There is only one true church

[BreadOfLife]

And I never claimed that you did. (Is English your first language?)
Show me the verses you think implicitly support MPV, so we can discuss.

I already HAVE.

Not only did I present verses that show she didn’t have any other children – I gave you over a DOZEN verses of OT type and NT fulfillments with regard to Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant. This comparison ALONE points to her Perpetual Virginity.

You have NO interest in “discussing” thus evidence. All you’re interested in is continuing your campaign of denial - and pretending that you’re NOT a Sola Scripturist . . .

I DO NOT demand Scriptural support (although I welcome it, whether explicit or implicit). And I do not discount Sacred Tradition -- indeed, that is exactly where I said in Post #601 that we might want to look! (Is English your THIRD language?)

If that were true – this conversation would be over.

If you want too have an intelligent conversation – at least TRY to be honest . . .

 

[PinSeeker]

Again... Jesus had siblings. Mary had not yet known a man ~ in the same sense as, for example, Genesis 4, where Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived ~ at the time of Gabriel's visitation in Matthew 1. Adam certainly knew who Eve was prior to this knowing of Eve in Genesis 4; this 'knowing' is not a mere cognitive knowledge about someone or something. The same is true in the New Testament of Mary, who, after she gave birth to Jesus, was certainly known, and probably many times... :)... by her husband Joseph. Jesus's brothers James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, Jude, and some number of unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark's and Matthew's gospels. Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, to be specific.

Jesus said all of Scripture is about Him (specifically in John 5:46... "if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me"... and Luke said the same thing indirectly in Luke 24:27... "beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, (Jesus) interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself"... and again directly in Luke 24:44-45... "(Jesus) said to them, 'These are My words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' Then (Jesus) opened their minds to understand the Scriptures..."

Never do we read anything in the Old Testament about Mary; the only passages that allude to her in some way are not about her but about Jesus:

• Genesis 3:15, which is about Jesus, not Mary, that He is the offspring of the woman Who will crush the serpent's head; the first part of this verse is really about the serpent, to whom God is speaking in this verse ~ and that he will have ongoing hostility with the woman, which will be perpetuated by their respective offspring; Jesus Himself later refers to the offspring of Satan, the devil, in John 8, saying to a group of Jews, "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires..."
• Isaiah 7:14, which is about Jesus, not Mary, but that He will be conceived in and born of a virgin (Mary, of course) and named Immanuel, which, as Matthew later says, means "God with us."

The types and shadows of the Old Testament are of Jesus, not Mary. We can easily see this from the opening of the book of Hebrews: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, Whom He appointed the Heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world." In the story of Noah's flood in particular, the ark is a "type" or "shadow" of Jesus Himself, Who is our Ark, Who, metaphorically speaking, carries us through the storm, who keeps us from being overcome by the flood. These types and shadows of Jesus are:

• inanimate objects at times ~ like a) Noah's ark in Genesis 6, b) the rock at Horeb, which Moses struck with his staff and water came out of it and the thirsty Israelites drank of it in Exodus 17
• animals, at times ~ like a.) the ram caught in the thicket provided by God for Abram's sacrifice in place of Isaac in Genesis 22, b) the true Lamb without blemish pointed to over and over and over again in Leviticus
• food, at times ~ like the manna from heaven in Exodus 16, Numbers 11, Deuteronomy 8, Joshua 5, Nehemiah 9, and Psalm 78 (John mentions it, too, in John 6)
• people, at times ~ like a.) Joseph, who was in Egypt and placed there by God to save his brothers and all of Israel from the famine, as we read in Genesis 50, and b.) Moses, who led the Israelites to the promised land, and c.) David, who was anointed king over Israel

For the sake of time (yours and mine) I'll stop there, but it goes on and on and on... <smile> It's all about Jesus, BreadOfLife, not Mary... <smile> There is never any such typology of Mary.

But, as I said, this should not be construed as any kind of disparagement or denigration of Mary or any kind of denial regarding the great purposes for which God used her and the ways in which He blessed her. Likewise, though, this should also not be construed in such a manner that Mary deserves our worship or the glory that belongs only to God... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Ark of the Covenant is another "type"... "shadow"... of Jesus. The Ark was a picture of the Person and saving work of Christ. What were the contents of the Ark?

