroft_Holmes]

*Originally posted by rimshotgdansk *
**Mr. B, that’s the understanding of this Lutheran also. The Apostle’s Creed we say has small-c “catholic” in it, straight from the hymnal. **

That’s interesting (and quite logical also). I know in the German Lutheran church the apostolic creed substitutes the line: “the holy Christian church”. I guess ever since Martin Luther’s excommunication in 1520 (not to mention the 30 years war that decimated most of Europe) German Lutherans have been a little sensitive when it comes to the Catholic church.

[Dogface]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
There’s no contradiction, as they believe (or at least say) that God would not lead his people astray, and therefore will give them the right Bible, and punish those who mess with it, which might be why the gnbostics are now somewhat, well, gone.

How do these people explain just how it is that there are so many of us Orthodox and Roman Catholics, who don’t go for that sola scriptura thing? Are we, well, gone?

And the Gnostics are still around–they’re even undergoing a resurgence in some circles. Indeed, one could make an argument that there is a strong current of Gnosticism that runs right through a great deal of modern Protestant belief (eg, the body is merely a vessel for the soul–I hear that a lot; material reality is somehow inherently evil–yes, I come across that one, too.).

[Innanna]

posted by Innanna
Mary was also born without Original Sin, otherwise known as Immaculate Conception.

*Originally posted by Dogface *
**That is a Roman Catholic doctrine, not shared by Protestants or Orthodox Christians. **

I actually know this. But the OP was talking about the verneration of Mary as well as praying to Mary, so I assumed that they were talking about a Catholic faith, and thus tried (and failed miserably compared to most of the responses:) ) to give an answer. As far as I know, Protestants do not venerate Mary in the same way as Catholics to, or would even use the term vernerate in that way.

[yBeayf]

There’s no contradiction, as they believe (or at least say) that God would not lead his people astray, and therefore will give them the right Bible, and punish those who mess with it, which might be why the gnbostics are now somewhat, well, gone.

But their justification for relying only on the Bible for their religion must come from outside the Bible, either through tradition or through their own reasoning, therefore they are not relying solely on the Bible.

I might be wrong, but how many people get shipwrecked in the Mediterranean and simply can’t find a priest on their deserted Isle?

If one is stuck in a place where one has no access to the Holy Mysteries, then one simply does without. Orthodoxy has provisions for this: all services except for the Divine Liturgy have variants that can be performed by laymen; the Divine Liturgy itself is replaced by the Typika, which is essentially a Liturgy without the parts relating to the Eucharist. See the experience of the Russians on Antarctica - it is only recently that a church has been planned to be built, with a permanent clergyman stationed there. Previously, Orthodox who wintered over simply had to do without the Mysteries. Similarly, when the priestless Old Believers in Russia rejected the hierarchy as being corrupt, they didn’t have laymen consecrate the Gifts, but simply removed the Divine Liturgy from their cycle of services. Some of the priestless Old Believers have since joined up with the Russian Church once more, and received clergy, hence they have access to the Eucharist again.

My point is that a bishop and his flock form the basic unit of the Church, and that this is the context in which the Holy Mysteries occur.

[smiling_bandit]

[quote]
How do these people explain just how it is that there are so many of us Orthodox and Roman Catholics, who don’t go for that sola scriptura thing? Are we, well, gone?

[quote]

Nah, we’re servents of Satan. Didn’t you get the memo?

And the Gnostics are still around–they’re even undergoing a resurgence in some circles. Indeed, one could make an argument that there is a strong current of Gnosticism that runs right through a great deal of modern Protestant belief (eg, the body is merely a vessel for the soul–I hear that a lot; material reality is somehow inherently evil–yes, I come across that one, too.).

Emm, maybe, but one of the hallmarks of Gnosticism was its rejection of the earthiness of Peter. Which I think was one of the greatest sins ever committed by man. Protestents most assuredly don’t reject him - indeed, Luther was very much like Peter, albeit more charismatic and revolutionary. Gnosticism just isn’t like wat is was.

[JerseyDiamond]

*Originally posted by ThunderBug *
…They practice their 150 year old cult like they are the only ones who know what Christianity is, history be damned.

Where do you get this, the Catholic Church?

The “Immaculate Conception” crowd? You mean the billion or so members of the Roman Catholic church backed by thousands of years of scholarship and history. Your ignorance of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is evident.

So in other words, since a lot of people agree, (even though there is no Biblical support) it must be true?
oh, ok

Mary had original sin removed through the sanctifying grace of God at her conception in the womb. She was given the sanctifying grace to remove original sin, normally bestowed at baptism, in her womb due to her special circumstance. You know, being the mother of God and all. It had nothing to do with Mary’s parents. And with the immaculate conception, the human Jesus was born of both mother and father devoid of sin, hence the inheritance of original sin was not an issue.

Again, is it Biblical, and can you show me?

