Immaculate Conception



Q. Where in Scripture does it teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

A. The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not clearly taught in Scripture in a way that would satisfy a skeptic. But, to be honest, neither is the Doctrine of the Trinity. I know, because I spent hours trying to discover it, in order to show a friend who was a Jehovah’s Witness.

What we do find in Scripture are oblique comments that only make sense if the underlying doctrine that gave rise to the comments are known.

For instance, Jesus instructs his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in Matthew 28. This verse is cited when arguing for the Trinity. But does it unequivocally teach the Doctrine of the Trinity? No. But if you can understand that this verse rests upon and takes for granted that the listeners have already been instructed in the Doctrine of the Trinity thus no further explanation is necessary. Why else is name singular unless it denotes a trinitarian God-Father, Son & Holy Spirit?

Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:41-42)

Elizabeth declared both Jesus and Mary “blessed”. Sinless perhaps? Some kind of equality there.

But this verse is very soft evidence of the underlying theology of the Immaculate Conception.

THE ANNUNCIATION

A stronger implication of the doctrine is found in the greeting to Mary from the angel in Luke 1:28:

“Hail! Full of Grace!”

The Greek word, chairo means “hail” or “rejoice.” Every other use of this verb hail/chairo in the New Testament, that is followed by a noun, declares the title of the person being saluted. For example, in Matthew 26:49, Judas greets Jesus with “Hail! Master!” Similarly, in Matthew 27:29 soldiers mockingly bow before Jesus saying, “Hail! King of the Jews!” “Master” and “King of the Jews” are being uses as titles of Christ, just like “Jesus Christ.”

So, the phrase, Full Of Grace, which follows the angel’s “Hail!,” is her title. It is “Full of Grace.” This might seem like an odd name, but in OT days God often had people named with strange titles to reveal some truth. For example, in Isaiah 7:3 we find that one of Isaiah’s sons was named “A Remnant Shall Return.”

The title given to Mary is a form of the Greek word, “charitoo,” which means “to endow with grace,” “highly favored.” We see this title, given to Mary by the angel Gabriel as evidence for the truthfulness of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. “Kecharitomene” is the actual Greek word translated in various versions of the Bible as “full of grace,” “O favored one,” etc. This Greek word literally means “having been highly favored” or “having been full of grace” (Luke 1:28).

The phrase, “full of grace,” doesn’t jump out as a reason to consider Mary something unique—one who from conception was without sin!

But, as Origen commented, in the second century, the angel’s greeting was an expression never before used to address someone. Even Mary was puzzled by such an unusual salutation (Luke 1:29).

So, many might be convinced that the Angel was calling Mary by a new name but wasn’t it merely a new name to express the honor of her upcoming state of blessedness as the mother of the Messiah?

No, because kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle. This means that Mary was filled with grace in the past and this fullness of grace continues to the present. Therefore this fullness of grace is not new. It will not begin with the Incarnation and is not due to her maternity alone.

So, the angel’s words were a declaration of existing fact, not a prophecy of a future event. Rather than the title “You are about to be full of grace” kecharitomene would mean “You have been and still are full of grace”.

The Angel’s greeting reveals the unstated and universally accepted fact that Mary had been given the fullness of God’s grace in her past before the angel’s announcement—way in her past, from the time of her conception. Mary was created by God without the defect of Original Sin. She was created in the Fullness of Grace, The Fullness of Humanity just as Adam and Eve had been created.

Whereas, Adam and Eve disobeyed God, Mary obeyed God throughout her whole life. And, if you were God, entirely HOLY and you could create your mother in which to dwell in the incarnation would you choose a sinful woman or an immaculate one?

Advertisements

44 Responses

  1. Jeronie Frias: “Jesus and Mary were sinless…” whose teaching is this that Mary is sinless?

    BFHU: This is taught by the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

    Jeronie Frias:There’s no verse anywhere else in the Scriptures that says Mary is sinless.

    Are you aware that you are clinging to a Protestant tradition? There is no verse in Sacred Scripture that says all religious truth must be found explicitly in Scripture.
    So we all believe in things that are not in Scripture. Your belief in Sola Scriptura was begun about 500 years ago. And it never would have taken hold if it was not begun after the printing press was invented which made Bibles more available and reading became more common. Before that most people were dependant upon the oral teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

    However the Catholic Church has believed in the sinlessness of Mary since the beginning. Even Martin Luther believed in Mary’s sinlessness see my post HERE

    Jeronie Frias: In fact she callled out to her God, her ‘Savior’.

    And He certainly was her savior click HERE

    Jeronie Frias:Why do you consider Mary as sinless?
    Please see this post HERE

    Jeronie Frias:Why do you equate Mary to Jesus?

    We absolutely do not equate Mary with or to Jesus. Jesus is Divine. Mary is a mere human. Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature, Jesus and Mary were also conceived and born without a sin nature. Adam and Eve sinned. Jesus and Mary did not sin. That does not make her divine. She is fully human exactly as God intended all mankind to be. But due to the sin of our first parents, mankind is fallen.

    Jeronie Frias:(Jesus) has shed His blood for man’s salvation? Certainly it’s not Mary.

    Not sure what you mean by, Certainly it’s not Mary.
    If you mean “Mary did not shed her blood for man’s salvation” …that is true of course
    .

  2. Hi Pam, I appreciate your response. However, I have some comments as well. First, the Bible prophesied that the Messiah shall come from the line of David, which means Mary could have been a distant relative of David. Now take note that David has once been an adulterer and murderer, in short he has sinned. Therefore, if Mary came from the line of David then perhaps she too is a sinner as we all have inherited the sins of our fathers. Another thing is that the dogma of “Immaculate Conception” was solemnized by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854. My question is, why was it declared that time only? Isn’t it too late to declare such doctrine you suppose is so important to you? Where was that dogma based? The Bible? I don’t think so. If Mary is sinless then she should have not died a natural death, again no where in the Scripture does it account that Mary ascended to heaven like Jesus. There are only two accounts in the Bible about ascension, that of Jesus and Enoch. It is not a question of whether God will use a sinful woman or an immaculate one but the question is if God will use a sinner who is willing to bend to God’s will or a sinner who so much pride in his/her heart. Remember that God has used the greatest sinners in the history of the earth who were transformed by His saving grace. Paul was a Christian persecutor but was used mightily by God for Evangelisation. David was a murderer and an adulterer but he was called as the Bible says, “a man close to God’s own heart. God Bless and may all praises and adoration be accorded to Jesus Christ alone!

    • Thanks Jeronie, Well put~my thoughts exactly!

      I simply can’t understand how in the world the idea that Mary was sinless could continue to be pressed. I imagine that Mary is greatly distressed over this teaching. I think any of the great saints of old would be embarrassed over getting any glory that belongs to God Himself. I’m not sure of the verse, but it states we’ll receive crowns and then throw them down at the feet of our Lord. We’ll be in heaven giving Glory to God, not Mary. I’m encouraged that God uses broken, imperfect vessels such as Mary & myself to give Him glory!

      • Again, I am going to say I don’t understand how Protestants got SO confused on this issue!!!!! I am a protestant who goes to Mass with my family… I know LOTS of Catholics. Been to many different Catholic Churches and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER have I witnessed Catholics NOT giving God the Glory!! Mary and the Saints are would not be embarrassed by anything. The are honored for their status and invited by us to go TO THE MOST HIGH in prayer for us. Exactly, we will be in heaven giving glory to God! I don’t know of one person in the Catholic church that would disagree with your statement!