• Manna. The manna in the golden bowl represented the life-sustaining food that God gives His people in Christ. When Jesus fed the five thousand He said, “Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.…the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (John 6:33). The flesh and blood of Christ is life-sustaining food for the believer.
• Aaron's rod. The significance of Aaron’s rod is found in Numbers 16-17. Certain jealous men had called Aaron’s Priesthood into question. God commanded that the rebels take their rods and lay them out next to Aaron’s. The Lord made the rod of the man He had chosen to bud. Jesus is the great High Priest, chosen by His Father from all eternity. The rod was placed in the ark to show that Christ was the LORD’s chosen and anointed Priest (Isaiah 42:1; Heb. 5:4).
• Ten Commandments. This showed that the moral Law of God would forever stand before the presence of God. It also represented that the Law would be kept in Christ. He would fully obey all the commands of God for His people.
• The mercy seat. The mercy seat was set on top of the Ark. When the Priest went into the Holy of Holies, he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat. This represented the atoning blood of Jesus. Just as the blood on the mercy seat, the blood of Christ stands between the Law of God and the Presence of God. When the Lord saw the blood His wrath was satisfied. Through the blood of Jesus the transgressions of God’s people have been forgiven. Christ Jesus is the true Mercy Seat. It was a symbolic foreshadowing of the ultimate sacrifice for all sin ~ the blood of Christ shed on the cross for the remission of sins. Paul knew this concept well and related it to the Romans (Romans 3:23-25) ~ and us, by extension ~ writing, "all who believe... have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." Just as there was only one place for atonement of sins in the Old Testament ~ the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant ~ so there is also only one place for atonement in the New Testament and current times ~ the cross of Jesus Christ, and Jesus is the One... the only One Who did make, even Who possibly could make... true atonement on our behalf and therefore accomplished our redemption.

Yet again, concerning Mary, knowing Mary should help us in knowing ourselves, and we should desire a faith like hers. Her faith was certainly great. She certainly delighted in the Lord, and He directed her paths (Psalm 37:4; 119:47). She certainly delighted to do His will (Psalm 40:8). This is certainly evident in her song of praise, her psalm, in Luke 1:46-55...

"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He has looked on the humble estate of His servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with His arm; He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; He has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent away empty. He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”​

Oh, to have a faith like hers... However ~ yet again ~ we should not make Mary out to be a bigger part of the picture than she is (the same is true of Peter). Jesus and Jesus alone accomplished our redemption and is thus our Savior. Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man. We should not assign to Mary any credit for "assisting" Jesus in accomplishing the redemption of God's people. That she found favor with and was chosen by the Father for a very special purpose and was blessed in such a magnificent way is absolutely true, but even Mary knew her place as a servant of the Lord (as we all should) and submitted humbly to His will (again, as we all should).

Grace and peace to all.

 

[RedFan]

I already HAVE.

Not only did I present verses that show she didn’t have any other children – I gave you over a DOZEN verses of OT type and NT fulfillments with regard to Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant. This comparison ALONE points to her Perpetual Virginity.

Showing she had no other children (something I agree with) does not show she was a virgin. I think you know that, and are just being obtuse.

Being typecast as the Ark of the Covenant (interesting analogy, I must say!) doesn't show perpetual virginity either.

You are fond of saying

There is PLENTY of Biblical evidence that Mary remained a virgin

but not fond of pointing it out. You didn't give me (and as far as this thread shows, you didn't give anyone else) "over a dozen" examples. I don't see but one! And it's bogus. Rev. 11:19 and 12:1 are describing two different scenes. Rev. 12:1 may well show Mary in heaven; it does not portray her as the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[PinSeeker]

@RedFan
In Matthew 13:53-56, we read:

"And when Jesus had finished these parables, He went away from there, and coming to his hometown (Nazareth) he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s (Joseph's) son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?"​

How can you read that and not conclude both that Jesus had siblings and that Mary, after she gave birth to Jesus, was known at least several times by Joseph? Do you think, perhaps, that Jesus's brothers and sisters were virgin births also? I would hope not... <smile>

And I would add that Mary and Joseph probably knew very well God's even now ongoing command to "be fruitful and multiply"... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hmm, okay, fine, but this is explicitly shown in Scripture. As you agree, I think. Is there really any argument or debate here? I mean... my goodness... <smile>

**I deleted some of your post because of limited character space . . .


No – it’s NOT explicitly shown in Scripture that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE God, manifested in THREE distinct Persons.

This is a truth that is absolutely alluded to and implicitly taught – but not explicitly.

