From the introductions thread
ES wrote
Thanks for the response Melanie,
When they are placed above error, incapable of error and as authority then there is a real risk of 'the blind leading the blind'.
The sinlessness of Mary, which is not stated any where in scripture.
The perpetual Virgin, completely contradicted by scripture
German reformer Martin Luther's (1483-1546) writings often address the subject of Mary: On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, he wrote
In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)
Luther, true to Catholic tradition, wrote on the Virginity of Mary:
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)
The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God
It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)
On the perpetual virginity of Mary, "Calvin routinely brushes aside the difficulties sometimes raised from "first born" and "brothers of the Lord."" (O'Carroll, M., 1983, Theotokos, M Glazier, Inc.: Wilmington, DE, p. 94.) In bold... all scholars of any repute do Melanie, First born is only a term of the first one born and in no way indicates further children... Brothers of the Lord, he also easily brushed aside as it only denotes either relatives as cousins, step children, even others in the family of the towns in question...
The Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), wrote, on the divine motherhood of Mary:
It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformation, Berlin, 1905, v. 6, I, p. 639.)
On the perpetual virginity of Mary, Zwingli wrote,
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)
I did want you to see it's not only Catholics who feel this way ... Here, Luther, along with Calvin (Calvinist)and Zwingli (Dutch Reform). The biggest non-Catholic hitters on post Reformation. It would seem the blind leading the blind is an issue for many.
ES my issue is with unbiblical teaching. Whom ever is teaching, following or preaching it. You are correct, it is an issue for many. I look at scripture for what it is. I do not come at it from a preconceived, indoctrinationed mind frame. It just is what it is. I have no vested interest whatsoever as to whether Jesus had siblings or not. If He didn't then great, if He did great also, it makes no difference to me. I read what scripture tells me, and I go on that. I do not have to do some mental Gymnastics with versus from the bible to have it prove an agenda, I can freely interpret it as it is intended. Can I get it wrong sometimes, sure, but that is through personal error, an error that is a heck of a lot easier to find and fix than if I have misinterpreted scripture because I am looking thorough a lens of church indoctrination, an error that I believe the 'church' is incapable of. Then I would have a very difficult time seeing the Forrest thru the trees. That right there is my issue with being too religious and caught up too heavily with 'church' instead of Christ.
The bible tells us Jesus had brothers. The Greek word for brother under its normal and literal interp is brother by birth. there is also a Greek word for cousin that it not used. The fact that Mary is mentioned as being with the 'brothers' holds more weight that they are her children.
Matthew 12:46
Luke 8:19
Mark 3:31
Acts 1:14
John 2:12
On top of the fact the bible never mentions that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. After Jesus ascended to heaven the disciples who spread the 'Good News', establishing our faith never mentioned it in the book of Acts, Paul never hinted to it, in his writings to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians. It is not mentioned in Hebrews which speaks about how believers are to please God, the primacy of faith, the superiority of Christ ect. It is a doctrine outside of biblical truth. If you choose to believe 'church' over the word of God, then that is entirely your choice.
The only reason I brought any of this up and I was reluntant to do so, as offending people is not something I apsire to do, is because I thought Annette needed to know that these beliefs were not supported by the bible, I thought perhaps she did not know. She is free as we all are to believe what ever she likes but as a christian and someone who considers her my friend I wanted to point it out, clearly. I love God, I love His word, I want it to be presented honestly. A person should be aware that they are choosing to follow 'church' doctrine not biblical truth.
ES you think that the Catholic Church equals truth, even their doctrine outside the bible, I think the bible equals truth. Period. The only reason I pointed out Catholicism is because that was on topic, but it is by no means the only church that has doctrine outside of biblical truth. There are many and my opinion remains the same for all of them. This is not an attack on the Catholic faith.