        “I confess to almighty God,
        and to you, my brothers and sisters,
        that I have sinned through my own fault,
        in my thoughts and in my words,
        in what I have done,
        and in what I have failed to do;
        and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
        all the angels and saints,
        and you, my brothers and sisters,
        to pray for me to the Lord, our God.”

        That is our Prayer during Mass. It doesn’t get much clearer that we are asking for prayer FROM Mary, angels, saints and our brothers and sisters TO the Lord, our God.

        Blessings,
        Ally

        • “and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,”
          let me point out that Mary was only a virgin when she conceived and until she delivered Jesus. otherwise you are stating all of her children were by virgin birth.
          let me also point out (Rom 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
          and to your intended response that “all does not include Mary”
          (1Jn 1:10) If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
          Furthermore, if Mary was sinless or perfect which is what you are claiming by making her sinless, she would have also been conceived by the Spirit of God moving on her mother. At which point she would have been divine and Jesus’ blood would not be the ONLY redeeming blood available to us. But, “by HIS blood…”
          David stated, (Psa 51:5) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
          Finally, if Mary had been sinless/perfect she would have had no need to be filled with the Holy Ghost (ref. Acts 1 & 2), however she was in the upper room and the Bible states (Act 2:4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
          She would also have had no need for baptism, which is for the remission of sins according to Peter. If you claim Mary was not baptized, which again is for the remission of SINS, then according to Scripture, which is infallible, she was not even saved.
          Peter stated when posed the question, “men and brethren, what shall we do?” that was a direct question asking what they must do to be saved, and his response was simply:
          (Act 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.(Act 2:39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
          God calls men to do what? God calls men to repentance.
          (Act 17:30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
          this does NOT say with the exception of Mary, it states ALL men.
          To avoid having to reply to a statement that it says “all men” which excludes Mary because she is obviously a woman. By that theology, no woman anywhere needs to worry about repentance.

          Yes, to answer your question, I believe if it is not a Biblical truth, then it is mans theology, and prone to flaws. The Apostles did not teach this nor believe this.

          Mary did not ascend to heaven, otherwise the “first resurrection” would have already happened that is stated in (Rev 20:5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
          The rest of the dead will arise during the second resurrection. If you read the Scripture leading up to 20:5 you will see that those are the dead which will not worship or serve the beast. Then comes the second resurrection in Rev 20:12-15 which ends with the condemnation of those that were not written in the book of life.

          All Scriptures and responses given from KJV.

          Other Scriptural references I would like to attach in direct relation to the posted topic above.

          (Act 10:43) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
          His name is Jesus, according to the Catholic encyclopedia the original formula used by the Apostles was in Jesus name.

          The Apostles only baptized in the name of Jesus, in every Scripture you see where it is mentioned, it is only in His name. By saying the proper formula is in the “titles” Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then you are claiming the Apostles, whom Jesus himself spent 40 days after his resurrection opening their understanding, were wrong. That is quite a bold statement considering they were the ones who actually penned the NT Word of God as His Spirit moved on them.

          Keep questioning what men preach, keep reading the Scripture until you find the answer.

          In Jesus name.

  3. Jeronie: I appreciate your response. However, I have some comments as well.
    First, the Bible prophesied that the Messiah shall come from the line of David,
    which means Mary could have been a distant relative of David. Now take note that
    David has once been an adulterer and murderer, in short he has sinned.
    Therefore, if Mary came from the line of David then perhaps she too is a sinner
    as we all have inherited the sins of our fathers.

    BFHU And she certainly would have been a sinner if God had not saved her from inheriting the fallen human nature of Adam at her conception. It is only by this saving before sin and graces all through her life that she was able to live a sinless life. It was all by the power and grace of God and her cooperation with the graces she received.

    Another thing is that the
    dogma of “Immaculate Conception” was solemnized by Pope Pius IX on December 8,
    1854. My question is, why was it declared that time only? Isn’t it too late to
    declare such doctrine you suppose is so important to you? Where was that dogma
    based?

    It was not first invented at that time as many anti-Catholics want to claim. It was always believed as historical fact. It was solemnly declared to be dogma because the errors of the “Reformation” had begun to confuse the faithful to such an extent that the declaration needed to be clearly and finally proclaimed.

    Doctrine is not proclaimed dogmatically until confusion becomes widespread.

    For instance, it has always been believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. We have no dogma on this but it is foreseeable that in the not too distant future we may need to make a dogmatic declaration of this doctrine because of the confusion our culture is injecting into the minds and hearts of the faithful. The date of that dogmatic declaration, if it becomes necessary, will not be the date it was first believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the date it was dogmatically defined. There is a big difference.

    The Bible? I don’t think so. If Mary is sinless then she should have not
    died a natural death,

    The Church does not declare that Mary died only that God brought her to Heaven at the end of her earthly life. It is an open question at this time whether Mary died, in union and imitation of her divine son or whether she skipped death b/c of her sinlessness.

    again no where in the Scripture does it account that Mary
    ascended to heaven like Jesus.

    This is true but Scripture does not contain all the information of everything that happened at that time. See John 21 where the apostle clearly states this fact.

    There are only two accounts in the Bible about
    ascension, that of Jesus and Enoch.

    You forgot Elijah

    It is not a question of whether God will use a sinful woman or an immaculate one

    True. He has used more sinful people than sinless people.

    but the question is if
    God will use a sinner who is willing to bend to God’s will or a sinner who so much pride in his/her heart. Remember that God has used the greatest sinners in the history of the earth who were transformed by His saving grace.

    Agreed.

    Paul was a Christian persecutor but was used mightily by God for Evangelisation. David was a murderer and an adulterer but he was called as the Bible says, “a man close to God’s own heart.

    Very true. But let me say that it is our Tradition (teaching of the Apostles) that Mary was immaculate. It is your tradition that Mary sinned. But there is no Bible verse that explicitly says “Mary was a sinner or that she sinned.” It is merely your Protestant culture that has steeped you in the idea that Mary was a sinner. So, since neither of us has explicit scripture passages that clearly teach our view we need to see what Christians in the earliest days of the apostles and shortly thereafter believed.

    Catholics have believed in the immaculate conception for 2000 years. Protestants have believed Mary was a sinner for only 500 years. I would like to know upon what concrete authority Protestants dropped belief in the immaculate conception?—Even Luther believed it.

    • People, there WEREN’T any protestants before Martin Luther! Of course he was raised in the traditions of 16th century catholocism, there were no other traditions until he came along.

  4. It was not first invented at that time as many anti-Catholics want to claim.

    My Answer: First of all my friend, I am not anti_Catholic. The word is a bit harsh as it forments hatred, but let me assure you that i am not an anti-Catholic. My wife in fact is a Catholic.

    “errors of the “Reformation” had begun to confuse the faithful to such an extent that the declaration needed to be clearly and finally proclaimed.”

    My Answer: the basis of the “Reformation” movement is only the Bible. So are you saying that the Bible has erred in its teaching as this has confused the Catholic faithfuls?

    For instance, it has always been believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. We have no dogma on this but it is foreseeable that in the not too distant future we may need to make a dogmatic declaration of this doctrine because of the confusion our culture is injecting into the minds and hearts of the faithful. The date of that dogmatic declaration, if it becomes necessary, will not be the date it was first believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the date it was dogmatically defined. There is a big difference.