You know, against my better judgment... <smile> What exactly do you mean, BreadOfLife, by "sacred tradition"?

As Paul teaches in 2 Thess. 2:!5, it is the Word of God relayed orally and is on par with what it written (Scripture). Much of Sacred Traditions is what the Church has always believed – and some – like the Canon of Scripture came later.

John tells us in John 21:25 that Jesus said and did MANY things that were NOT written down.
Jesus Himself told the leaders of what later became His Church that WHATEVER THEY loosed or held bound on earth would be loosed or held bound in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18). He also told them that whoever listens to THEM, listens to HIM and the ONE who sent Him (Luke 10:16).

As you know, BreadOfLife ~ I hope, anyway ~ Jesus said all of Scripture is about Him (specifically in John 5:46... "if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me... and Luke said the same thing indirectly in Luke 24:27... "beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, (Jesus) interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself"... and again directly in Luke 24:44-45... "(Jesus) said to them, 'These are My words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' Then (Jesus) opened their minds to understand the Scriptures...").

Never do we read anything in the Old Testament about Mary; the only passages that allude to her in some way are not about her but about Jesus:

The types and shadows of the Old Testament are of Jesus, not Mary. In the story of Noah's flood in particular, the ark is a "type" or "shadow" of Jesus Himself, Who is our Ark, Who metaphorically speaking carries us through the storm, who keeps us from being overcome by the flood. These types and shadows of Jesus are:
urs and mine) I'll stop there, but it goes on and on and on... <smile> It's all about Jesus, BreadOfLife, not Mary... <smile> But this should not be construed as any kind of knock on Mary or the great purposes for which God used her and the ways in which He blessed her. Likewise, though, this should also not be construed in such a manner that Mary deserves our worship or the glory that belongs only to God... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

WHO said that it is about Mary??

I merely pointed to the fact that she is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant, which carried symbols of God’s Law and power.
Mary carried Jesus - the fulfillment of those things

Jesus isn’t the “Ark” of the Covenant – He IS the New Covenant.
Mary is the Ark that carried Him.

Right. And this is another "type"... "shadow"... of Jesus. Christ Jesus is the true Mercy Seat. <smile>

The term ‘mercy seat’ comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to cover, placate, appease, cleanse, cancel or make atonement for.” Here the high priest ~ only once a year ~ entered the Holy of Holies (inside the Tabernacle, where the Ark was kept) and atoned for the sins of all the Israelites (Leviticus 16). The priest sprinkled blood of a sacrificed animal onto the Mercy Seat to appease the wrath and anger of God for past sins committed. In a far greater manner, the Mercy Seat on the Ark was a symbolic foreshadowing of the ultimate sacrifice for all sin ~ the blood of Christ shed on the cross for the remission of sins. Paul knew this concept well and related it to the Romans (Romans 3:24-25) ~ and us, by extension ~ writing, "…and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." Just as there was only one place for atonement of sins in the Old Testament ~ the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant ~ so there is also only one place for atonement in the New Testament and current times ~ the cross of Jesus Christ, and Jesus is the One... the only One Who did make, even Who possibly could make... true atonement on our behalf and therefore accomplished our redemption.

The prohibition against touching the vessel that contained the Mercy Seat on which God rested only bolsters my position that Mary is the Ark. Again - she carried God incarnate.

However ~ yet again... <smile> ~ we should not make Mary out to be a bigger part of the picture than she is. Jesus and Jesus alone accomplished our redemption and is thus our Savior. Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man. We should not assign to Mary any credit for "assisting" Jesus in accomplishing the redemption of God's people. That she found favor with and was chosen by the Father for a very special purpose and was blessed in such a magnificent way is absolutely true, but even Mary knew her place as a servant of the Lord (as we all should) and submitted humbly to His will (again, as we all should).

Grace and peace to you, BreadOfLife.

We are ALL called to “assist” in God’s plan of salvation (Matt. 28:19-20, James 5:16). It's actually about assisting the Church. Why do you think that Paul said the following:

Col. 1:24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.

Paul isn’t “earning” anything for the sake of the Church – He is assisting the Church through redemptive suffering. This is a common theme with Paul (Col. 1:24, 2 Cor. 1:5, 4:10; Phil. 3:10).

It is in this sense that we "assist" the Church - through our intercession of prayer and redemptive suffering

 

[BreadOfLife]

Showing she had no other children (something I agree with) does not show she was a virgin. I think you know that, and are just being obtuse.