Clearly? Couldn’t have been cousins? Could have been Joseph’s children from a previous marriage? But of course, you know better than 2000 years of church history. Even non-Catholic leaders recognized the perpetual virginity of Mary. Ever hear of Martin Luther? John Calivn? Zwingli? Wesley? They all agreed that Mary was a perpetual virgin until her death. As did early church leaders such as Origen, Iraneus, Ignatius, Polycarp and Jerome to name a few.

Does the Bible say Joseph was married before or had children? Could you show me?

Well an even earlier leader didn’t think so, how about Paul?
(Gal 1:19 KJV) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

I know many (huge) leaders that believe otherwise: Billy Graham, Skip Heitzig, James Dobson, Franklin Graham, Bob Coy, Chuck Missler, I could go on and on.
And small: Jack D. Walker, Hiram Duffer, Jonathan Cahn, again I could go on.

And what of the writings that have Mary being a temple virgin, dedicating her life as such, and Joseph being a widower with children already when he agreed to marry Mary and avowed to protect her virginity. It’s written in the Protoevangelium of James, written about 120 A.D. It’s called church history, look into it sometime. “Where is THAT in the Bible” is not an answer to everything.

Of course “where is that in the Bible” is not an answer if it contradict what you want to believe, Duh, I knew that.

Your church can write and say whatever they want, if it contradicts what the Bible says, it is wrong.
You can believe what they tell you if you choose. The Bible tells us not to believe what everyone tells you, but to compare it to what the Bible says.

Also, if your pope is your authority, then Here:
http://www.philthompson.net/pages/faq/12.html#here

[sarcasm]Do you ask your friends and family to pray for you? Why? The Bible is pretty clear in that the only mediator is Jesus.[/sarcasm] I know this point has been explained to you and your ilk before, yet you continue to trot out your willful ignorance. It’s shameful.

As a matter of fact, I don’t.

Ignorance indeed!

But Jesus and his followers wouldn’t use the word adelphos or delphus. They spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. So please, give me the Aramaic or Hebrew word for “cousin”. When the words Jesus and his followers used were translated into Greek, they used the word adelphos, just as was done in the writing of the Septuagint. They did this for brothers and cousins. Can you tell me why this is Jersey? Little hint, it has to do with that word in Aramaic or Hebrew I asked you to get. **
[/QUOTE]

Even Cecil Adams, the god of many on this board, thinks it’s ridiculous to assume that:

The words in the Greek original are adelphoi, brothers, and adelphi, sisters. They can be used in a metaphorical, brotherhood-of-man sense, just like their English equivalents. But the context strongly suggests the strict sense, i.e., children of the same mom.

The Catholic take, however, is that the words have yet another meaning: cousins, or perhaps Joseph’s children by a previous marriage. This tortured reading is necessary so as not to contradict the aforementioned doctrine of the virgin birth. Just so we’re clear, the VB does not mean the Immaculate Conception, the belief that Mary was free of original sin, which was declared Catholic dogma in 1854. Virgin birth means that Mary remained a virgin despite having conceived Jesus.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I believe this is a first for me but I actually agree with JerseyDiamond.

[Polycarp]

I don’t have a dog in this fight: Mary’s sex life or its absence is a matter of total indifference to me. I have immense respect for her as the Theotokos, the woman privileged to bear the Incarnate Word. Whether she went on to live a celibate life or to fulfill her womanly privilege and role by making love to her husband and bearing additional children is, quite frankly, none of our business. The idea that she was somehow “tainted” by having sexual relations with her lawful husband, in my opinion, does far more injury to the “sanctity of marriage” than the legal recognition of gay unions possibly could.

But at the same time, the concept that the present contents of the Protestant Bible, and only that, is the sole reliable source for answers to any questions involving the history of New Testament Times, is equally bizarre. Certainly it furnishes a base or benchmark on which to judge the non-Canonical works – even a critical atheist would say that the degree of acceptance given the canonical N.T. books, in general, means that those alive at the time considered them more reliable than, say, the Protevangelium or the Gospel of Thomas. Over on the Pizza Parlor, Rehab3 provides a list of books accepted as Canonical by the Coptic Church of Ethiopia, which includes far more than any English Bible contains. One can use supplementary, non-Canonical material, with caution, to resolve questions that the Canonical material does not address. For example, James of Jerusalem, James Justus, the man described as “Jesus’s brother,” is alluded to briefly in the canonical Gospels, but furnishes a couple of chapters of Josephus (how reliable thses are is a different debate). But it seems reasonable to accept his statement of James’s death (as opposed to the death of James son of Zebedee, mentioned in Acts), from Josephus and not used polemically to prove some point.

James himself, by the way, furnishes a small amount of support to the idea that “Jesus’s brothers” were in fact Joseph’s children by a first marriage. One of the extra-Canonical sources states his age at death as 81 – and if this and the date of death are taken as reliable, this makes him older than Jesus as a human being. Jesus is nowhere described as Joseph’s firstborn son, but only as Mary’s.