    My Answer: marriage between man and woman only is emphatically taught by the Scriptures as the only way to go. Now that, in the Biblical context, is a dogma. It is unbelievable that the Catholic church does not have any stand on this yet. Again, this is not an apple to apple comparison, marriage between man and woman is scriptural while immaculate conception is not.

    The Church does not declare that Mary died only that God brought her to Heaven at the end of her earthly life. It is an open question at this time whether Mary died, in union and imitation of her divine son or whether she skipped death b/c of her sinlessness.

    My Answer: That’s the problem with the Roman Catholic church, you still have this status quo on some of your doctrines. But the Scriptures is definite, it does not have a middle ground. it’s black and white, 1 or 0. that’s how simple God’s Word is.

    This is true but Scripture does not contain all the information of everything that happened at that time. See John 21 where the apostle clearly states this fact.

    My Answer: is this the reason why the Catholic church had the freedom to add teachings which are not Scriptural? if you’re saying that Mary’s ascension is an important tenet of the Christian faith then why was it not accounted for by the apostles? isn’t that something as a show of disrespect to the “Mother of God”?

    Very true. But let me say that it is our Tradition (teaching of the Apostles) that Mary was immaculate. It is your tradition that Mary sinned. But there is no Bible verse that explicitly says “Mary was a sinner or that she sinned.” It is merely your Protestant culture that has steeped you in the idea that Mary was a sinner. So, since neither of us has explicit scripture passages that clearly teach our view we need to see what Christians in the earliest days of the apostles and shortly thereafter believed.

    My Answer: ok since we are speaking about what the apostles believed in the early days here’s some of my opinion. Early apostles did not believe in the veneration of idols, early apostles did not pray to these early saints and prophets. Early Christians in fact were murdered and burnt by the early popes, they were branded as heretics. is that how the Catholic church show love? Early popes burnt Bibles because they did not believe in its teachings until recently. Early apostles goes out to the ends of the world to preach the Gospel. Peter, which you claim as the first Pope did not have a lavish lifestyle, was not bowed upon and kissed in the hand just like the pope. He was martyred and hanged on the cross upside down.

    To tell you frankly the early Christian churches are not Catholic, the first Christian church was formed in the day of Pentecost. and guess who is the first pastor of that church? it’s Peter, so he is not the first Pope. I am just stating these facts to show the belief of the early true Christians.

    • I just want to ask, you do know the Bible came from the Catholic church and its teachings right? The church came first and then the Bible.
      Second just because some popes have fallen at times and sinned, as all humans do, does not negate the teachings of the Catholic church which have not changed. And you contradicted your self when you said peter was the head of the first church but not the first pope, that is what the first pope was the head if the first church. And each pope after him has followed in a line of apostolic succession

  5. My response can be read HERE

  6. Mary needed a saviour. Only one who has sin needs to be saved, requiring the Saviour, Jesus Christ, to save him or her from sin and eternal damnation. (Luke 1:47 KJV – Mary speaking) “And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” Mary offered

    There was no exception mentioned in scripture regarding mankind sinning. Every instance of sin is applied to ALL mankind, save Jesus Christ, being God (YHWH; the Father – see Is 9:6) manifest in the flesh. (Rom 3:23 KJV) “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Rom 3:10-20 KJV) “As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one:” (Gal 3:22 KJV) “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin…” (Ecc 7:20 KJV) “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” (Romans 5:12 KJV) “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

    Mary Was not a Perpetual Virgin. She had other children after giving birth to Jesus; hence, his younger brothers and sisters.
    (Mark 6:1-3 KJV) “And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. {2} And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? {3} Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” (Mat 13:54-56 KJV) And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? {55} Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? {56} And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

    The following is from Furthermore there are other things that cannot be ignored. Mary brought a sacrifice of two turtledoves in accord to Jewish law in Leviticus chapter 12. One was for a burnt offering, the other was for a sin offering. This couldn’t have been for the child who was the Holy one, the sinless spotless lamb of God. This must have been for her own uncleanness. Mary’s conformity to the law is an admission she was a sinner needing to be restored by cleansing, only sinners need cleansing.

    Another point of contention with the Scripture– If Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 as Roman Catholics say, it describes her with birth pains which according to the Bible is a judgment on sinners (Gen. 3:15-16).

    At the wedding feast of Cana, Mary realizes the wine has run out. She makes Jesus aware of the need, He replies “woman what do I have to do with you, my hour has not yet come.” Jesus felt she was going to reveal who He was before the right time and manner. He let her know He is not subordinate to a persons request, He is not subject to another person’s will, not even His own earthly mother, only His Fathers who is in heaven. She had no say in his ministry. Jesus obeyed the law to honor both His Father and his mother, but he would not allow her to choose the time of his disclosure. She receives this correction and then proceeds to tell everyone to listen to her son. Jesus obeyed the commandments of God perfectly as it states “to honor your father and Mother.” In Luke 2:51 we see Jesus was subject to His parents, not Mary alone.

    The wages of sin is death, all who sin die. If Mary was sinless she could not have died. Which is what modern Mariology says in Roman Catholicism. What are the ramifications of Mary being sinless? She would be the first human being without sin since Adam. She would qualify to be our substitute just as Jesus, since only a sinless being could redeem mankind. There would have been no need for Jesus. The Bible is clear only God is holy in this way. 1 Sam.2:2 says, “there is no one holy as the Lord,” in Rev.15:4 we see the redeemed singing the song of the lamb in heaven “You alone are Holy.” They are not singing this to Mary! If you are without sin, you are Deity! (this of course means after Eve sinned and before the resurrection where all believers will be changed together to have a completely new nature not having sin). Jesus said of which sin do you accuse me of…He had no accusers, Mary could never say this.

    The following is from http://www.letusreason.org/rc1.htm :

    Furthermore there are other things that cannot be ignored. Mary brought a sacrifice of two turtledoves in accord to Jewish law in Leviticus chapter 12. One was for a burnt offering, the other was for a sin offering. This couldn’t have been for the child who was the Holy one, the sinless spotless lamb of God. This must have been for her own uncleanness. Mary’s conformity to the law is an admission she was a sinner needing to be restored by cleansing, only sinners need cleansing.

    Another point of contention with the Scripture– If Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 as Roman Catholics say, it describes her with birth pains which according to the Bible is a judgment on sinners (Gen. 3:15-16).

    At the wedding feast of Cana, Mary realizes the wine has run out. She makes Jesus aware of the need, He replies “woman what do I have to do with you, my hour has not yet come.” Jesus felt she was going to reveal who He was before the right time and manner. He let her know He is not subordinate to a persons request, He is not subject to another person’s will, not even His own earthly mother, only His Fathers who is in heaven. She had no say in his ministry. Jesus obeyed the law to honor both His Father and his mother, but he would not allow her to choose the time of his disclosure. She receives this correction and then proceeds to tell everyone to listen to her son. Jesus obeyed the commandments of God perfectly as it states “to honor your father and Mother.” In Luke 2:51 we see Jesus was subject to His parents, not Mary alone.

    The wages of sin is death, all who sin die. If Mary was sinless she could not have died, which is what modern Mariology says in Roman Catholicism. What are the ramifications of Mary being sinless? She would be the first human being without sin since Adam. She would qualify to be our substitute just as Jesus, since only a sinless being could redeem mankind. There would have been no need for Jesus. The Bible is clear only God is holy in this way. 1 Sam.2:2 says, “there is no one holy as the Lord,” and in Rev.15:4 we see the redeemed singing the song of the lamb in heaven “You alone are Holy.” They are not singing this to Mary! If you are without sin, you are Deity! (this of course means after Eve sinned and before the resurrection where all believers will be changed together to have a completely new nature not having sin). Jesus said of which sin do you accuse me of…He had no accusers, Mary could never say this.