Being typecast as the Ark of the Covenant (interesting analogy, I must say!) doesn't show perpetual virginity either.

You are fond of saying but not fond of pointing it out. You didn't give me (and as far as this thread shows, you didn't give anyone else) "over a dozen" examples. I don't see but one! And it's bogus. Rev. 11:19 and 12:1 are describing two different scenes. Rev. 12:1 may well show Mary in heaven; it does not portray her as the Ark of the Covenant.

For that matter – there is NO Scriptural evidence that she ever went to the bathroom.

“Evidence” is that which points to a truth. It’s not rock-solid proof.
Your Sola Scriptura argument that “since it’s NOT in Scripture – then it CAN’T be true” is dishonest in light of the fact that claim NOT to be a Sola Scripturust.

Some of what is believed by the PVM is based on Apostolic Tradition, some by Scripture and some by about which what Scripture is silent.
If YOU want to teach the opposite – then the onus is on YOU to show that evidence. There is no Scriptural evidence – nor is there any tradition or extra-Bilical document.

In short, you’ve painted yourself into a corner by insisting that you are NOT a Sola Scripturaist and that you give oral Tradition some credence – ALL the while, arguing against an oral Tradition . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Again... Jesus had siblings. Mary had not yet known a man ~ in the same sense as, for example, Genesis 4, where Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived ~ at the time of Gabriel's visitation in Matthew 1. Adam certainly knew who Eve was prior to this knowing of Eve in Genesis 4; this 'knowing' is not a mere cognitive knowledge about someone or something. The same is true in the New Testament of Mary, who, after she gave birth to Jesus, was certainly known, and probably many times... :)... by her husband Joseph. Jesus's brothers James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, Jude, and some number of unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark's and Matthew's gospels. Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, to be specific.

The normal Greek words for “brother(s) “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used much more liberally than the normal meaning. It was applied to cousins, uncles, nephews, kinsmen, brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman.

There are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

As for the “adelphoi” of Jesus – let’s examine this . . .
Mark 6:3
Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Mark 3:18
Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot

What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?
Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

THREE woman named “Mary” at the crucifixion:
1. Mary, mother of Jesus
2. Mary Magdalene
3. Mary, mother of James and Joses (Joseph) and wife of Clopas. She is Mary’s “sister” (adelphe).

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Another “proof” against the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the word “until”.
Matt. 1:25 says: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Did Mary have other children after Jesus? As we have examined – the Bible does NOT support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?

Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death. Deut. 34:6 explicitly states: And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.
Sooooo – did they find his grave after this??

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."'

Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?

The problem here is in the attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

Church.

But, as I said, this should not be construed as any kind of disparagement or denigration of Mary or any kind of denial regarding the great purposes for which God used her and the ways in which He blessed her. Likewise, though, this should also not be construed in such a manner that Mary deserves our worship or the glory that belongs only to God... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I don’t worship Mary – and it is an anti-Catholic fallacy that this is something that is taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[PinSeeker]

...it’s NOT explicitly shown in Scripture that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE God, manifested in THREE distinct Persons.

This is a truth that is absolutely alluded to and implicitly taught – but not explicitly.

You know, it's not important that we resolve this difference between us on this, especially because we agree that God is one and because God is three distinct Persons. Right?

As Paul teaches in 2 Thess. 2:!5, it is the Word of God relayed orally and is on par with what it written (Scripture). Much of Sacred Traditions is what the Church has always believed – and some – like the Canon of Scripture came later.

Hmmm... Orally by whom, BOL? See, I think that's possibly the disconnect between us. As you know, I'm sure, the writer of Hebrews ~ and really God, Who has breathed all of Scripture, says, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2). Yes, Paul does say (in 2 Thessalonians 2:15), "stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter," but we should understand that in the very same context as he says in Ephesians 6:10-20...

"...be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil... take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the Gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith... and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the Gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

The exhortations of Paul in both these passages (2 Thessalonians and Ephesians 6) are very much the same... "stand firm and hold to" (2 Thessalonians 2) and "be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might" (Ephesians 6). It seems that at least some of the "sacred traditions" you are referring to are beyond what Paul was referring to as traditions, and really ~ respectfully ~ deserving of the same sort of rebuke as Paul gives to the Galatians, that "I am astonished that you are so quickly... turning to a different gospel ~ not that there is another one, but there are some who... distort the gospel of Christ,"
.

John tells us in John 21:25 that Jesus said and did MANY things that were NOT written down.