I personally have no problems with the underlying concepts of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption – God may do whatever He chooses for those He loves, and it seems reasonable that His grace could extend to treating specially the woman He chose to bear Jesus in human form. What I object to is the idea that such beliefs need to be enforced as dogma on believers. IMO, there is no difference between this sort of accretion and the rejection of cosmology and evolutionary biology to conform one’s understanding of how the world works to a strictly history view of Bible stories.

[JerseyDiamond]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**I believe this is a first for me but I actually agree with JerseyDiamond. **

:eek: Are you feeling ok? Maybe you should sitdown.

Can I get you something to drink, or perhaps a cold towel?

[More_Cowbell]

*Originally posted by JerseyDiamond *
**Where do you get this, the Catholic Church? **

Nope, my twenty or so years of being trapped in the fundamentalist camp, being fed lie upon lie about other religions and faiths. Why do you ask?**
So in other words, since a lot of people agree, (even though there is no Biblical support) it must be true?
oh, ok**
I was pointing out that the concept is not new nor held by a handful of people. I was also pointing out that Crazy Grady was ignorant of the concept of the “Immaculate Conception”. Please don’t attribute things to me that I did not say or imply alternate meanings to fit your agenda.

**
Again, is it Biblical, and can you show me?
**
The mantra of the fundamentalist. Sola Sciptura is not in the Bible either, but yet you keep trotting it in arguement after arguement.

**
Does the Bible say Joseph was married before or had children? Could you show me?**
Does it say he doesn’t? Is there any other ancient documents that account for this? Oh yes, I already cited that. The Bible is not the end all and be all of church history.

Well an even earlier leader didn’t think so, how about Paul?
(Gal 1:19 KJV) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.**
So which word did Paul use in Aramaic or Hebrew for this again?

**
I know many (huge) leaders that believe otherwise: Billy Graham, Skip Heitzig, James Dobson, Franklin Graham, Bob Coy, Chuck Missler, I could go on and on.
And small: Jack D. Walker, Hiram Duffer, Jonathan Cahn, again I could go on.
**
I cited early church beliefs that lasted into the reformation to show that Mary’s perpetual virginity was long held and also widely believed. You give me some preachers from the last 100 years? Yeah…ok :rolleyes:
Your church can write and say whatever they want, if it contradicts what the Bible says, it is wrong.
You can believe what they tell you if you choose. The Bible tells us not to believe what everyone tells you, but to compare it to what the Bible says.
Apparently you do not know the meaning of the word “contradict”. Go look it up and get back to me.

**
Also, if your pope is your authority, then Here:
http://www.philthompson.net/pages/faq/12.html#here
**
My pope? Hmmm, interesting. One does not need to believe in a concept to understand and defend it. My Catholicism or non-Catholicism is irrelevant to the discussion. The “Immaculate Conception” is a Catholic belief. What exactly is your point, I’m well aware that other Christian faiths do not hold the same view on it.

But thanks for the link! Maybe you should read #15, in which the author states among other things:
“The best-documented ancient teaching is that they were Jesus’ cousins” in reference to “brothers of the lord”

and also

“In my own journey to Orthodoxy, the virginity of Mary was not an issue. I had no good reason to oppose this belief: I lose nothing by agreeing with the historical belief of Christians from all ages; and I have no case for believing anything else (except the tradition of my former denomination); and now surprisingly enough I find myself in agreement on this question with Calvin, Luther, and Wesley.”

So he agrees with Calvin and Luther. And surprise surprise, I cited them as leaders who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Don’t you hate it when your own cites work against your arguements?!

**
As a matter of fact, I don’t.
Ignorance indeed!
**
So you don’t ask anyone to pray for you. Not your church members, your family, your friends? Not even your husband? Maybe we should ask him about that. Oh wait, we can’t can we.

So conversely, you don’t pray for anyone else either when they ask, right? Because of course that would make you a mediator, correct?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Thunderbug:

I have to back up JD on this. The perpetual virginity of Mary has no real Biblical basis and the Gospels’ designations of certain individuals as Jesus’ brothers and sisters is best read in context for their plain, literal meaning.

Yes adelphos can have the same broad range of meanins as “brother” does in English but, as in English, those other nuances have to be indicated by context, not just presumed for no reason.

Let’s look at an example from Matthew:

Matthew 13:55
Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Now, if in English someone says to you, "Hey, isn’t that the Baker’s kid? And isn’t his mom’s name Mildred? And aren’t those his brothers, Nick, Ted and Eddie?

You aren’t going to think he’s talking about lodge brothers or cousins or some other abstract or symbolic nuance for the word “brothers.” Context would most clearly indicate the primary meaning of the word.

There is really no reason at all to suppose any different meaning for [symbol]adelfoi[/symbol] in Matthew than “brothers” other than a necessity to reconcile the term with a preconceived (and non-Biblical) doctrinal assumption.

Josephus also refers to James as the “brother” of Jesus. There is no reason to suppose that Josephus meant “cousin” either. There are perfectly good Latin words for “cousin” that he could have used if that was what he meant.