    Dave

  7. To those of you who declare “But the Scriptures is definite, it does not have a middle ground. it’s black and white, 1 or 0. that’s how simple God’s Word is” I wish to remind you that the New Testament is Catholic and that when in it is declared that after His Resurrection Our Lord spent 40 days with the apostles guiding them and telling them what is to be done … well, this is Tradition. You cannot deny that until the first Catholic monks started writing books by hand the WORD was only passed on by mouth and by Tradition.
    And let’s not forget that Our Lady is the MOTHER OF GOD! Anything she asks Jesus, He will never say NO! So we pray to her to intercede for us with her son and we always praise her and thank her for having saved us all by saying YES to GOD! 🙂

    • Mary was the mother of Jesus the man. If she were the “mother of God” as catholicism claims, she herself would be a god/goddess. If she mothered the Spirit of God, then He thinks nothing of her in any fashion, because there is no mention of her “In the beginning…”

      She did not mother the Spirit of God as you seem to allude to in all of your worship and praise of & to her. If you say you do not worship her, then I ask you what exactly you think you are doing by offering prayers to her. You are praying to the dead. You not only pray to Mary, but to all those the catholic church classifies as “saints.” You are making them deities, when they are dead Christians awaiting resurrection. I ask you to show me once in the Scripture where it says anyone after Jesus’ ascension is resurrected before the first resurrection.
      Mat 4:10 & Luke 4:8 have the same things to say about this. If she were a goddess as you claim, why would Jesus, whom by the way was God manifest in the flesh,[(1Ti 3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.], have stated that “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”
      By praying to her you are worshiping her as one of your many gods. Again I point to Jesus’ words in Mat & Luke. If you wish to state that the NT is catholic in every way, then you yourselves have a very poor understanding of your own writings. But let me point to you, 2Pet 1:21 for OT and 2Tim 3:16 for not only NT but the entire Bible. If you will truly read and study the Bible, open your heart to God to lead you, you will find that many things in your lifestyle are in direct contradiction to His Word. I do not claim perfection in my understanding, I am always learning. Each time I read the Bible after true prayer and worship of the one true God, I learn something new from His Holy Word.

      I ask that you read Acts 10:25 & 26. Also, Acts 14:7-18, which ends by showing even Barnabas and Paul were scarcely able to stop the people from offering sacrifice to them. By offering daily prayers, you are offering daily sacrifice, which Barnabas and Paul referred to as “vanities.” These are only a couple of the Scriptures showing that the apostles knew better than to do what you do on a daily basis.

      With the love of God in my heart towards you, I truly hope God will reveal to you His Truth,

      Steve in SC

      • No Steve, Mary is not a goddess. She is the the Mother of God because she is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God. It is as simple as that.

        Mary was not yet created….”in the Beginning…” She was only born about 15 years before Jesus was born.

        We do not worship Mary. She was a creature just like us, except without sin.

        We do not offer prayers to to her. We ask for her to pray to God for us.
        Intercessory prayer. Protestants believe in intercessory prayer too.

        We are not “praying to the dead.” We are asking Saints, very much alive in Heaven, to join their prayers to ours.That is all.

        We do not make the Saints into deities but only good examples of holy living. I would like to ask you to show me once in Scripture, where all religious truth must come from Scripture.

        What Scripture says that by our asking for the Saints to pray for us that this equals idol worship. Since when is the request for intercessory prayer worship????

        There is NOT ONE THING CATHOLIC THAT CONTRADICTS ANYTHING IN SCRIPTURE. Our doctrine, beliefs and practices merely contradict Protestant assertions and interpretations of Scripture. There is a BIG difference between those two things.

        • because you did it in caps (yelling in the virtual world) I will address this really fast.

          “There is NOT ONE THING CATHOLIC THAT CONTRADICTS ANYTHING IN SCRIPTURE. ”

          (Mat 23:9) And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

          I believe the proper title used in the catholic church for the priest/preacher is “father” and the title you have given your pope is “holy father”

          These are the ministers you send into the world, and immediately a Scripture is contradicted and a command from Jesus is broken.

          It doesn’t matter how a catholic and a protestant interprets Scripture, it matters how God does. If we as men don’t interpret His way, what does it matter?

          • The all caps were for emphasis. I did not mean to yell. Sorry.

            The call no man father verse does seem to contradict Catholic practice; so, Protestants use this verse very effectively to seemingly “prove” that the Catholic Church advocates something clearly prohibited by scripture. But the reality is that, once again this is just another case of the Catholic Church contradicting Protestant interpretation of scripture and not actually contradicting scripture at all.

            Because, as any Protestant worth his salt will tell you scripture cannot be taken out of context. But, that is exactly what Protestants do with this verse in order to denigrate Catholic practice. The author of “call no man father” is Jesus. Now, if what he meant, was that the faithful should NEVER call their priests “father” then one would have to conclude that St. Paul was a heretic. How else can a Protestant explain:

            St. Paul addresses the Jewish religious leaders as fathers. Did St. Paul also ignore Jesus’ rule?

            Acts 22:1“Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.”

            1 Corinthians 4:14-15
            I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15 Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

            St. Paul continues this father/child relationship in the following epistles. He identifies himself as a spiritual father either directly as in I Thess. or indirectly by calling Timothy and Titus his “true son in faith”.

            1 Thessalonians 2:11

            For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children,

            1 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy my true son in the faith(that makes Paul a father in the faithe): Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

            Titus 1:4 To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

            St.Paul fathered those he brought to life through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And he had no problem with appropriating this title to himself.

            And there is more. Even Jesus Himself called a religious leader Father.This would make Jesus a hypocrite according to Protestant interpretation of the call no man father verse

            John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

            Luke 16:24 & 30 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire….’No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

            Once again we see that the Catholic Church merely imitates our Lord and St. Paul in calling our priests, father. We uphold ALL of Scripture.

            Please see my post Scripture vs the Catholic Church https://bfhu.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/scripture-vs-the-catholic-church-call-no-man-father/

            • very quickly. short on time so I apologize for it’s abruptness.

              Not one time did Paul tell them, “call me father”, to do so would have been to go directly against what Jesus had said. To claim he did otherwise, knowing full well there is no Scripture that says they called him father or he said to do so, is to make the Word no longer God’s word, but your word. When all is said and done, your word & my word won’t amount to a hill of beans if it doesn’t match what His Word says. I am a man, it is natural for me to think of myself in the paternal sense in any situation that requires such a stance. You should not forget that Paul also referred to himself as travailing in birth.(Gal4:19) I have 5 children, and not once have I been in travail during the birthing process. My wife on the other hand is another story. This Scripture sounds more like a maternal reference, yet again he does not say, “hey, call me mom.”

              To the reference of “father Abraham” you know full well they, as Jews, had & have a 100% RIGHT to call Abraham father in an earthly sense. Which is exactly what they did and do to this day.

              *I must point out that attempting to muddle the Word to fit a desired philosophy, by intentionally confusing Spiritual meanings with natural/fleshly/physical meanings is appalling & distasteful.

              Making a reference to ones natural forefathers, be it through nationality or direct blood line, is in no way a reference to the Spiritual things which pertain to God alone. It is a term of respect applied to ones elders.