Sure. But they would, well, "say" the same things to us.

Jesus Himself told the leaders of what later became His Church that WHATEVER THEY loosed or held bound on earth would be loosed or held bound in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18). He also told them that whoever listens to THEM, listens to HIM and the ONE who sent Him (Luke 10:16).

WHO said that it is about Mary??

LOL! That would be you, BOL.

I merely pointed to the fact that she is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant, which carried symbols of God’s Law and power.

And there you go. <smile>

Mary carried Jesus

I can understand why you (and Catholics in general) correlate her pregnancy with Jesus with the Ark's carrying the Commandments and other articles of God. But there is no typology of Mary in the Old Testament. Instead of thinking of the Ark as just a "container," I submit to you that you should think of it as a "chair" or "seat," even a throne, especially considering the lid of the Ark is exactly that, the Mercy Seat, as I was saying previously.

Jesus - the fulfillment of those things

This I agree with, but by saying "Mary is the Ark," BOL, you're... well, contradicting yourself, really. I mean, you just said (verbatim), "she is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant." That's just... well, astounding.

Jesus isn’t the “Ark” of the Covenant –

He is. We disagree. There are no "types" or "shadows" of Mary anywhere in the Old Testament (or anywhere in Scripture), but only Jesus.

He IS the New Covenant.

This I agree with. He's actually the one true everlasting Covenant, which all the lesser covenants ~ of life, with Adam (so "Adamic") and then renewed with Noah (so "Noahic"), of people and land with Abraham (so "Abrahamic"), of law with Mose (so "Mosaic"), and of a King with David (so "Davidic") ~ point to... in order:

• to the One Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the One in Whom we, Jew and Gentile, all live and breathe and have our being and in Whom we have eternal life
• to God's true people Israel, and as such true Jews, the true descendants of Abraham, numbering as the stars of heaven and the grains of sand on the seashore, and we, the meek, inherit the true promised land, the earth
• to the Law of Christ, Who is the true Law... Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4)
• to the Greater David, our forever King, Christ Jesus,

Mary is the Ark that carried Him.

I understand the thinking, but I disagree. Jesus is the One Who sits on the Throne of God even now, at the Right Hand (power, rulership) of God.

The prohibition against touching the vessel that contained the Mercy Seat on which God rested only bolsters my position that Mary is the Ark. Again - she carried God incarnate.

Ahhhh... The prohibition against touching the Ark should be seen in the same light as when God told Moses to remove his shoes, as he was on holy ground. Moses responded in faith, of course, and obeyed. So touching the Ark would have meant one of the following (really all three), 1.) not revering God’s words, 2.) having an independent attitude and seeing/acting on things from a worldly (rather than a spiritual) perspective, and 3.) disobedience. Uzzah felt it was his responsibility to somehow assist God and keep the Ark from falling when the oxen stumbled, but the Ark itself was never in danger. In like manner, in the storm on the Sea of Galilee Jesus's disciples failed to put their faith in Him when they feared the boat ~ which "contained" Jesus (but was certainly not a symbol of Mary) ~ was sinking, but it was never in danger of such.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

We are ALL called to “assist” in God’s plan of salvation (Matt. 28:19-20, James 5:16).

This is our participation in His carrying out of His purposes. He uses us, yes, in carrying out His plans, but the power is His, worked through us by the Holy Spirit.

It's actually about assisting the Church.

We assist the church by using our spiritual gifts, the gifts of the Spirit that we each are given ~ but even these are empowered by God by the work of His Spirit in us ~ for the common good; they are empowered in us by one and the same Spirit, Who apportions to each one individually as God wills (1 Corinthians 12:4-10).

Why do you think that Paul said the following:

Col. 1:24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.

Well, "to make the word of God fully known," as he writes in Colossians 1:25. God's Word is living and formative, not Paul or anyone else.

Paul isn’t “earning” anything for the sake of the Church

Agreed. Not sure why you would feel compelled to say that...

– He is assisting the Church through redemptive suffering. This is a common theme with Paul (Col. 1:24, 2 Cor. 1:5, 4:10; Phil. 3:10).

It is in this sense that we "assist" the Church - through our intercession of prayer and redemptive suffering

We don't assist God in any way. We have the privilege of His using us ~ and in this way being instruments of His right hand, and in this way we serve Him ~ to accomplish His purposes for sure. As the writer of Hebrews says, "...every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God" (Hebrews 3:4), and "by faith, Abraham..." ~ as we all should be even now, "...was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God" (Hebrews 11:8-10). God calls us to participate fully, for sure, but He the One really doing it.
To Him alone be the glory.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

The normal Greek words for “brother(s) “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used much more liberally than the normal meaning.

But the context of Matthew 13 and Mark 6 is very clear, BOL. <smile> Respectively:

"...when Jesus had finished these parables, He went away from there, and coming to His hometown He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, 'Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all His sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?' And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.'"​

​

"He went away from there and came to His hometown, and His disciples followed Him. And on the Sabbath He began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard Him were astonished, saying, 'Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to Him? How are such mighty works done by His hands? 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. And Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.' And He could do no mighty work there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. And He marveled because of their unbelief."​

It was applied to cousins, uncles, nephews, kinsmen, brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman.

There are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

As for the “adelphoi” of Jesus – let’s examine this . . .

Mark 6:3
Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Mark 3:18
Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot

What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?
Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

THREE woman named “Mary” at the crucifixion:
1. Mary, mother of Jesus
2. Mary Magdalene
3. Mary, mother of James and Joses (Joseph) and wife of Clopas. She is Mary’s “sister” (adelphe).

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

There are multiple Marys, Jameses, and Johns in the Bible; they were common names of the day (and now...). And Jesuses (Joshuas), actually. We should not confuse them.

Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Matthew 13:53-57 and Mark 6:1.6 are both unmistakable.

Another “proof” against the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the word “until”.
Matt. 1:25 says: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Respectfully speaking, it's nothing short of incredible to me that you don't see this as proof that, after the birth of Jesus, she did not remain a virgin. But so be it.

Did Mary have other children after Jesus?

Yes, Mark 6:3-4 is... irrefutable.

I don’t worship Mary –

Do you pray to her, BOL? Do you think her capable of answering prayer?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[RedFan]

@RedFan
In Matthew 13:53-56, we read:

"And when Jesus had finished these parables, He went away from there, and coming to his hometown (Nazareth) he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s (Joseph's) son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?"​

How can you read that and not conclude both that Jesus had siblings and that Mary, after she gave birth to Jesus, was known at least several times by Joseph?

Well, because I read this:

55 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός; ⸀οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰάκωβος καὶ ⸀Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ
Ἰούδας; 56 καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν; πόθεν οὖν τούτῳ ταῦτα πάντα;

and I see ἀδελφοὶ and ἀδελφαὶ either as brothers and sisters in the biological sense, or as kinsfolk. The Greek supports either definition.

Sometimes it is obvious which definition to prefer. (For instance, nobody thinks ἀδελφοὶ in Acts 7:2 is a reference to biological brothers.) And sometimes it isn't obvious. Matthew 13 is an instance where it is not obvious.

 

[RedFan]

Your Sola Scriptura argument that “since it’s NOT in Scripture – then it CAN’T be true” is dishonest in light of the fact that claim NOT to be a Sola Scripturust.

I have never argued that if it isn't in Scripture it cannot be true. Quite the opposite. Where are you getting these notions from, if not from my actual words?

 

[PinSeeker]

Well, because I read this:

55 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός; ⸀οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰάκωβος καὶ ⸀Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ
Ἰούδας; 56 καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν; πόθεν οὖν τούτῳ ταῦτα πάντα;

and I see ἀδελφοὶ and ἀδελφαὶ either as brothers and sisters in the biological sense, or as kinsfolk. The Greek supports either definition.

Sometimes it is obvious which definition to prefer. (For instance, nobody thinks ἀδελφοὶ in Acts 7:2 is a reference to biological brothers.) And sometimes it isn't obvious. Matthew 13 is an instance where it is not obvious.

Puzzling response...

I agree with ~ or I should say that in so saying, you seem to be agreeing with me ~ this: "I see ἀδελφοὶ and ἀδελφαὶ either as brothers and sisters in the biological sense, or as kinsfolk..."

Yes, the Greek supports either definition ~ as I acknowledged before ~ but the context in which it appears determines which definition is to be used. So, your statement that "Matthew 13 is an instance where it is not obvious" seems to be very contradictory even to what you just said. In Matthew 13:55-56 the context makes it absolutely obvious that Jesus's biological brothers and sisters are being referred to, as well as Mary and Joseph as their biological mother and father.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[RedFan]

Puzzling response...