              The practice is not Scriptural my brother, no matter how you spin it.

              Again, (Mat 23:9) And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

              • Dear Steve,
                I have responded in a post if it is easier to read than this comment. Click here–> Call No Man “Father”..

                Please see my post–> Scripture vs. the Catholic Church: Call No Man Father

                I always find it interesting that Protestants become indignant that we call our Priests “Father” supposedly in direct opposition to the very words of Jesus. Then they quote only part of the verse, just as you have quoted it, because the rest of the verse reveals that they are not zealous to obey the very words of Jesus but only use the verse as a stick to beat on the Catholic Church. Because they use all of the titles He according to their strict interpretation prohibits.

                Mt.23:8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

                They call their fathers …”father”, their teachers “teacher”, and leaders “leader”. You have not objection to Jews calling their teacher Rabbi.

                They try to give themselves permission to do this by asserting that Jesus was prohibiting spiritual fathers, teachers, leaders, Rabbis. And yet St. Paul clearly referred to himself as a father “in the Lord” to some of his spiritual children. So this argument falls apart. I also know for a fact, that many Protestants refer to their pastor as a teacher and/or leader. And many laymen are “Leaders” of this group or that.

                Besides there is no qualifyier in the scripture about fathers, teachers, leaders, rabbis in the flesh or worldly sense vs spiritual etc. This is just an attempt to legitimize their use of these terms while still criticizing Catholicism. But it all falls apart when we look at all of scripture. They hate to give this one up b/c it is so effective to quote the verse to an unsuspecting Catholic that may fall for the deception.

                • I apologize for seeming indignant. I tried to make it clear I was rushed for time, but I did want to post something. More so, I apologize to all for my lack of wisdom in posting during a rushed moment, when in reality the post could’ve waited until I had more time. I sincerely hope you all can forgive me.
                  Now, in response.
                  Lucky me then! I’m not Protestant or Jewish. I call my pastor, pastor. Or, “POIMEN”, which means shepherd, and is not forbidden.
                  As I pointed out in my previous post about this. Paul NEVER SAID “hey, call me father.”
                  Allow me to put it this way.
                  When I witness to & win someone to Christ, I do not leave them alone without someone to help guide them in His Word. I take on a Spiritual role with them, the same type that I have with my physical children. ONLY because it is natural as a man to come across fatherly. Wouldn’t you agree that it would be completely unnatural for me, as a male, to behave as a female when I am interacting with someone? The role may be fatherly, but I am not their Father. The same applies in the situation of my wife with someone she has won to the Lord. She would act in a motherly fashion towards them. What do I mean by motherly & fatherly? When I am helping my children to learn something new, I am patient. When I was feeding my new born baby, I was careful to not give them too much at once. Why? Because they were not able to handle more than a few drops/sucks at a time from the bottle. To give them too much would cause them to choke. If you’re not careful, choking a baby that way can lead to infant death. The same is applied Spiritually.
                  1Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
                  1Cor 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
                  1Cor 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
                  1Cor 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
                  1Cor 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
                  1Cor 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
                  1Cor 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
                  1Cor 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
                  1Cor 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
                  1Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
                  1Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

                  I am careful as to how I feed my children, because I love them & they are a gift from God to me. Placed under my care & supervision. It is my duty to them, and more importantly to God to do this.
                  And so it applies Spiritually. While I am not their(new believers) Father, because One is their Father, which is in heaven, I do the best I can to nurture them as it is my duty to do. My Father has placed them under my care, I will do the very best I can nurture them Spiritually as He wants me to do. However, I will never forget that He is OUR Father, and I am no more than one who plants or waters.

                  • Dear Steve,
                    Thanks for the apology but it wasn’t really necessary. I was speaking rhetorically of Protestants in general. You have your interpretation and the Catholic Church has a different interpretation. We will just have to agree to disagree.

    • I forgot to add something to this post.

      Gabriella stated “And let’s not forget that Our Lady is the MOTHER OF GOD! Anything she asks Jesus, He will never say NO! So we pray to her to intercede for us with her son and we always praise her and thank her for having saved us all by saying YES to GOD!”

      Jesus did not feel the same way modern catholicism does. I had a catholic man tell me that she intercedes for us with Jesus because she was His mother, and He was more likely to listen to her before us because she is “not just one of the masses.”

      (Mat 12:46) While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
      (Mat 12:47) Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
      (Mat 12:48) But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
      (Mat 12:49) And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
      (Mat 12:50) For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

      He gave her no special attention on earth, yet you are claiming He will in Heaven. It just seems like a huge contradiction to me.

      I’m happy to debate with people about the Bible, but I wish we could use the Bible as our resource for the debate. For everything you show not in Scripture as a religious belief, God has already dealt with that in His Word.
      If we choose to close our eyes and accept the wisdom of men, we close our hearts to the Wisdom that is God.

  8. ” All generations shal call me blessed” The Bible is truth.

    I see only the Catholic church and the orthodox Church doing this.

    Is this because a a overcorrection of the Protestant Reformation? Maybe. But I guess the Bible never lies.

    • Hi there, I’m an ex-Catholic but daddy God has brought me over to being a Charismatic and would like to point out this particular chapter after the LORD has shown me that Mary is not the mother of God and Jesus has died for her sins as well.

      John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

      I’m sure you know that in the Bible, ‘Behold’ is a contractual term of obligation that Jesus has therefore announced Mary Magdalene is no longer His mother. There is now a change of relationship. John is now Mary’s son and Mary is John’s son so that Mary would not lose a son herself when Jesus dies and resurrects, you see.

      At the cross, Jesus saw Mary as a sinner as well. Paul said in Romans 8:34, “Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died–more than that, who was raised to life–is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.”

      Why would we need Mary to nag at Jesus so that Jesus can intercede for us with our Father? Isn’t our Father gracious enough to send His only Son to die for all of us? We can come boldly to the presence of the LORD because of Jesus and not Mary. Jesus called Mary ‘Woman’ rather than ‘Mother’ when she had the intentions to ask Him to help at the Wedding Banquet. There is only one intercessor and Jesus said it Himself, “I AM the way, the truth and the life. No one goes to the Father except through me.” Not once did Mary say, “I am the mother of the shepherd” or the “mother of God”. If she could proclaim this in a statement, I would believe. This URL further provides verses and explanations to show Mary is a sinner: http://soulrefuge.org/2008/10/19/was-mary-a-sinner-or-the-mother-of-god/

      And I asked the LORD to show me if Mary is indeed a sinner or sinless mother of God, if you really desire to know the Truth, ask the LORD, for He will surely answer you the true answer Himself.

      Throughout history, the Catholic church has included a lot of festivals have included a lot of ‘events/festivals’ to observe, such as All Saints’ Day, All Souls’ Day, Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, etc. We have become so into traditions, it makes us no difference than any other classroom Rules & Regulations where we make ourselves seem holy or righteous and forget about Jesus’ Finished work, when Paul simply preached “let us keep our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.” He did not say, “Let us ask Mary to go to Jesus to give us faith.” In fact, Mary was only mentioned in the Bible for 4 times. If she is indeed very important to intercede for us, her name would not just be there for 4 times, God would surely want to give her recognition that we would know she is the mother of God, but turns out that there is no clear verse which says that she is. Why would daddy God want to give us such a blur vision to crack our brains?

      I’ve also learned from a friend who have recently started the Catholicism class (Adult) that her first lesson was about the different religions, and her second was an introductory lesson to the practices of Catholics, and only in the third they started in Genesis.