I agree with ~ or I should say that in so saying, you seem to be agreeing with me ~ this: "I see ἀδελφοὶ and ἀδελφαὶ either as brothers and sisters in the biological sense, or as kinsfolk..."

Yes, the Greek supports either definition ~ as I acknowledged before ~ but the context in which it appears determines which definition is to be used. So, your statement that "Matthew 13 is an instance where it is not obvious" seems to be very contradictory even to what you just said. In Matthew 13:55-56 the context makes it absolutely obvious that Jesus's biological brothers and sisters are being referred to, as well as Mary and Joseph as their biological mother and father.

Grace and peace to you.

Well, reasonable minds can differ here. It's not obvious to me that mentioning his mother's name right next to the names of his ἀδελφοὶ compels the conclusion that they are her biological children. I'd need more context than that.

 

[PinSeeker]

Well, reasonable minds can differ here.

Yes...

It's not obvious to me that mentioning his mother's name right next to the names of his ἀδελφοὶ compels the conclusion that thy are her biological children. I'd need more context than that.

Well, just quoting the Nazareth townsfolk themselves in Matthew 13:54-55...

"Where did this man... " ~ 'this man' obviously meaning Jesus
"...get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this..." ~ again, 'this' obviously referring to Jesus
"...the carpenter’s..." ~ Joseph's... 'carpenter' being a clear reference to Joseph
"...son?" ~ Joseph's son, Jesus, of course
"Is not His..." ~ again, Jesus's
"...mother called Mary?" ~ no explanation needed here, but obviously Mary, the mother of Jesus, not to be confused with Mary Magdalene or any other Mary in the Bible
) "And are not His..." ~ again, Jesus's
"...brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all His..." ~ again, Jesus's
"...sisters with us?"

I really don't see how one could ask for a clearer context than that. Unmistakably, all are immediate blood relations of Jesus.

But so be it.

Grace and peace to you, RedFan.

P.S. I don't mean anything disparaging by this, RedFan, but that's an interesting moniker...

 

[RedFan]

P.S. I don't mean anything disparaging by this, RedFan, but that's an interesting moniker...

No offense taken. Your civility shines on this website, far outstripping most who post here. I am gratified by it. The moniker RedFan is just a nod to my alma mater. It's not a political statement (although I am Republican).

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

If you believe what Christians have believed and have taught in all generations, then you're built upon the Apostles. But if you're particular faith..what you think is so important to say, is something that only began to be said in 500 AD or in 1000 AD or in 1500 AD or in 1959 AD..whatever you're in, as good as it might be, is inadequate and is something less than the church of Christ. It isn't Apostolic. There is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that church has been teaching the gospel and preaching the Christian faith for 2000 years. It is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is Orthodox, but not Jewish. It is Catholic, but not Roman. It is not non-denominational, it is pre-denominational. It has been believed, taught, preserved, defended, and died for. It is the Faith that has established the universe. Proclaiming the Truth since 34 AD. The Church began on the day of Pentecost after Christ's resurrection.

The Church is the Body of Christ. It is spiritually ONE and physically manifested throughout this world among billions. The Body is displayed diversely among us. Everyone who believes in and puts their faith in Christ is part of that Body. Currently that's about 2.7 billion. Some of us have weak faith, some have strong faith, some have great knowledge and some little. Some are confused or uninformed about many doctrines taught in scripture. We all learning on different levels and provided for in different ways. God chooses whom He predestined to be in that Body. He chose us, calls us, cleanses us, justifies them, and He will glorify all whom He has chosen. He guides us all, each on different paths, each with different purposes, functions, talents and abilities, but all towards His very intricately woven comprehensive PLAN, OUR DESTINY, ETERNAL SALVATION IN HEAVEN.

 

[PinSeeker]

No offense taken. Your civility shines on this website, far outstripping most who post here. I am gratified by it.

Thank you, RF. I really appreciate it. I do make a concerted effort at that any time I post.

The moniker RedFan is just a nod to my alma mater. It's not a political statement (although I am Republican).

You know, I kind of suspected that, actually... St. John's, maybe? Or New Hampshire... Cornell? You can see from my profile I'm in Nashville... my blood runs orange. <smile> I am a Tennessee Volunteer. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You know, it's not important that we resolve this difference between us on this, especially because we agree that God is one and because God is three distinct Persons. Right?

*** I deleted some of your post in my response because of limited character space

You missed the point.