      And I am also clueless to the rosary. Spending 10 years in Catechism class (7 years old to 16 years old), I can never gain a revelation as to why I was told to say 10 Hail Mary, 1 Our Father and 1 Glory Be. I never understood why I only had to confess 3 ‘greatest’ sins to the priest. When Jesus said this is how we should pray to God our Father, He was fulfilling the law of the perfect prayer. I remember taking the rosary and was never being able to comprehend the love of God. There were on significance or any mention of the rosary in the Bible as well. Jesus, the name above all names.. I spend more time thinking about my own sins, my own doings, things that I have done and have not done, rather than thanking Jesus for all that He has done, completed, finished.

      It seems like I have a lot of ‘people’ I have to go through before going to the Father, the priest, then Mother Mary, then Jesus, then to God. Didn’t Jesus simply say, John 10:9 “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture”

  9. Dear Shermaine,

    Mary Magdalene was not the Mother of Jesus. Mary was the Mother of Jesus who is God and therefore Mary is the mother of God.

    The Romans verse says nothing about Mary being a sinner.

    No one wants Mary to “Nag God.” But it we are commanded to pray for one another. If you think intercessory prayer is nagging God….what can I say. I see intercessory prayer as a Christian duty towards our brothers and sisters in Christ. It is a loving thing to do not a “nagging of God.” God is gracious and does not NEED for us to pray for one another in order to act but for some reason He has told us to pray for each other. So we should. We should not ignore His commands b/c we think it is nothing more than nagging.

    I am afraid you are mistaken in saying that there is one intercessor. Scripture says Jesus is the one MEDIATOR between God and Man. This is not the same as intercession, although both are forms of mediation. Jesus has mediated salvation for us men. Mary and all humans can intercede for us through prayer. If you say no, then you are nullifying scripture by your tradition.

    Feast to celebrate different events in the life of Christ, His apostles, and saints are ways for us to pause and focus on Our Lord throughout the year,many times in addition to Christmas and Easter. It is not just about rules and regulations.

    Mary was humble and always points us to her son, “Do whatever He tells you.” Jesus honored His mother and it warms His Holy Heart when we love His mother.

    Why do you find it necessary to criticize the curriculum for teaching the Catholic Faith? Sola Scriptura is a Protestant tradition begun by a man, Martin Luther. It is not found anywhere in Scripture. We do not hold to it and are not bound by it.

    The Rosary is a meditative prayer. The ten Hail Mary’s are intercessory prayer. It was begun in response to laymen requesting a way to be devoted to prayer as the priests and brothers were in praying all 150 psalms. But since they could not read they were unable to memorize and pray all 150 Psalms. Therefore, a simple substitute was devised that was easily memorized as a meditative devotion. For each decade of the Rosary we meditate on the various events of the Life of Christ.

    Confession for children is a learning curve. We must confess every mortal sin or else refrain from receiving communion. If we have no mortal sins we can still go to confession and confess venial sin. Telling a child to confess 3 sins was a way to get a child to examine his life without it being too rigorous of an exercise. It is not thus with adults.

    We are not obliged to go through people. We can go directly to God in prayer if we want to. We can ask for forgiveness directly from God for all sin except deadly/mortal sin.

    I love my Lord, my Catholic Faith. I am so much more content as a Catholic than being my own pope as a Protestant.

  10. Thank you my brother-in-Christ for your love for the Lord and the explanation of the Rosary. How about the part where Jesus told Mother to behold John as her son? If Mary is indeed the mother of God, He’d not have told John to behold his mother and would not have called his mother ‘Woman’ on the cross.

    Jesus came to earth as the Son of God, but unto Mary He is born as the Son of Man. He is of God, therefore He is God’s Only Son and can only be referred to God’s Son. On the other hand, Mary is the virgin mother of Jesus as a man, not as the mother of Jesus as a God. This is a reference to Jesus’ humanity. The incarnation of Christ did not involve the subtraction of deity, but the addition of humanity (Mary). He had two natures (divine and human) conjoined in one person.

    You are right that the Romans verse does not simply state that Mary is a sinner. Show me a verse that says clearly Mary is the mother of God. Mary did not say, ‘Before Abraham was, I AM’, or ‘Before God was, I AM.’ If Mary is the mother of God, she would be there before God called ‘Light Be’. Mary is the mother of Man, Jesus is the Son of God. The Romans verse has shown clearly that there is no man on earth that has no sin. This includes Mary as well. In fact, Mary calls herself in a lowly state in her song. Luke 1:48 “For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.” Why would Mary be in a lowly state if she is the mother of God? It is because of God’s Grace and Goodness that Mary is chosen, not because of Mary’s goodness or grace that she gets to bear Jesus. It is also because of God’s Grace and Goodness that He blesses us, not because we are good enough to earn God’s blessings.

    How many times have Jesus called Mary ‘mother’? I can’t find any..

    Mary was Jesus’ mother according to the flesh; but since his spirit-begetting at the time of his baptism, he was primarily God’s spiritual Son, his “mother” being “the Jerusalem above.” (Ga 4:26) Jesus laid emphasis on this fact when Mary & her other children on one occasion interrupted Jesus during a teaching session by asking him to come outside where they were. Jesus let it be known that really his mother and close relatives were those of his spiritual family, that spiritual matters take precedence over fleshly* interests. “Now his mother and brothers came toward him, but they were unable to get to him because of the crowd. However, it was reported to him: “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside wanting to see you.” In reply he said to them: “My mother and my brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” (Luke 8:19-21)

    May Grace and Peace be with you always.
    P.S: I am not a Protestant.

    • Dear Shermaine,

      You said:
      ” I am not a Protestant”.

      I understand that you are a charismatic ex-catholic.

      Explain, what does it mean?

      Best regards

  11. Dear Shermaine,

    You said:If Mary is indeed the mother of God, He’d not have told John to behold his mother and would not have called his mother ‘Woman’ on the cross.

    Why not? He was asking John to care for His mother in His absence and asking John to be a son to her, for her to love….which He never would have done if she had other children. He calls her woman to draw our attention to the fact that she is the perfectly obedient woman in contrast to the first woman, Eve. It was not disrespectful towards his mother. It only sounds so to us 2000 years later. But if one insists Jesus was condescending or otherwise disrespectful then one makes Jesus sin by dishonoring His mother In opposition to the Commandment.

    Your explanation of the double nature of Jesus is correct. Jesus is divine. Mary gave birth to the God/Man Jesus. Therefore it is a fact that she is the Mother of God b/c Jesus was God. Not because she pre-existed the Trinity or created the Trinity. The phrase Mother of God was coined in the first century in opposition to heresy that denied the deity of Jesus. It was all about Jesus, not Mary.

    Adam and Eve were created sinless. Jesus was sinless. God could have chosen to be born of a sinful woman. Mary’s sinlessness was not mandatory since God can do whatever he wants to do. But it is so fitting that God would choose to save a woman at conception from the stain of original sin so that He might reside is a pure womb and be raised by a mother free from sin.

    Mary was not chosen b/c she was sinless. Mary was chosen to be sinless/ She was freed from the sin nature, and with the grace of God did not sin in order to be a holy and pure Mother of the second person of the Holy Trinity. And yet Mary was very humble and lowly. Beautiful!!!

    What do you mean by, “his spirit-begetting at the time of his baptism”? Mary had no other children. These were relatives not siblings.