I was simply differentiating between explicit Biblical teaching and implicit Biblical teaching – and showing that they are BOTH valid. This was in response to the claim that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is NOT implicitly taught in Scripture.

Hmmm... Orally by whom, BOL? See, I think that's possibly the disconnect between us. As you know, I'm sure, the writer of Hebrews ~ and really God, Who has breathed all of Scripture, says, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2). Yes, Paul does say (in 2 Thessalonians 2:15), "stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter," but we should understand that in the very same context as he says in Ephesians 6:10-20...

Sacred or Apostolic Tradition are truths that the Church has always taught from the beginning. I’m NOT speaking of traditions (small “t”) such as meatless Fridays or carrying palms on Palm Sunday.

As Paul explains in 2 Thess. 2:15, Oral Tradition is the Word of God that is not written down. Jesus and the Apostles were adherents to Tradition:
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exod. 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Sure. But they would, well, "say" the same things to us.

NOT necessarily. That’s NOT necessarily how Oral Tradition works.

Sometimes, Oral Tradition eventually winds up on the pages of Scripture, as in Matt. 2:23, Matt 23:2, 1 Cor. 10:4, Jude 9, and Jude 14-15 – but NOT always.

LOL! That would be you, BOL.

No – I was responding to your implication that I said Mary was the focus of the Ark fulfillment. EVERY type and fulfillment involving Mary points top Jesus - and the Church has ALWAYS taught this.

The Ark is about Mary –as it pertains to Jesus.

And there you go. <smile>

Huh???

I can understand why you (and Catholics in general) correlate her pregnancy with Jesus with the Ark's carrying the Commandments and other articles of God. But there is no typology of Mary in the Old Testament. Instead of thinking of the Ark as just a "container," I submit to you that you should think of it as a "chair" or "seat," even a throne, especially considering the lid of the Ark is exactly that, the Mercy Seat, as I was saying previously.

This I agree with, but by saying "Mary is the Ark," BOL, you're... well, contradicting yourself, really. I mean, you just said (verbatim), "she is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant." That's just... well, astounding.

In the sense of what the Ark WAS – Mary is the fulfillment.

As for what the Ark was FOR – Jesus is the fulfillment.

He is. We disagree. There are no "types" or "shadows" of Mary anywhere in the Old Testament (or anywhere in Scripture), but only Jesus.

Once again – ALL types, fulfillments and prophecies POINT to Jesus, whether they are directly about Him or not.

For example:
The 12 stars in Rev. 12:1 (12 Tribes/12 Apostles)
The Woman in Gen. 3:!5 (May/Jesus)
The Water in 1 Pet. 3:20-21 (Flood water/Baptismal water)

ALL of these point to Jesus – but not directl

I understand the thinking, but I disagree. Jesus is the One Who sits on the Throne of God even now, at the Right Hand (power, rulership) of God.

I agree.

BUT Jesus (GOD incarnate) had a mother and she DID carry Him in her womb.

Ahhhh... The prohibition against touching the Ark should be seen in the same light as when God told Moses to remove his shoes, as he was on holy ground. Moses responded in faith, of course, and obeyed. So touching the Ark would have meant one of the following (really all three), 1.) not revering God’s words, 2.) having an independent attitude and seeing/acting on things from a worldly (rather than a spiritual) perspective, and 3.) disobedience. Uzzah felt it was his responsibility to somehow assist God and keep the Ark from falling when the oxen stumbled, but the Ark itself was never in danger. In like manner, in the storm on the Sea of Galilee Jesus's disciples failed to put their faith in Him when they feared the boat ~ which "contained" Jesus (but was certainly not a symbol of Mary) ~ was sinking, but it was never in danger of such.

Grace and peace to you.

I agree.
WHAT made the Ark holy was God. There is NO argument here.

The Ark itself wasn’t holy. But just like the ground near the burning bush - it became holy because of God’s presence.
Mary doesn’t stand out because she was a faithful servant - and there are plenty of those.

She was specially chosen by God to be the vessel that carried God within her – physically. THAT's why Mary is considered by ALL generations to be "blessed" (Luke 1:48) . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

The catholic church is spiritually bankrupt and has been teaching doctrines of demons ever since Paul left planet earth.

This is evident by all the doctrines they espouse that are not taught by Jesus and His Apostles.

I hope you get delivered from all the false doctrine before it's too late.

And I wish you would understand what the OP is about instead of spewing your hatred everywhere you go against your very brothers.

Learn some church history and then come back and report...