    Please take a look at my post–>Who Were the Brothers & Sisters of Jesus?

    And for a fuller explanation of the Catholic Faith you can take a look at these posts:

    The Reformers on Mary the Mother of God

    Luther on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

    Mary Did Not Have Sex “UNTIL” Jesus was Born.


    Jesus NEVER called Mary His Mother

  12. so the term, “full of grace” means wihtout sin? Never having sinned?

  13. No the term does not mean that. But an angel of God naming her “Full of Grace”, is evidence of her immaculate conception.

    • bfhu said, “which He never would have done if she had other children.”
      I am not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. There is no mention of His brothers or sisters being present at His crucifixion. Yet, John was faithful and present. It makes perfect sense for Him to say that to John, knowing that whatever the cost John would be there. While His own brothers and sisters, which the Bible makes direct mention of, were not.

  14. Thank you for your opinion. But Jesus is the only son of Mary. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were NEVER designated as children of Mary. Your interpretation is not illigitimate but there is nothing in the text that demands the interpretation that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were siblings and not step-siblings ( children of Joseph from a previous marriage). And nothing in the text demands the interpretation that they were siblings and not other kinsmen. There is no historical evidence that Mary had other children.

    • Aside from the use of “mother” and “brothers” being used together in Scripture in such a way that it would cause interpreter’s to translate it as siblings on the maternal side in Matthew 12, I would agree that it does not “demand” this translation. And, aside from the fact that never are His siblings referred to as anything else to lend credence to them being cousins, like “sister’s son” for example. Or, children from Joseph’s previous marriage, which has no standing in Scripture whatsoever.
      Taking into consideration your statement that ” There is no historical evidence that Mary had other children”, how is it possible to at the same time justify a belief in Joseph having a previous marriage without historical evidence, or even a single Bible verse to back it up? Claiming it as a “tradition” is not proof, and it does not lend historical evidence. It is an indefensible argument. Whereas, believing what the Bible says offers all of the knowledge and understanding we need on the subject.
      This dogma has done nothing more than cause countless people to worship Mary. I won’t bother quoting Scripture from Exodus 20 about idols and bowing before them, because you should know what they say, and your readers should as well. She is worshiped and many of your fellows, I don’t know if you are included, wish to see her raised to the status of co-redeemer. As if to say, “the job was just too much for Jesus alone, Mary had to have helped him.”
      Sir, neither of us may have solid, historical, secular evidence to prove our belief. But it seems strange to me, that we should both claim the Bible as our base for a foundation, yet one of these beliefs has no grounds to stand on in the Bible to even begin to prove it. Nor Biblical wording to account for such behavior and thinking. The Greeks had something like this, as did the Egyptians. Traceable back to Babel, actually. Yet, the Bible teaches nothing of the sort. We are to believe that this came from study of the Word, by men of God?
      Claiming the “early church father’s” is not proof, or evidence. For we clearly see in Jude that there were already people attempting to profane the Gospel and His Word, even during the apostles days.

      “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.”

    • I am still aware there is no word for those titles. However, keeping the wording in context leads to the understanding that Jesus was the oldest of Mary’s children. The wording of Matthew 12 itself implies that they are from the same mother.

      You used key words when mentioning Adam and Eve. They were CREATED. They were not born of parents. Using them as a parallel to Mary seems nonsensical to me.

      Mary was born after her parents knew one another.

      Adam & Eve, God created.

      They are less comparable than apples and oranges.

      I am shocked you would attempt to influence this conversation with the Protoevangelium of James, without bothering to go into the gross errors by the author, which should automatically discount this from a Christians educational reading. At least, if we are seeking the Truth. Simply put, it is highly unlikely someone who truly knew and followed Judaism wrote the protoevangelium of James. This is of course, my opinion.

      Muslim beliefs are not part of this discussion, beyond this statement I see no need to further include them here. We are conversing as those who believe in Christ. (Honestly speaking, I can’t help but wonder if this was an attempt to deflect the conversation to a false religion.)

      So, for the purposes of time, I will ask you directly.
      Are you denying the attempt to have Mary raised to status of Co-Redeemer by certain members of the catholic church?
      If you are not denying it, do you adhere to this belief as well?
      If yes, how does that fit into God’s plan that was laid plain in His Word?
      Furthermore, these certain members are a part of the catholic priesthood. This type of thinking is not limited to the priesthood, but spread throughout the membership.
      True Story: I spoke to a very sweet, elderly, catholic lady one day. Her take on your doctrine of the trinity, and how Mary fits in was quite mind boggling. I will attempt to quote her from memory. “The reason we have a trinity is because it is a family. God the Father, is the Father of course. Then Jesus, who is God the Son. Well, you can’t have a family without a female, or mother right? So, the Holy Spirit has to be the female. Mary is Jesus’ mother, so she must be the Holy Spirit.”
      This was without a doubt the craziest explanation I’ve ever heard from anyone, ever. However, in her mind, this explains why catholics believe Mary was born and lived without ever sinning.

      I am not saying catholicism is the only religion on the earth that has people who seem to make up their own beliefs. But, aside from the mormons, I have yet to come across anything so preposterous.

  15. Dear Steve,

    Let’s take a look at

    Mt 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.[a] 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

    I agree. The passage seems to be referring to Jesus’ siblings, especially if one has the prior bias that Mary had other children. But there is, as we discussed before, nothing that demands that these “brothers” are Mary’s sons. They are never so designated as Jesus is:

    Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

    They could be step-siblings or kinsmen or another close relationship exactly as Jesus used the same Greek word translated brother/sister to refer to all who do His father’s will. So here in this very passage we see adelphos/adelphas being used to denote NON-Siblings. And the “brothers of Jesus” are not designated sons of Mary but brothers of Jesus. Therefore, there is no Biblical proof that Mary had other children.

    Yes. God created Adam and Eve and Mary without sin. I don’t understand why you do not think they are comparable. Do you think God is able or unable to create a human born of parents without sin?

    I was not trying to deflect the conversation by bringing up Muslim beliefs. I just wanted to show how easy it is to decide something (Jesus-God’s son/Mary co-redemptrix) must means that we deny the omnipotence of God. That we must think God needs help. I knew you would understand why the Muslims jump to the conclusion they do and yet, at the same time KNOW they are just plain wrong about their assumption; because you fully and deeply understand what we mean by Jesus Son of God.

    Are you denying the attempt to have Mary raised to status of Co-Redeemer by certain members of the catholic church?

    Yes, if what you mean by ‘raised to the status’ means we want to raise her to be equal to Jesus. Absolutely not! She cooperated and therefore she assisted in our redemption by her obedience. That is all. It is nothing more than that.

    If you are not denying it, do you adhere to this belief as well? Yes as I explained it.

    If yes, how does that fit into God’s plan that was laid plain in His Word? It fulfills prophecy.

    As for the woman’s understanding of the Trinity I agree with you; it is preposterous. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches. I have always known about crazy Catholic beliefs of individuals. When I became Catholic I determined to be a Catechism Catholic. I adhere to Church teaching and reject all weird folk beliefs.

    • “Yes. God created Adam and Eve and Mary without sin. I don’t understand why you do not think they are comparable. Do you think God is able or unable to create a human born of parents without sin?”

      In the beginning God created man. From that point on it has been a matter of nature, or natural birth if you prefer, as He planned and set into motion. His Word does not even begin to back up this dogma. Likewise, I don’t understand why you would think they are comparable. God is able to do His will mightily. His ability(s) are not in question.

      As for Mary being partially responsible, through obedience, for the redemption man-kind has available to them because of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.
      Romans 5:19 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

      The obedient one in Romans 5:19 does not simply apply to anyone who is obedient. Adam’s disobedience made us sinner’s; Jesus’ obedience makes us righteous. No one else is included. Their obedience or disobedience does no sway our opportunity for redemption one way or another.

      Isaiah 41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

      Isaiah 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel

      Isaiah 49:7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One…

      Isaiah 49:26 …and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

      Isaiah 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

      Isaiah 60:16 and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob

      Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

      Psalms 19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

      Galatians 3:13 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law…”
      Revelation 5:9 “And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;”

      To redeem something means to buy it, free it, release it.

      1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

      The price was paid in FULL by Christ on the cross. He alone paid that cost, for He alone, knowing no sin, was counted worthy.

  16. But you do not think God would or could circumvent the natural order?

    It is not necessary for scripture to back up Mary’s perpetual virginity. There is nothing in Scripture that supports the idea that doctrine MUST be backed up with scripture. That is just a Protestant Tradition.

    Look Steve I understand where you are coming from. But your misunderstanding of the Catholic Faith is very much like the Muslim misunderstanding of a Father God with a Son. The Son of God takes nothing from the power and sovreignty of the Father and Mary’s cooperation in the incarnation takes nothing from the fullness of Jesus Christ as Savior. I sense that your mindset is to find fault with the Catholic Church for some reason. So, we will just have to agree to disagree.

    PS. Regarding your last sentence; have you ever noticed this verse?

    Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church…

    • “But you do not think God would or could circumvent the natural order?”
      Well, He did when He moved on Mary and she conceived. Jesus was the product of that. There is nothing written to imply, or even cause us to contemplate, this idea about Mary. In line with your assertion, don’t you believe God could’ve used any young girl He wanted?

      “That is just a Protestant Tradition.”
      I’m sorry brother, but that is completely untrue. It is a Jewish tradition, the Protestants can claim something else. “Scripture interprets Scripture. A Scripture in the dark can not interpret a Scripture in the light. Only a Scripture in the light can interpret a Scripture in the dark.”- Rabbi Tovia Singer. The Bible was penned by Jews as God moved on them. Why would I not apply the same rules that they use(d)? If I don’t, I could come up with all sorts of ideas that are not founded upon His Word. Saying “that’s just a protestant tradition” seems more of an attempt to discredit what I am saying. But what I am saying is written in the Word. What I am contending against, is not.

      “Mary’s cooperation in the incarnation takes nothing from the fullness of Jesus Christ as Savior.”
      On the same note, her cooperation has nothing to do with our redemption. (Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:) None of the apostles give Mary any credit for our redemption. Repeatedly we are told that God is our Redeemer, and that by the blood of the Lamb has He redeemed us. Why do I say that we should let Scripture be our guide? Because that is where we will be judged from! (Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.) What I believe in the New Testament, has a shadow or likeness of in the Old Testament. None of us will be judged by Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, etc., etc., books written by men. I won’t be judged by books that I have read, which were written by those men who have like beliefs as I. Even though I consider them wise and learned, there words can not save me! If I can’t judge myself against the Old Testament and prove myself against (not in opposition, but in comparison) His Word and commandments, then I can not think to do so against the New Testament. The New Testament does not contradict the Old, for they are both His Word(2Tim3:16, 2Pet1:21). Contradictions would make Him a liar. And we both know that He never lies, and He never makes a mistake. As a child I heard my dad say that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed. The New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.

      ” I sense that your mindset is to find fault with the Catholic Church for some reason. So, we will just have to agree to disagree.”
      Matthew 28:19 we are told to go and teach
      Jude 1:3 we are told to “earnestly contend for the faith”
      If you believe that I am lost, and don’t know the Truth, is it not your job to show and teach me? That is what I am attempting to do with you, and everyone else I speak with regularly about His Word. Makes no difference to me if you are Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew, Hindu or Atheist, all need the Truth! I am sorry if I have made you feel that way, but this is a Catholic forum. It would be silly for me to contend against the false beliefs of Islam here, wouldn’t it? Rest assured brother, I “attempt” to teach and convert everyone, equally!

      Now, if by Protestant you mean that I am of the “main-stream Protestant” movement. Then, you are mistaken. They still hold some of the RCC’s doctrines. Some of which I am adamantly against. For instance, the doctrine of the trinity. I hold a strictly monotheistic understanding, much the same as Judaism. However, through God’s grace I understand that Jesus was/is our Messiah. And that God, being a Spirit, dwelt within the man, Jesus. I see that God was manifest in flesh, but He was not the flesh. For as those in Judaism argue, how can you kill God? For that matter, how could you even begin to cause His being harm? He is a Spirit. The Holy Ghost is not another person, but is God in action. When we see mention of the Holy Ghost/Spirit, we see an action being performed. For example, in the Gospels we read how the Holy Ghost moved on Mary and she conceived. If the Holy Ghost and the Father are not the same person, then the Father is not the Father of Jesus, but the Holy Ghost is. However, if we understand that God is our Father through creation, that He is a Spirit, and that when speaking in terms of the Holy Ghost there is an action being taken, it makes perfect sense. When I had children they took on my blood, and sadly, some of my characteristics. Likewise, Jesus took on his Father’s traits, but within him dwelt the Spirit of the Living God. Which is the fulness of the Godhead. This is why Jesus prayed to his Father and called Him “the only true God.” Understanding He is a monotheistic God, also offers some explanation as to why in Matt 28:19 Jesus said to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”, yet when the apostles baptized they did so in the “name of the Lord Jesus” or in “the name of Jesus.” Known today as Jesus name baptism, or “Jesus only.” (The latter being used and intended as a derogatory term.) Jesus said he had come in his Father’s name. Much argued is that Jesus only meant in his Father’s “authority” when he said name. However, if you don’t sign your real name on the bottom line of any legal document, it has no authority, and is therefore invalid. How much more important is it to be right with God! Then, in Luke 24 Jesus said these things would be done in “his” name. By bringing Matt 28 & Luke 24 together shines the “light” on an otherwise “dark” Scripture. In other words, it brings understanding to something hard to be understood.

      Or, if by Protestant you mean that I protest any and every thing not founded on and in His Word, regardless of race, sex, or religion, then I suppose you have found me out.

      I applaud the Catholic stance against homosexuality & abortion. Those two of course pop into my head first because they are so popular in the media, there may be others. I am not against you. I disagree with many of your beliefs. My wife was raised Catholic, attended a Catholic school, was confirmed and was still a Catholic when I met her. But I didn’t hold that against her, and I even went so far as to fall in love with her. Admittedly, she converted a couple of years before we were married, but I had fallen in love with her long before then.

      If you wish to discontinue our conversation, I will honor you as my brother and say, I love you and I am praying for you always. May His Word guide you and light your path.

      • I do not think you are lost. I think you have faith in our Savior. But you are misinformed about the Catholic Faith. A Protestant is one who protests the Catholic Faith ergo Protest-ant.

  17. […] Mary was already sinless and innately “full of grace.” For more information, compare a Catholic interpretation with a […]

  18. Superb blog! Do you have any suggestions for aspiring writers? I’m hoping to start my own site soon but I’m a little lost on everything. Would you recommend starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option? There are so many options out there that I’m completely overwhelmed .. Any ideas? Kudos!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: