The Mary of Catholicism

A response to attempts to support a tradition of men from Scripture, including “burning incense” to the “Queen of heaven,” perpetual virginity, etc., and Catholic hyper exaltation of Mary above that which is written. (1Cor. 4:6).

(this is a work in progress, as was (and is) the unScriptural Catholic exaltation of Mary)

Place mouse over Scripture references (Mk. 7:2-16) for pop up viewing (best in Firefox)

Contents hit ^ to return)

Preface: Thinking of souls beyond what is written

I. The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God

II. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

III. Mary is our Mother and Queen of the New Davidic Kingdom

IV. Mary is Ever Virgin

V. Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi) = Cousins or Kinsmen

VI. Mary’s Assumption into Heaven

VII. Mary’s Coronation in Heaven

VIII. Misunderstanding about Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew her “not until”)

IX. Misunderstanding about Romans 3:23 (”All have sinned”)

X. Misunderstandings about Jesus “rebuking” Mary

XI Sample of some Catholic ascriptions to Mary

Preface

In the left column below is most of a work which was posted on Free Republic, unattributed, some time back, which i found out was from http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html, and below are my responses so far, which are not as complete as could it be, nor is it all proof read (4-16-13), but I posted it anyway in response to another assertion of Mary's perpetual virginity (PV) on the same site.

  • Thinking of souls above what is written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6)

It should be kept in mind that my objection is not to Mary being honored as the holy chosen vessel to bring forth Christ, or even to allowing Gn. 3:15 to refer to Mary, but to the excess ascriptions, appelations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority). And which presumes that bowing down to a statute and attributing to the person it represent attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture, including the power to hear in Heaven incessant multitudinous mental prayers addressed to them from earth and respond to them, and imploring such for heavenly aid, would be understood and vindicated as merely being "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (which Rome states is the manner of adoration reserved for God).

As making that distinction itself is presumptuous, the Scriptures do not sanction religiously bowing down to any statue in supplication, nor supplies even one single prayer to anyone in Heaven but the Lord (crying "Abba, Father," Gal. 4:6; not "Mama, Mother"), nor in instructions on who to pray to ("our Father who art in Heaven," not "our Mother").

Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:

For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

  • as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

  • as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

  • as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);

  • as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

  • as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

  • as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

  • as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.

  • as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;

  • as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

  • as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

  • as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

  • as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;

  • as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

  • as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

  • as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

  • as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

  • and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

  • And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.

In addition, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)

The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25). The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God

  • Contrasting foundations

As the Catholic author whose work is examined here has attempted to extrapolate support from Scripture for a tradition which does not rest upon Scripture, it warrants pointing out that while Roman Catholics condescend to using Scripture (in attempting to substantiate to evangelicals that the traditions they hold to are Scriptural), yet in reality neither the Mariology of Catholicism or assurance of doctrine is based upon the weight of Scriptural warrant. Instead, in the earthly realm it ultimately rests upon the premise of the self-proclaimed authority of Rome, with her assuredly “infallible” magisterium (which infallibly defined herself as being infallible, when speaking in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and subject-based formula), which is what is held as being what provides real assurance.

Therefore, rather than engaging in an objective examination of Scripture in order to ascertain truth and provide assurance thereby, the use of Scripture by Roman Catholic apologists is mainly in order to support Rome, and the ultimately goal is to convince souls that searching the Scriptures (as the noble Bereans did: Acts 17:11)) is not the way to obtain certitude of truth, and instead their goal must be to convince souls to make a fallible decision to place implicit trust in the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, which assent is effectively as if it were to God, as only He is assuredly infallible.

While Scripture requires some interpretation, and with that comes the problem of disagreement, yet widespread unity in core essentials is overall the result of holding Scripture as supreme (thus even Rome allows baptized Protestants to be “separated brethren”), distinguishing the majority from cults, and which tend to follow Rome's model of making themselves the supreme authority. In addition, Roman Catholics themselves must engage in interpretation to varying degrees, that of their supreme authority, the magisterium. This pertains not only as to what class a magisterial teaching falls into (and thus what degree of submission is required, or if any dissent is allowed), but the meaning of it to varying degrees. And wherein there are disagreements in Rome, as well as among churches which hold to the Roman model, that of the church being the supreme and autocracy authority (“sola ecclesia”).

As regards the Catholic exaltation of Mary, recognized Roman Catholic authorities and some web apologists admit that, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture" for the Immaculate Conception, but which is an understatement and which also applies to certain other claims, such as Mary's perpetual virginity.

Catholic authorities such as Cardinal Newman have attempted to explain a lack of Scriptural support by asserting that “Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines, till there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy.” (Anglican Difficulties, London, 1885, II, 54) And which is an admission that, unlike in Scripture, Scripture is not the supreme transcendent material standard for obedience and testing truth claims, in word and in power, but Rome is, and while she may claim support from Scripture or whatever, this is based upon their premise that they can only mean what she defines the to mean, as she is supreme and autocratic.

In contrast to doctrine being established under premise that the church is the supreme transcendent authority, when doctrine is established upon Scripturally then Marian excesses are excluded. Ratzinger acknowledged that Mary, “in the gospel tradition is quite marginal,” (“God and the world;” p. 296), which is in contrast to souls like Peter and Paul, the latter of whom sees relative little emphasis by Catholics, especially as compared with Mary despite the far greater attention to Holy Spirit gives to him.

And because Scripture does not say what the Catholic wants it to say about Mary, then when faced with challenges from those who hold Scripture as supreme, what the Catholic must attempt to do if he will try to defend the hyper exaltation of Mary from Scripture, is to wrest texts of Scripture to support it, such as seen below, often going to extrapolative extremes, even going beyond what even his church officially teaches. And which careless use of Scripture actually demeans it, rather than honoring it like as he does the Catholic Mary, and testified to the second class (at best) status of Scripture among Catholics.

Scripture no where states or teaches an exception for Mary as regards not being a sinner, or for her being a perpetually sinless virgin and having a sexless marriage (contrary to its description: Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4,5), who is ascended to Heaven, and who is already crowned (which happens after the resurrection) and enthroned as Queen of Heaven with almost unlimited power, including having the ability to process virtually unlimited prayer requests, (the Holy Spirit provides zero examples of prayer to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or in its instructions on who to pray to), and who is even set forth by some notable Catholics as a more immediate and superior recourse for help than Christ Himself.

Such an absence of real substantiation is contrary to the manifest practice of the Holy Spirit in stating similar and even lesser exceptions to the norm by notable subjects, from the blood of righteous Abel, (Gn. 4:10; Mt. 23:35) to the age of Methuselah, (Gn. 5:27) to the strength of Samson, (Jdg. 4:4,16; 16:12,29,30) to the number of toes of the Philistine giant, (2Sam. 21:20), to the special diet of the Baptist, (Mt. 3:4) to Joseph being a just man, (Mt. 1:19) to the supernatural transport of Phillip, (Acts 8:40) to Jesus being sinless, which He is said at least twice to be. (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22)

In addition, as such miraculous claims as are made for the Catholic Mary are exceptions to the norm, then the burden of proof is upon the Catholic to establish them, and not upon us, any more then we must disprove the existence of the Mormonic angel “Moroni.” As evangelical apologist Steve Hays argues, "If the evidence is uncertain, then our position should be uncertain; not: our evidence is uncertain; therefore, it's certain that Mary was a lifelong virgin. If the evidence is uncertain, then that hardly warrants a certain conclusion.” Yet some of the Mariology referred to is approved teaching, some of it even being dogma, while the lack of official censure of extreme Marian claims by Catholics can amount to implicit approval.

In a rare instance of a mild form of reproof of excessive Marian exaltation, no less a devotee of Mary than Cardinal Ratzinger at least recognized that the title “Co-redemptrix” “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (see comments on Co-redemptrix below), Yet as regards Scripture, this is also true of other aspects of Catholic exaltation of Mary, which depart too greatly from the sober and balanced descriptions given of Mary in Scripture, showing how she was a holy saint and a virgin, but not going beyond into the extremes of Catholic devotion, in which the Roman Catholic apologists add to their transgressions in their attempts to find support from Scripture by many unwarranted extrapolations, which the list below examples.

^

I. The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God

What is said above in part about titles departing too great an extent from the language of Scripture, applies in principal to the Theotokos title, which conveys that God ontologically had a mother, which is more than what it may technically allow, and is part of the supererogatory of praise which is “above that which is written.” (1Cor. 4:6) And “written” almost always refers to Scripture, it being abundantly evidenced to be the assured infallibility standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and by which the Lord established His claims and the church. ^

Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” This refers to Jesus (the “emnity”) and Mary (the “woman”). The phrase “her seed” (spermatos) is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.

.

.“Her” as in “her seed” may be seen as referring to Mary by some, but which does not translate into the supreme exaltation Rome gives to her, officially stated or implicitly approved, almost to being a 4th member of the Trinity. There is enmity between the serpent and believers but that does that make them sinless.

. Some Catholics also assert that it is Mary who crushes the head of the serpent, based on a translation which reads “her seed,”but this crushing is what Christ did.

The Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission explains the controversy:

The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu’) in the words addressed to the serpent, “He will strike at your head”, is masculine. In the Greek translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring … but must refer to a masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa … This feminine pronoun supports a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become traditional in the Latin Church.

Note that the Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the Latin. (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)

The Catholic Encyclopedia remarks:

"and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Immaculate Conception)

In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the womanand it can refer to or include women in general and all women, (Gn. 14:16; Ex. 25:22; Est. 1:17) with the Lord speaking to Eve but including all women.

The approved notes in the official New American Catholic Bible (1970 ver.), while also allowing the Marian view, explains this verse,They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman. Christian tradition has seen in this passage, however, more than unending hostility between snakes and human beings. The snake was identified with the devil (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seemed implied in the verse. Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

As regards spermatos not being seen elsewhere in Scripture, what the Catholic does not say is that we will not find it anywhere in the Hebrew, as it is Greek, and in which there is no “her” in the phrase “her seed.” Instead, spermatos for “her seed” comes from the Vulgate by way of a translators choice in the LXX, in which “sperm” is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for “seed.”

The Septuagint also has the same word, “sperma,” for the serpent and speaks of the "spermatos" of the woman and the "spermatos" of the serpent, while there are only 7 words with two repetitions out of the 17 word sentence which is translated "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;" shi^yth (put/place) 'e^yba^h (enmity/hatred) be^yn (between) 'ishsha^h / na^shi^ym (wife/woman) be^yn (between) zera? (seed) zera? (seed), which illustrates the degree of interpretation this verse is open to.

^

Gen 3:15 / Rev. 12:1 - the Scriptures begin and end with the woman battling satan. This points to the power of the woman with the seed and teaches us that Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and the new Eve.

Rather, Roman Catholic apologists begin and end with forcing Scripture to support doctrines which have their basis in traditions of men.

The women in Rv. 12 does not refer to Mary, but Israel, as even the American Catholics own approved notes say:

[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12. (http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12)

Moreover, Rv. 12 does not even teach of “the power of the woman with the seed,” but rather than being “the ruler of hell, that trembles at her slightest gaze and is defeated by her power,” (Cushing) she was hid from the devil in the wilderness.

In addition, unlike Christ who is stated to be the second Adam and was distinctly tested in all three ways Eve was, the Holy Spirit never refers to Mary as the second Eve. ^

John 2:4, 19:26 - Jesus calls Mary “woman” as she is called in Gen. 3:15. Just as Eve was the mother of the old creation, Mary is the mother of the new creation. This woman’s seed will crush the serpent’s skull.

This is another example of selectively seeing something unique about the term “women,” while in fact the women caught in adultery was also called “women.” Also, all new creations (2Cor. 5:17) are a spiritual creation, and to exalt Mary as the mother of such due to her physical instrumentality would also mandate a like exaltation of Israel, “of whom Christ came, God blessed for ever,” and which does not even mention Mary as the women He was physically born of. (Rm. 9:5) ^

 

Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23 - a virgin (the Greek word used is “parthenos”) will bear a Son named Emmanuel, which means “God is with us.” John 1:14 - God in flesh dwelt among us. Mary is the Virgin Mother of God.

As said in the preface, like as Ratzinger says “Co-redemptrix” departs “too great an extent from the language of Scripture and the Fathers” and gives rise to misunderstandings, though that title is considered to be correct by extension, so “Mother of God” conveys more than what it may technically allow, which is certainly not that Mary is ontologically the mother of God, which is how it sounds, and is never provided in the assured word of God, the holy Scriptures. ^

Matt. 2:11 - Luke emphasizes Jesus is with Mary His Mother, and the magi fall down before both of them, worshiping Jesus.

Another magnification as part of exalting Mary above which is written. The fuller Lucan account says, "And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger," (Luke 2:16) thus making three that were present, but only one is said to have been given worship, and the “fell down” and worshiped Him” in Mt. 2:11 go together as one act toward one object, that being JESUS. Mary is not the one being bowed down to. (Catholics assert that Mary receives “hyperdulia” while Christ receives “dulia.”)

In some occasions men of God allowed (or will allow) others to bow themselves before them, or men did so themselves, and this was (usually) in the context of judgment, or deep reverence to angelic beings, or brethren or an aged parent, especially when prostration is indicated, or in respect toward others and authorities, (Gn. 18:2; 19:1; 23:12; 23:7,12; 33:6,7; 42:6; 48:12; Num. 22:31; Josh. 5:14; Ruth 2:10; 1Sam. 20:41; 25:23; 2Sam. 1:2; 9:6; 14:4,33; 15:5;1Kg. 1:53; 2:19; 2Kg. 2:15; 1Chrn. 21:21; 24:17; Rv. 3:9) but is never shown to be a regular practice, nor does it necessarily signify the spiritual supremacy of the one bowed down to.

Given this precedent we would expect to see Mary in particular being bowed down to, but nowhere do we see this, with the only mention of bowing in conjunction with Mary is one in which Christ is the object of worship.

In addition, in the N.T. all are brethren and not men reigning as kings or caesariopopes, despite positional/functional distinctions, and there is never any bowing down between brethren. The right attitude toward believers bowing down to man is shown by Peter, who likely being cognizant of the Lord's admonition against love of primacy and titles thereof, refused being bowed down to even from a unconverted Gentile: "But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10:26)

In contrast, Rome has presumed their pope should not only be bowed down to but (for a long time) should have his feet kissed, while prostration is also given to Mary and prayers offered to her! Thus Rome does what Mary did not, who exalted the Lord and only prayed to Him. ^

Luke 1:35 - the child will be called holy, the Son of God. Mary is the Mother of the Son of God, or the Mother of God (the “Theotokos”).

Jesus Christ was called “the Son of God” here versus the “son of Mary.” as per ontology mentioned above on Isaiah 7:14. And while it is true that Jesus had Mary as His mother, and Jesus was Divine, yet as noted, divinity has no ontological mother. Also it is of note that the Holy Spirit carefully uses titles, and the latter phrase “son of Mary” only occurs once, and is one that is only used of men who only saw Christ after the flesh, (Mk. 6:3) as Islam does, who likewise refers to Jesus Christ by this term. ^

Luke 1:28 - “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” These are the words spoken by God and delivered to us by the angel Gabriel (who is a messenger of God). Thus, when Catholics recite this verse while praying the Rosary, they are uttering the words of God.

Besides this description being not unique to Mary (see next comment below), this polemic avoids the issue, which is that what has zero example in Scripture is that of believers praying to any one in Heaven but the Lord, or that any insufficiency exists in Christ such as regards immediate access or anything that otherwise would necessitate or advantage one making supplication to anyone else in Heaven; Or that has any example in which personal communication took place between a created being from Heaven with one on earth without a personal encounter in either place, testifying to the boundaries between realms, as God makes divisions. More ^

Luke 1:28 - also, the phrase “full of grace” is translated from the Greek word “kecharitomene.” This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just “highly favored.” She has been perfected in grace by God. “Full of grace” is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

This is another reaching extrapolation beyond what the language can establish. The phrase in Lk. 1:28 states, “Hail, thou that art highly favoured” (italicized words are supplied) with the Greek word being charitoō (khar-ee-to'-o), — to be graced, indued with special honor: make accepted, be highly favoured — and which is what believers are also described as being in Eph. 1:6, being “accepted [charitoō] in the Beloved,” and does not mean “perfected in grace” as defined in Mary's case anymore than it does for every believer.

For more technical discussion of this see here and here.

One of your own noted apologists Jimmy Akin, responding to a question regarding the argument that only two people in the New Testament are referred to as “full of grace” – Jesus (John 1:14) and Mary (Luke 1:28), stated,

John 1:14 says that Jesus was plErEs charitos, which literally means "full of grace." (Those capital Es arepresent etas, so pronounce them like the e in "they"; the word is thus pronounced PLAY-RACE).

Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means "one who has been graced" or "woman who has been graced" (since the gender is female). It doesn’t literally mean "full of grace," though that is defensible as a free translation.

Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plErEs charitos, so again it’s literally "full of grace" and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.

If it is the latter, (2) does that mean there really isn’t a literal “full of grace” parallel between Luke 1:28 and John 1:14 or can I find that literal parallel somewhere else in the New Testament?

Not that I’m aware of, and I’d almost certainly be aware of it if there were.

I’m afraid that in establishing Jesus and Mary as the New Adam and Eve, you’ll need to appeal to other considerations. (http://jimmyakin.com/2005/10/kecharitomene_q.html) ^

Luke 1:38 - Mary’s fiat is “let it be done to me according to thy word.” Mary is the perfect model of faith in God, and is worthy of our veneration.

This act of passive surrender is a worthy example of faith, but is joined by other examples such as seen in the “hall of faith.” (Heb. 11) The celibate apostle Paul and chief writer of the N.T. yielded in faith to bear a difficult cross, (2Cor. 12:7-9ff) being shown by the Lord even before times “what great things he must suffer for My name's sake,” (Acts 9:16) and in proactive service labored more than the other apostles by the grace of God, (1Cor. 15:10) and suffered much and often for Christ, and carried the burden of multitude churches, and loved them with passionate and often unrequited love, (2Cor. 11,12) and of whom and which the Holy Spirit says far more about than that of Mary, without taking away from her implied motherly nurture and faithfulness.

Yet, despite such press being given to Paul and his character and contributions, rather than exalting Paul even half as much as Mary, he sees relative little esteem by Rome, with some Roman Catholics saying false disparaging things about him, while anything which even infers anything negative about Mary is not tolerated for a second. ^

Luke 1:42 - “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.” The phrase “blessed are you among women” really means “you are most blessed of all women.” A circumlocution is used because there is no superlative in the Greek language. Note also that Elizabeth praises Mary first, and then Jesus. This is hyperdulia (but not latria which is worship owed to God alone). We too can go through Mary to praise Jesus. Finally, Catholics repeat these divinely inspired words of Elizabeth in the Rosary.

Despite the Catholic's attempt to correct even his own translation, “Blessed art thou (eulogēmenē)” is said to be “a perfect passive participle, and a Hebraistic equivalent for the superlative,“ (Robertson). And what is said that allows for Mary from being most blessed of all women would also be true of believers in Eph. 3:20, in which God is able to do for them “exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think.”

Likewise all believers are uniquely blessed above all mankind, being “blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” (Eph. 1:3)

In addition, God will make false Jews (cf. Rm. 2:28) to come and worship (prostrate themselves) before the feet of true believers, (Rev. 3:9) but which does not translate into being prayed to or receiving such obeisance by believers as a practice, and for receiving multitudinous titles, against which tendency Christ warned, “for all ye are brethren.” (Mt. 23:8)

Peter himself refused such, while in no place is such obeisance seen being given distinctly to Mary or to any believers in the body of Christ by fellow believers.

The way Mary can be said to have been most blessed of all women is not because she was sinless or because she was supremely righteousness, but because she was the instrument to bring forth the Son of God, for whom God had prepared a body for. (Heb. 10:5)

Finally, making the order significant as to who is “blessed” would also signify a preeminence of Mary over the seed, which would be preposterous, but not unexpected for a Catholic.

Moreover, the problem with the rosary is not its use of this Scriptural phrase, but that of praying to Mary, which is unScriptural. ^

Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth’s use of “Mother of my Lord” (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used “Adonai” which means Lord God) is the equivalent of “Holy Mary, Mother of God” which Catholics pray in the Rosary. The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus’ Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus’ human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures).

Rather, the ontological import of “mother of God” is what is avoided here by the use of “Lord.” Though this term most usually refers to God (if not necessarily distinctively so: Mt. 18:25-27, 31,32 etc.), yet a student of Scripture should note that there is a significant reason why God refers to Himself by different names and combinations thereof, as they emphasize a certain aspect of Himself. And here it is not deity, but the Messiahship of Christ, which the Jews were in expectation of. (Mt. 20:30,31)

Again, Mary is never called by the misleading term “mother of God,” as she was not the mother of Divine nature, but provided the body God had prepared for His incarnation.

While it is that true mothers give birth to persons, that is why “mother of God” is misleading due to what the language ontologically conveys, as while giving birth to a person, Mary was not responsible for the Divine nature that makes Him the very Son of God.

Like being the son of Mary after the flesh, Jesus was also the prophesied son of David through her lineage, and was called so far more than the “son of Mary,” but He was more than what either could ontologically parent, and thus the challenge of Christ (Mt. 22:41-45) and the distinguishing use of the most abundant title, “the Son of God.” ^

Luke 1:44 - Mary’s voice causes John the Baptist to leap for joy in Elizabeth’s womb. Luke is teaching us that Mary is our powerful intercessor.

This is another example of helping the Holy Spirit as if He forgot to mention this. To take a prolife text which teaches personhood before birth and which can respond to voice, and rejoice in fellowship by the Holy Spirit, and wrest this to say that “Luke is teaching us that Mary is our powerful intercessor,” is beyond what this text teaches or supports. Mary did not intercede here but simply gave a greeting. That Mary could be a powerful intercessor is not disallowed, but Acts 1 could be use to infer that, but PTDS is a leap which the Holy Spirit does not make in all of Scripture. ^

Luke 1:46 - Mary claims that her soul magnifies the Lord. This is a bold statement from a young Jewish girl from Nazareth. Her statement is a strong testimony to her uniqueness. Mary, as our Mother and intercessor, also magnifies our prayers.

Here again more is read out of the text than it teaches. This exaltation of God is one of the most beautiful portions of Holy Writ, and is contrary to the exaltation of mortals by Rome, but it neither says or infers that Mary is magnifying prayers directed to her in Heaven. In Christ believers have direct access with boldness into the holy of holies therewith to meet directly with God, not a saintly secretary. (Heb. 10:19)

Moreover, Mary is not unique in her praise here, but strongly parallels that of Hannah, who also was the recipient of a miraculous pregnancy: "And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the Lord, mine horn is exalted in the Lord: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.....” (1 Samuel 2:1-11)

And spiritually, as the Son of God taught, the mothers of believers are whoever does the will of God, which includes Mary but extends beyond her. And thus those who forsake all for Christ will receive in this life mothers (but “fathers” is missing: Mk. 10:28-31) ^

Luke 1:48 - Mary prophesies that all generations shall call her blessed, as Catholics do in the “Hail Mary” prayer. What Protestant churches have existed in all generations (none), and how many of them call Mary blessed with special prayers and devotions?

The fact is that Sola Scriptura results in more people fulfilling this promise Scripturally, for we know this prophecy by Scripture, and by reading Scripture and sharing the gospel — both of which evangelicals do far more of — by which souls are converted and read and affirm Scripture, it is fulfilled.

But in contrast, the practice of Catholics is to add to God's assured words, with one of their additions being that of the unwarranted teaching that special prayers and devotions are to be given to departed saints, even though the Holy Spirit provides zero warrant by examples of praying to another else in Heaven but the Lord, or by instructions on who to pray to in Heaven (“our Father who are in Heaven” — not mother“- “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,“ etc.), or by anything else that would show any advantage or necessity. Rv. 8:3,4 does not support this as some Roman Catholics vainly imagine.

And so they must rely on argument of analogy between human relationships on earth, ignoring the problems and manifest boundaries between realms which Scripture testifies to, so that only God can communicate between Heaven and earth without personal visitation.

In Scripture only pagans are found offering incense to a Queen of Heaven, (Jer. 44:17-19,25) and Mary would certainly not be pleased that Christians ignore the only Biblical examples of prayer it gives us and take after pagans, when the Lord has provided immediate access to God, and Christ is the supreme intercessor and able to sympathize with man and show them how to overcome more than any mortal, including Mary. (Heb. 2:16-18; 4:15,16) ^

Gal. 4:4 - God sent His Son, born of a woman, to redeem us. Mary is the woman with the redeemer. By calling Mary co-redemptrix, we are simply calling Mary “the woman with the redeemer.” This is because “co” is from the Latin word “cum” which means “with.” Therefore, “co-redemptrix” means “woman with the redeemer.” Mary had a unique but subordinate role to Jesus in salvation.

Being an instrument of God is not a role that is unique to Mary, and by extension of the Catholic logic here then anyone who volitionally helped enable the mission of Christ could be called a co-redeemer. But note what i said before about the problem that theotokos conveys, even if it could be allowed in some sense.

In addition, in contending that Mary be called co-redemptrix, the Catholic is “more Catholic” than the man who became the current pope.

For again, when asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded that “the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53).

He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language(God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306 ;http://books.google.com/books?id=M4EO-Zotb4AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Peter+Seewald+God+and+the+World&hl=en&ei=Jh_LTvSyG8HL0QH5o6En&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=continuity%20of%20terminology%20with%20the%20language%20of%20Scripture&f=false ^

Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - the word “saints” (in Hebrew “qaddiysh”) means “holy” ones. So Mary is called Holy, the greatest Saint of all.

In another example of leaping linguistical extrapolations, the Catholic makes another unwarranted assertion in the service of Mariolatry, reasoning that since Mary is called holy, and is a saint, then she is the greatest Saint of all! However, all believers are collectively called holy, and saints, and in no place or use of the word is Mary referred to as the greatest saint of all, or is inferred to be despite the extrapolative efforts of many Catholics. See here below. ^

Luke 2:35 - Simeon prophesies that a sword would also pierce Mary’s soul. Mary thus plays a very important role in our redemption. While Jesus’ suffering was all that we needed for redemption, God desired Mary to participate on a subordinate level in her Son’s suffering, just as he allows us to participate through our own sufferings.

Others also played very important roles in redemption. And thus again according to the principle behind the Catholic polemic here then all who volitionally suffered to enable the mission of Christ also participated on a subordinate level in His suffering, and thus another unique aspect of Mary is shown to be shared by others, while men like Paul are manifestly show to have suffered more in making the work of Christ effectual to multitudes.

And more than one church “father” saw the sword as relating to Mary having doubt (some saying she sinned) during the Lord's crucifixion. ^

Luke 2:19,51 - Mary kept in mind all these things as she pondered them in her heart. Catholics remember this by devoting themselves to Mary’s Immaculate Heart and all the treasures and wisdom and knowledge contained therein.

Mary prayed and did other things believers do, but she is not shown praying to the departed, or exalting mortals as they do to her beyond what is written. In no place is a sinless Mary taught or required.

And as said, and departing from Scripture also applies to the unsupported claims of Marian exceptions to the norm, especially as seen in contrast to the manner in which the Holy Spirit makes significant distinctions of subjects evident in Scripture, from the age of Methuselah, (Gn. 5:27) to the strength of Samson, (Jdg. 4:4,16; 16:12,29,30) to the number of toes of the Philistine giant, (2Sam. 21:20), to the special diet of the Baptist, (Mt. 3:4) to Joseph being a just man, (Mt. 1:19) to the supernatural transport of Phillip, (Acts 8:40) to Jesus being sinless, which He is said at least twice to be. (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22) (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22) but Catholics must extrapolate out of texts things which do not teach it.

Nor does Scripture make Mary an exalted unique possessor of wisdom and knowledge whose heart souls are to devote themselves to. ^

^

 

II. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

 

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

This is more intemperate exaggeration from the outset. First, the Ark was actually made of shittim (or acacia) wood, and overlaid it with pure gold, within and without, with a crown of gold round about it. (Ex. 25:10; 36:38; Ex. 37:2; Dt 10:1-3) Yet some other things were overlaid with pure gold, while some things such as dishes and spoons and covers, and the 7 candlesticks and bowls were of pure gold. (Ex. 23:23-36; 37:17-24) And evidently churches were called candlesticks in Rv. 2+3. Thus if typology applies here, and pure gold is to signify being the purest vessel, then a Mary overlaid with gold has competition from vessels of pure gold.

But as with how Rome looks toward toward Mary, Israel looked more to the Ark than what is contained, and the Ark was later captured by the Philistines. (1Sam. 4-6)

And above the Ark was the mercy seat, representing Heaven, upon which two cherubim with raised wings and facing each other, covered the ark. From this place between the two cherubim God would to speak to Moses. (Ex. 25:17-22)

And thus rather than Mary, the Ark best represents Christ, gold representing His glory, as Christ is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person, (Heb. 1:3) and who contained the law and the words of life, and the rod of God as did the Ark. (Heb. 9:4) And by whom God spoke to man, as the word was made flesh, taking on the common “wooden” body of man, but as John said, “we have beheld his glory His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Jn. 1:14)

But being judged according to outward appearance, He was taken by the enemy and crowned with thorns, only to return to His own, and will return, crowned as Lord and Savior. (Rv. 19:12)

And it is in Christ that believers have direct access to commune with God. Heb. 10:19) The fact that Christ came through Mary does not justify the focus being on her with its aforementioned type of exaltation any more than on Israel, of whom Christ came. (Rm. 9:5)

In addition, as for a place of gold, the Ark can be said to represent the New Jerusalem, which city will be pure gold, and is decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls. (Rv. 18:16; 21:8,21)

As for a women so bestowed with gold, the only women in the N.T. covered with gold is “the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth:” "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: " (Revelation 17:4) ^

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

More reaching exegesis in supererogatory of praise of Mary. Besides the Philistines in returning it, other Israelite sinners at times touched the Ark without dying, (Ex. 40:2; Dt. 10:5; 2Sam. 6:17) if not irreverently or as unqualified, and it is certain Joseph at least touched Mary without suffering death, while it was what the wooden Ark constrained that made it holy, and thus over 50k men of Beth–shemesh died for looking into it. (1Sam. 6:19)

The reason Uzzah, a son of Abinadab, died for touching the Ark seems to be because God commanded that only the sons of Kohath shall bear the Ark, and unauthorized touching of covered sacred things would be punishable be death (Num. 4:15,19, 20) and they must do it with poles on their shoulders (Exodus 25:13,14) — the carrying by cart not having evident sanction.

It is also understood by many that in presuming to be able to transport the Ark then Uzzah esteemed and treated the Ark without its proper reverence (as if it were a high voltage line), as Catholics also do in handling Scripture when they presume to take liberties with it in is seeking to exalt Mary according to their evolving nebulous tradition, even in making her “even more immaculate and undefiled” than the Ark which did resulted in immediate execution for irreverent touching. ^

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

As said, God did not need a sinless Mary to bring forth the Word made flesh than He did to bring forth His pure written word through sinless men, nor is it otherwise impossible for God, nor were Mary's parents sinless, nor would it be it consistent with the manner of the Holy Spirit in inspired Scripture to not state such an important cardinal deviation from the norm. The assertion of the Catholic here is unsupported and presumptuous and limits almighty God.

It is also revealing that such Catholics want to use Scripture, which is not their supreme authority, to justify their nebulous oral Tradition, which is given authority by their self-proclaimed supreme magisterium, yet Scripture is what is uniquely asserted by God to be wholly inspired of Him, (2Tim. 3:16) as a distinct body of revelation on earth, and does not promise that whatever the magisterium speaks to the church universal on faith and morals will be assured infallible. Instead we know the prima New Testament church under the manifest apostles of God spoke Truth because is it was soundly based upon Scripture and its means of establishing Truth, and was recorded in Scripture.

In addition, it is of note that while Mary was blessed and graced due to Christ being in her, it is Zacharias and Elisabeth who were called righteous, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless, (Lk 1:6) while it is only Joseph and not Mary who was actually called just. (Mt. 1:19) This does not infer Mary was not holy, but neither does Scripture attest to Mary excelling above all others in prayer and suffering persecution and hardship in faith. And the relative brief and sober words descriptive of Mary are consistent with the balance and sufficiency of Scripture, which Catholics are contrary to in their extreme exaltation of Mary. ^

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

In his devotion to the vessel God used, the Roman Catholic apologist ignores that this extreme reverence is not what was given to Mary in the N.T., who was never prayed to, bowed down to in particular, and who overall gets little press.

In contrast, the closest parallel is found in Christ, and who, like as the Ark when it was returned, Christ returned to Jerusalem with the multitude crying, “Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.” (Mt. 21:1-11) And it was the Lord who gladdened the disciples and was worshiped and praised by them after His return from the place of captivity. (Jn. 20:20; Lk. 24:5-53; Eph. 4:8-10) ^

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

What is “conspicuous” is the lack of any mention of Mary fulfilling this O.T. type, while it is the incarnated Christ who embodied the commandments and the words which are Spirit and life, and who is “the mediator of the new covenant” (Heb. 12:24) who best parallels the Ark. And who is declared to be the Temple (Jn. 2:19,20) which embodied the Ark itself, (Heb. 9:3,4) not vice versa, and by which Mary herself and all believers may directly commune with God.

And if Mary must be sinless from conception, reasoning that an unclean thing cannot give birth to a clean thing, then her parents must also have been sinless. And so forth. And if God can do miracles in keeping May sinless, then He certainly did not need a sinless vessel to come into the world.

Some Catholics will thus admit that it was not necessary for Mary to be sinless in order for her to bear Christ, but they teach it anyway due to the powerful psychological need of the natural man for a heavenly mother. And this imaginative Mary is made to have never sinned, or to have consummated her marriage, which unique marriage is contrary to its description.

However neither of these doctrines are ever taught by the Holy Spirit in Scripture, who again, is seen making notable such things evident, and thus we know that Christ was born of a virgin, and that He was sinless.

As regards the latter, Trent condemns one who believes that “throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins,” as this is Scriptural, as is lack of imputed guilt or culpability in some cases (Is. 7:15,16; Rm. 5:13: even infants can do sinful things but are not accountable, but will be guilty of sin after they become accountable, and the statements “all have sinned” and are all guilty presumes accountability), but Trent is forced to make an exception for Mary, which special pleading is contrary to Scripture and its manner of teaching. ^

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Rather, all believers should rejoice in fellowship of other believers, but which is became Christ dwells within each. There is no inference that Mary was sinless here, and Elisabeth points to what Mary was carrying as the cause of her being blessed.

Moreover, in contrast to the idea that Mary was an object of continual obeisance and devotion, this is not what the Holy Spirit shows, but that this belonged and belongs to the Lord whom believers worship and praise, which is what Mary went on to do. And thus Luke tells us that, "they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen. " (Luke 24:52-53)

And the disciples were glad, when they saw the Lord. (John 20:20) ^

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

The expression of humility was in the light of Mary being the mother of the Messiah, and thus the statement that she will be blessed for believing, because of Christ being born. And contrary to Catholics, no one ever bowed before Mary in particular, while wanting to come and lead souls to Christ is something Mary shares with all believers walking in the Spirit. ^

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

You could make the home of Joseph and Mary to be as the house of Obed–edom in which the Ark was a guest, but she is not exalted as an immaculate vessel even in being the means by which the Christ took upon flesh, which by extension Israel is said to be. (Rm. 9:3) ^

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

The more the author presses his Ark=Mary typology the weaker his case becomes. Harold Camping saw a prophetic significance virtually in any number useful to justify his extreme esoteric eschatology, prophecy being a favorite theme for cults due to its symbolism and ambiguities, and Catholics in the cult of Mary see a allusion to Mary virtually in any place useful to justify their devotion on steroids to her, prophecy being useful to the for the same reasons. Revelation resists dogmatic exegesis, but while Rev 11:19 puts Indiana Jones out of business, the attempt to make the Ark to be the women of Rv. 12 and Mary is also imagination.

As seen, the Ark was a vessel which contained the law and the words of life, and rod of God, all of which Christ embodied, and while Mary embodied Christ, Scripture also explicitly states that Christ came forth from Israel, (Rm. 9:5) and which is what the women in Rv. 12 best typifies.

The woman said to be clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and twelve stars are symbols drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which Joseph ”dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me." (Genesis 37:9)

The sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, and the stars representing his brothers, the patriarchs of Israel, all of which bow down to him. Thus Jacob said, “Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” The 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5)

The Old Testament's prophets also referred to Israel as a "woman" (Is. 54:5-6; Jer. 4:31; Micah 4:9-10). This view is more fully articulated here: http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/Revelation12Woman.pdf*

And rather than the women of Rv. 12 being Mary, the notes in the official Bible for America (NAB), supports Israel being the women, and by extension the church:

[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12. (http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12)

Likewise the conservative Catholic Haydock allows for the Marian view, but treats the women as being the church as being the most warranted interpretation:

A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet. By this woman, interpreters commonly understand the Church of Christ, shining with the light of faith, under the protection of the sun of justice, Jesus Christ...”

In Rev. 12, after the manchild which Israel brought is caught up unto God, and to his throne, the devil persecutes the women (of which Scripture provides no direct testimony of regarding Mary), and which persecution is a historical constant.

Moving forward in this overview, the people of God are protected for the 31/2 years from the devil, which sends a flood (or persecutions) after her, which the earth swallows up, and the devil attacks her seed, these also being children of the prophets.

If the church is still there through the Tribulation, as i expect, the women broadly represents all believers, including the Gentile Christians, who overall are kept out of, or protected, from this hour of temptation, (Rv. 3:10) but not before many are “slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held,” (Rv. 6:9,10) with 144k Christian Jews being witnesses for Him, and which are persecuted.

This correlates to what Romans chapter 11 foretells, that of God reversing the general curse of blindness upon the natural branches, whose eyes are then opened to faith in their Messiah during the tribulation persecutions, with these joining the Gentile believers as being the “Israel of God,” (Gal. 6:16) and so all Israel, both the converted natural seed and believing Gentiles who are blessed with faithful Abraham, (Gal. 3:9) shall be saved (Rm. 11:26)

It is understood by many that in the second part of Daniel's seventieth week, (Dan. 9:25-27) a remnant of Israel will flee into the wilderness to escape the persecution of Antichrist, who is called "the son of desolation," "the lawless one," and "whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan" (2 Thes. 2:1-12; cf. Rev. 12:4,9). And there will God plead with them “face to face," and bring them into covenant and purge out rebels. (Ezekiel 20:35-37) Perhaps the opening of the eyes of the remnant of Jews may not be instantaneous, but a period, in which Zech. 12:9-10 is fulfilled.

The Lord Jesus, in the Olivet discourse, is seen warning the people of this time, which would occur just prior to His return to set up His earthly, Millennial kingdom (Matt. 24:15-22). In addition, the archangel Michael is called the guardian over the sons of Israel in Dan. 12:1, and who will arise at that time of national Israel's tribulation (Dan. 12:1; cf. Rev. 12:7).

The CCC also teaches,

674 The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by “all Israel”, for “a hardening has come upon part of Israel” in their “unbelief” toward Jesus.

The “full inclusion” of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of “the full number of the Gentiles”,572 will enable the People of God to achieve “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”, in which “God may be all in all”.573

675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2a7.htm#673)

CFs Methodius and Victorinus also saw the women as symbolizing the church.

Regarding no chapter divisions (or verse numbers) in the original texts, this is true, yet as in conversation, context and language indicate subject changes. Thus the entity at the end of chapter 13 does not mean that is who the entity is in the beginning of chapter 14, but in both cases the subjects have been previously identified, that of Israel and Christ respectively.

The end of Rv. 11 flows from the beginning, in which the temple in Heaven in which the Ark resides is in focus, and then covers events in the tribulation period, and in which the two witnesses easily can relate to believing Jews and the Gentiles being true “Jehovah’s witnesses, and with the accompanying revelatory fearful events answering to that of Dt. 5:11 towards Israel, which theme of Rv. 12 continues.

*Note though that i do not concur with the commonly held pre trib rapture, but expect God to keep His faithful thru His judgments, after much persecution and many are killed , until they are caught up to met the returning Lord and go on to fight with Him in the battle of Armageddon, and rule with Him in the millennium and judge the lost including angels, (Jude 1:14,15; 1Cor. 6:2,3) though much is open to some interpretation. ^

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

This is dealt with above, while all believers are to reflect Christ, to give “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,” (1Cor. 4:6) and the problem within Catholicism is that of giving more evident attention, accolades and appellations to her” than to any other saint or even to the Son!

This is more irreverent wresting of text in hyper hyperdulia of Mary.

It also should be noted that the Catholics interpretation here is not an “infallible” definition, and as said, he disagrees with the stamped notes of his own Bible, and while Catholics attack evangelicals for their different interpretations of Scripture, even they they also overall affirm commonly held core truths and contend against those who do not, yet Catholics also can and do disagree about many things, although they are supposed to strictly hold to some core truths (which still does not mean that some interpretation may be required regarding all their meaning).

And within the often imprecise parameters Rome provides, which also allows from some interpretation, Roman Catholics have great liberty to interpret the Scriptures, and thus while you may argue with one Catholic concerning a text he uses to support Rome, another Catholic may have a different interpretation of the same. And this is true of Rv. 12 as well as the typology of the Ark of the Covenant. ^

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rather, those who do the will of God are the brethren of the Lord, and which includes Mary and other mothers, and who are contrary to those who pray to the departed and engage in the typical Catholic exaltation of Mary, as neither Mary or others who kept the commandments of God and had the testimony of Jesus Christ engage in these practices, nor the wresting of texts needed to justify such. ^

Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Then besides the approved commentary of his own Bible being Protestant here, so also Ratzinger, as while he affirms Mary to be the second antitype of a dual application, he states “the Apocalypse talks of the woman who was closed with the Sun and who stand on the moon. This stands, in the 1st place for the people of God in the whole of the old and new covenant... (ibid, p. 309)

J.N.D. Kelly finds that Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Origen all felt Mary had sinned and doubted Christ (Early Christian Doctrines, 493). And some “fathers” even resorted to holding that the Lord did not come out through the birth canal, and held that sexual relations even in marriage always involved sinful passions, and disparaged marriage! ^



 

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

The author continually must resort to “assisting” the Holy Spirit by applying texts to Mary which the Holy Spirit fails to do, but rather than Isaiah fostering the hyper “hyperdulia” of Rome, and assisting the attempted damage control left by Rev. 12:2 to the idea of a painless birth, instead what the Holy Spirit inspired here again applies to Israel, “for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children,” (Is. 66:8) and which in context refers to the future regathering of Israel, not a painless birth of a sinless virgin.

Even if the latter occurred, this text does not support it, and the absence of any mention of it is once again contrary to the manner in which notable exceptions are so often made evident by the Holy Spirit in Scripture. ^

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

More attempted damage control. The Catholic desperately wants to literally make Mary the women in Rv. 12:12 who “being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,” but cannot allow this pain to literally refer to her, so he has to force it to refer to Christian growth in grace, yet the pain Rv. 12:4 clearly is speaking about is not that but is about about the particular birth of a particular child, which the devil waited “for to devour her child as soon as it was born.” And which child was subsequently caught up to God and His throne, referring to the Lord Jesus. ^

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Ditto. No amount of examples of spiritual birth pangs, which are a reality, will make the birth pangs of the child in Rev. 12:2-5 to be referring to believers, while these are not undergoing birth pangs because they are being reborn into Jesus Christ, as that even already took place, but they grow in grace as they die to self in yielding to the Spirit of Christ in them. ^

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

The birth pangs also describe those of the Catholic apologist whose wresting of Scripture becomes more apparent the more he attempts to defend against the women of Rev. 12 being Israel as the people of God giving birth in pain. ^

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Ditto. The author continues to focus the reader on metaphorical birth pangs of others, though the text at issue refers to the literal event of Christ being born. ^

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

The Bible also describes literal pangs, while Catholic author's continued attempt to try to spiritualize the birth pangs of the women of Rv. 12:2 in birthing Christ would make a Gnostic proud. ^

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

Certainly Mary was a danger to satan as an instrument of righteousness, as are other souls of faith, but which does not translate into her being given special powers, even “almost unlimited” according to certain Roman Catholic clerics.

In addition, if the danger of Mary is because of her intercessory power, then killing her would not solve it but instead it would increase it. Instead, the danger is that of the people of God, Israel “from whom Christ came,” (Rm. 9:4) and the church, and which is Holy Spirit shows reveals is the manifest object of great persecution in Scripture, not Mary in particular.

While the Catholic author presumes power to extrapolate out Scripture whatever is needed to support his tradition, the Holy Spirit does not sanction this, and will hold him accountable.

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. " (Proverbs 30:6)

Unlike Christ and men like Paul, nowhere do we see Mary being pointed out as a special intercessor and battling the devil, and the only place it mentions her as engaging is supplication is in conjunction with other women “and with his brethren” along with the approx120 in the upper room before Pentecost. (Acts 1:14) ^

^

 

III. Mary is our Mother and Queen of the New Davidic Kingdom

While the error of Rome is that of teaching for prime doctrines mere traditions of men, and, nowhere else do her apologist become more like cults in the degree to which they force Scripture texts to support things it does not even state or manifestly teach. ^

John 19:26 - Jesus makes Mary the Mother of us all as He dies on the Cross by saying “behold your mother.” Jesus did not say “John, behold your mother” because he gave Mary to all of us, his beloved disciples. All the words that Jesus spoke on Cross had a divine purpose. Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother.

In reality, Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother, but evidencing how He honored His mother, and which John alone mentions, it being consistent with his emphases on love, and how Christ, “having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end,” (Jn. 13:1) and committing the care of His mother to the apostle of love — and who Jesus loveth — and who would live the longest.

However, the Catholic apologist seeks to make Mary the exalted mother of all Christians to whom they look to even for salvation, which exaltation is not what Scripture teaches, which nowhere points to Mary as the nearly Divine mother of the church (as per above), etc. And the Lord Himself works against such Roman exaltation by not showing Mary being uniquely adored and looked to for help as anything close to Rome. And rather than using a prime opportunity to exalt Mary in particular, in response to one who even mildly did so, Jesus response was to equate all obedient souls to being as his mother, "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Matthew 12:50)

Moreover, what is notable about the verse at issue is what it does should say if consistent with Roman Catholicism, which would be that Peter would be standing by and Mary be given to him, which would expected if the Lord was giving Mary to be the mother of the church, and if Peter was the first of a perpetuated Petrine papacy. But instead it is the mystic John (who says nothing evident about Mary in his letters or in Revelation — despite the Catholic eisegesis — including her being assumed to Heaven), and the choice is entirely fitting in the light of his love, type of life and longevity. ^

Rev. 12:17 - this verse proves the meaning of John 19:26. The “woman’s” (Mary’s) offspring are those who follow Jesus. She is our Mother and we are her offspring in Jesus Christ. The master plan of God’s covenant love for us is family. But we cannot be a complete family with the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Christ without the Motherhood of Mary.

This is not the first time he made this verse to be about Mary, but the Roman Catholic apologist increasingly has become like those who seek to make up for lack of real warrant by continually asserting their desired conclusion. The women in Rv. 12 is not Mary, and the Catholic here is even contradict by church “fathers.”

He now attempts to support his argument by reasoning that to be a spiritual family we must have a particular Heavenly mother, but which is pagan, not Christian. Such was a doctrine of Mormonism, but that has no more support than the idea of Mary being enthroned as the Queen mother in Heaven and the mother of the particular church. Instead, as said, all who do the will of God are mothers, and in doing His will they will pray as Jesus taught, not to “or mother who are in Heaven, but to “our Father who art in Heaven” (and the CCC says that Jesus learns the formulas of prayer from Mary: 2599), believers having direct access into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. (Heb. 10:19) ^

John 2:3 - this is a very signifcant verse in Scripture. As our mother, Mary tells all of us to do whatever Jesus tells us. Further, Mary’s intercession at the marriage feast in Cana triggers Jesus’ ministry and a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic celebration of the Lamb. This celebration unites all believers into one famiy through the marriage of divinity and humanity.

It is significant indeed, as what it reveals is that no one asked Mary to intercede, and her only intercession was due to her own observation of need, which which type other disciples also made, (Mt. 14:17) to which the Lord seems to reminded her that it must be God's timing. After that she asks nothing of the Lord, and only tells the servants to obey Jesus, which is less than another notable women told servants to do. (1Sam. 25:19ff)

Thus this does not support asking Mary to intercede, and only supports seeking the Lord directly, as Mary did, and telling others to just obey Him. And as the Lord nowhere exampled or taught praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, and explicitly instructed saints to pray “our “Father, not mother, then those who do the latter are disobeying both the Lord as well as Mary.

As for triggering Jesus’ ministry, that was the occasion, but expressions of need by other disciples “triggered” Jesus doing miracles, and Jn. 2 does not make Mary the object of intercession, nor does making the wedding feast at Cana a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic celebration of the Lamb.

Moreover, unlike transubstantiation, this miracles, as with all like miracles, resulted in an discernible actual change of substance, not wine under the appearance of water. ^

John 2:7 - Jesus allows His mother to intercede for the people on His behalf, and responds to His mother’s request by ordering the servants to fill the jars with water.

See above. Like Mary, believers are to make their requests known to God, having access into the holies by the blood of Jesus, (Heb. 10:19) and thus there is zero examples of believers praying to anyone else in Heaven by the Lord, nor in any descriptions of or instructions on prayer, or any need to.

Catholics must resort to trying to support praying to the departed by way of analogy, which ignores the Scriptural separation of realms and the unique attribute of God to hear prayer, or they must argue from silence (Scripture does not explicitly forbid it, though only pagan did so), which is a dangerous hermeneutic and is used by cults, but which can only be used in speculative theology. ^

Psalm 45:9 - the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God’s kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God.

The Holy Spirit does not make the kingdom of God completely analogous to the kingdom of David in every way, and thus there is no marriage in the former, and thus all believers have direct access to God ,and no mention of a heavenly mother is made, as all who do the will of God in Christ are His mother and brethren.

Once more the Catholic is reading into Scripture that which the Holy Spirit does not provide, and contrary to what He does teach, as nowhere it is taught that Mary is now at the right hand of Jesus, but it states that all overcomers will sit in Jesus throne, after He returns, which is when rewards and crowns are given, to the glory of God, (Rv. 3:21) and not before! ^

 

1 Kings 2:17, 20 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.

If this example (which the Holy Spirit nowhere refers or alludes to) is supposed to support the novel practice of praying to Mary, then it is actually a warning against it, as this was an unwise if well-meaning intercession, and contrary to the Roman Catholic apologist who carelessly wrests Scripture to support his tradition, the request was refused and resulted in the death of the supplicant that day! ^

1 Kings 2:18 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King’s followers. She is the Queen Mother (or “Gebirah”). Mary is our eternal Gebirah.

See above. And only pagans prayed to a Queen of Heaven. (Jer. 7:14; 44:17-19,25) ^

1 Kings 2:19 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.

See above. This is is pure extrapolation which has no support in the N.T., and in which the only singular women in Heaven is the church. We honor Christ by being like Mary, and only praying to the Lord in Heaven. ^

1 Kings 15:13 - the Queen Mother is a powerful position in Israel’s royal monarchy. Here the Queen is removed from office. But now, the Davidic kingdom is perfected by Jesus, and our Mother Mary is forever at His right hand.

See above. ^

2 Chron. 22:10 - here Queen Mother Athalia destroys the royal family of Judah after she sees her son, King Ahaziah, dead. The Queen mother plays a significant role in the kingdom.

And Queen Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord, (1Kg. 18:4), while true believers do not pray to a heavenly Queen, but “our Father who art in Heaven,” and hallow His name, not Mary's, and it is the Lord whom the saints look to for executing judgment, (Rv. 6:10) not Mary.

Moreover, in the kingdom of Heaven. ^

Neh. 2:6 - the Queen Mother sits beside the King. She is the primary intercessor before the King.

Enough already. This manner of extrapolation is cultic. Study Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, etc. ^

Top

 

IV. Mary is Ever Virgin

 

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Twice the Holy Spirit refers to Mary bringing forth her firstborn son, (Mt. 1:25; Lk. 2:7) but which does not make Jesus an only child nor teach that He was not, but the Holy Spirit makes exceptions evident.

The constant eisegesis the which Catholic will engage in here in order to make up for what the Holy Spirit does not provide is both amazing and grievous. All throughout Scripture we see God making evident important or even notable aspects and exceptions to the norm of subjects, from the extraordinary age of Methuselah (Gn. 5:27) to the extraordinary 6 six fingers and 6 toes of the son of Goliath, (1Cor. 20:6) to the extraordinary diet of John the Baptist. (Mt. 3:4) the extraordinary virgin Israelite males of Revelation, (Rv. 14: 4) and many more, but somehow the common Catholic practice of praying to the departed finds no even one mention, nor a marriage between any child bearing couple in which there is “leave” but no “cleave,” contrary to God's description of marriage, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5) and to what would be the normal inference of “until” in Mt. 1:25. ^

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

See above. ^

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

The careless manner in which the Roman Catholic apologist lifts any text he can force to support his tradition is irreverent. The text here is not referring to the birth of Christ nor of Him coming into the world, but of His coming into the sanctuary, which the world was not, and the temple Ezekiel refers to is different in specifications than the one built under Moses, and is yet to be built!

The more the Catholic attempts to force Scripture temple to support its tradition-based doctrine the more it reveals that it does not come from Scriptural warrant and is contrary to what it does teach.

What is more incredible is that the Catholic has Jesus being born without breaking the hymen, even though doing so would not disallow her from being a virgin (some females are virgins even though it has been broken due to causes outside sexual relations). ^

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

The Roman Catholic apologist (RCA) sees what he wants, but rather than Jesus always being referred to as “the” son of Mary, Jesus is never called the son of Mary except once by those who merely saw Him “after the flesh,” (Mk. 6:3), but He is called the Son of God about 50 times.

In addition, no where does Jesus actually refer to Mary as being “my mother,” and actually only personally address her as “women,” and though this is not a denial that she was the mother of Jesus in a human sense (versus ontologically begetting His Deity), yet among other aspects the lack of this express appellation speaks against the over emphasis and focus on Mary as the mother of Christ. And and in response to a pointed call to recognize her, he answers, “Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?...whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Liklewise in response to a “blessed be thy mother,” type statement Christ responds, "But he said, Yea rather [one word, “menounge:“ “rather,” “but” (Rm. 9:20), yes or doubtless], blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. " (Luke 11:28) Mary is not blessed above all women, but among women” (Lk. 1:28,42), being one of many whose blessing is because they obey the word of God in faith.

In his desire and practice of thinking of Mary above that which is written, (contra 1Cor. 4:6), the Catholic not only has Mary being a consecrated temple virgin, and who gets married and with the intent that remains a virgin, and has Jesus being born without breaking her hymen, but he then asserts “perhaps most certainly that Joseph was a virgin” (contrary to what some CFs believed), and which shows the extremes he is willing to go to, and how he cannot allow objective analysis to threaten his desired conclusion. Of course, if Joseph was a virgin then i think he should be honored more than Mary on this respect! ^

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Here, the Catholic incredibly asserts that Mary's response “How shall this be done” (DRB) “How can this be,” (NAB) must mean she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity, which would also mean that Joseph would have agreed to it as well, even though Scripture knows of no such thing, not anywhere mentions this radical marriage, but only that Joseph “knew here not “until” he had brought forth her first born son.” (Mt. 1:25) And which results in more special pleading by RCAs in arguing against the normal import of the Greek word and in its contextual construction.

What is further incredible is that the Catholic expects us to also suspend objectively asking how Mary's response could mean something besides his conclusion, for the answer is the most obvious, which is that “before they came together, she was [to be] found with child of the Holy Ghost,” as per Mt. 1:8, as Joseph and Mary were only betrothed, and which would typically last a year, sometimes longer. As for Mary being a a consecrated Temple virgin, this idea does comes not from Scripture but from the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of James (Protoevangelium of James), and which is considered to be pseudepigraphical.

Women did assemble at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation*, and the very aged widow Anna “departed not from the temple,” (Lk. 2:36) and Paul alluded to widows who apparently consecrated themselves to a single life of celibacy, (1Tim. 5:11,12) and Catholic look to 2 Macc 3:19-20 which speaks of some virgins apparently living in some apartments by the temple, but besides nothing at being said about Mary being such in Scripture, the only examples of temple virgins in inspired Scripture were widows.

Moreover, to suppose that Mary would leave temple dedication in order to live as a virgin in marriage is further removed from Scriptural warrant and reality.

*Josephus describes that outer court being open to all, except menstruating women, while the second court allowed all Jewish men and menstrually-clean Jewish women, but only Jewish men could enter the third court. And of course, the fourth court was restricted to priests who were properly attired, which be the High Priest. ^

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

While the Catholic relies upon arguments from silence* for much of his Mariology, here he used absence as a proof for his doctrine.

Yet while the absence of other siblings is noteworthy, the subject is only that of one missing child, and there is no contextual reason to mention others.

Nor was it necessary for Mark or Luke (Mark 10:46; Lk. 18:35) to mention the second blind man, but which Matthew does, (Mat 20:30)

And while Luke does not mention the siblings of Jesus in cp. 2, he is faithful to do so, as are all the gospel writers. (Lk. 8:19-21; Mt. 12:46,47; 13:55; Mk. 6:3; Jn. 2:12; 7:3,5,10; Acts 1:14) In all these the Catholic is forced to relegate them to speaking in the larger sense, and contrary to any immediacy which context infers, (cf. Mt. 4:18; 10:2; 22:24; Mk. 5:37; 6:17; Lk. 3:1,19; Jn. 1:40,41; 11:21,32) and which could be used to rob other mothers of having children as well.

In addition, Ps. 69:8, which is linked to the Messianic verse that follows, (Ps. 69:9; cf. 21) speaks of Jesus being as an alien to His “mother's children,” which Jn. 7:3,5 comports with.

The Catholic has no problem with “his mother” only referring to Mary, even though “mother” can also be used in the broader sense, (Mt. 12:49,50) but when a text says "Then came to him his mother and his brethren..." (Luke 8:19) then they vehemently deny this can refer to siblings of Christ.

Moreover, the Lord Jesus never exalts His mother after the manner as Catholics do, but despite prime opportunities to do so instead He makes all who obey God's will to also be His mother, and brethren. Of course, if a Catholic Spirit had inspired Scripture rather than the Holy Spirit then it would be substantially different.

"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. " (Luke 11:27-28)

"Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! " (Matthew 12:47-49)

*For example, Catholic argue that since Scripture does not say you cannot pray to the departed, then that means it can be allowed, even though it has no positive examples amid the multiplicity of prayers, and is contrary in principal to what Scripture teaches on who to pray to in Heaven, and the hermeneutic behind this could also be used to sanction such things as the Mormonic teaching that man preexisted as a spirit, etc.), ^

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

As for speaking disrespectfully, this is exactly what they did, and rather than supporting the Catholic premise, instead it supports what Scripture reveals about the nature of his brethren.

But what is also extremely disrespectful is the manner in which the Catholic continually forces Scripture to support his desired conclusions. Here he enlists Mark 3:21 (And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself”), but the word used for brother/brethren is not there, and cannot be said to necessarily refer to brothers or relatives.

As for John 7:3-4, (His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest,...”), this does refer to brethren, and distinguishes between them and His disciples, “For neither did his brethren believe in him, and this disbelief and type of alienation (no kin were seen at his crucifixion) can be seen as fulfilling Ps. 69:8, “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children,” which is another verse which the Catholic is forced to disallow as even including any of His biological family. ^

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

By now it should be apparent that what is unthinkable is that the Scripture should reveal that Mary had a normal biblical marriage, consistent with what the Holy Spirit examples and describes marriage as being, and that Jesus had biological brothers consistent with the normal meaning of the word in its context.

As for it being in thinkable that Jesus should commit the care of his mother to his beloved disciple John if he had brothers, this conclusion is only because of the Catholic cannot allow that Jesus had biological brother and who were not fit to care for his faithful mother, in contrast to the disciple of love, who by charity and longevity would be the best candidate.

And rather than what we would expect if consistent with Rome's overall exaltation of Mary, Jesus did not commit the care of his mother to Peter whom Rome looks to as the perpetuated head of the church, or to the whole body of his disciples, which Rome points to Mary, effectually even more than to Christ. ^

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. " (Mark 6:3)

Under his mandate to disallow the natural denotation of texts such as the above, and defend the unsupported exceptions of developed tradition, the Catholic here again compels Scripture to conform to his perpetual virgin construct, requiring that since adelphos can mean extended family members, then it must mean that every single time Jesus is referred to as having brothers, as he does with Mark 6:3, even though this cannot be conclusively established.

In response to this complicated issue, i will provide the conclusions of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia from part of its commentary on “the brethren of the Lord:”

According to this, these brethren were actually blood-relatives of Jesus, and not of Joseph. They were the children of Alpheus, otherwise known as Clopas (Joh_19:25), and the sister of Mary. This Mary, in Mat_27:56, is described as “the mother of James and Joses,” and in Mar_15:40, “the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.”

This theory as completely developed points to the three names, James, Judas and Simon found both in the list of the apostles and of the “brethren,” and argues that it would be a remarkable coincidence if they referred to different persons, and the two sisters, both named Mary, had found the very same names for their sons.

The advocates of this theory argue also that the expression “James the less” shows that there were only two persons of the name James in the circle of those who were most closely connected with Jesus. They say, further, that, after the death of Joseph, Mary became an inmate of the home of her sister, and the families being combined, the presence and attendance of her nephews and nieces upon her can be explained without much difficulty, and the words of the people at Nazareth be understood.

But this complicated theory labors under many difficulties. The identity of Clopas and Alpheus cannot be established, resting, as it does, upon obscure philological resemblances of the Aramaic form of the two names (see ALPHAEUS). The most that such argument affords is a mere possibility. Nor is the identity of “Mary the wife of Clopas” with the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, established beyond a doubt. Joh_19:25, upon which it rests, can with equal correctness be interpreted as teaching that four women stood by the cross, of whom “Mary of Clopas” was one, and His mother's sister was another.

The decision depends upon the question as to whether “Mary” be in apposition to “sister.” If the verse be read so as to present two pairs, it would not be a construction without precedent in the New Testament, and would avoid the difficulty of finding two sisters with the same name - a difficulty greater yet than that of thre e cousins with the same name.

Nor is the identity of “James the less” with the son of Alpheus beyond a doubt. Any argument concerning the comparative “less,” as above explained, fails when it is found that in the Greek there is no comparative, but only “James the little,” the implication being probably that of his stature as considerably below the average, so as to occasion remark.

Nor is the difficulty less when it is proposed to identify three of these brethren of Jesus with apostles of the same name. For the “brethren” and the apostles are repeatedly distinguished. In Mat_12:49, while the former stood without, the latter are gathered around Jesus. In Joh. 2:12, we read: “his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples.” In Act. 1:13 the Eleven, including James the son of Alpheus, and Simon, and Judas of James, and then it is said that they were accompanied by “his brethren.”

But the crowning difficulty of this hypothesis of Jerome is the record of the unbelief of the brethren and of their derision of His claims in Joh. 7:3-5. ^

^

 

V. Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi) = Cousins or Kinsmen

As will be seen, the Greek has words it can use for cousins (suggenēs”, “anepsios”) or other kin (Luke 1:36,58; 2:44; 21:16; 14:12; Mk. 6:4; Jn. 18:26; Acts10:24; Rom .9:3; 16:7,11,21, and anepsios: Col 4:10), which are different from the word for brethren (“adelphos”) which often refers to biological siblings.

However, the reality is that the dispute about PMV cannot be determined by the use of adelphos alone, due to the lack of precision, while the principal of exceptions being manifest, and the context in which adelphos is used play a strong role.

As regards the former, while celibate marriage is unknown in Scripture, and is contrary to its description, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4,5) and again, the Holy Spirit abundantly records significant deviations. Thus the burden of proof is upon the Catholic to established by Scripture perpetual Marian virginity, as per his tradition — but which he cannot and does not do.

As regards to the latter, while adelphos can also often mean brethren in the larger sense, when adelphos is used with a parent (not necessarily named), or when one is named as a brother of someone then that it is less likely to be used in the wider sense, (avoiding duplicates: Mt. 1:2,11; 4:18,21; 10:2; 14:3; 17:1; Mk. 5:37; 15:40; Jn. 11:2;

In often mention of “His mother, and his brethren” being together, along with the naming of 4 of them strongly suggests immediate family, rather than extended, and thus some resort to another exception, that these were Joseph was a widower with sons from a previous marriage*. This is more reasonable as far as acknowledging “His mother, and his brethren” to referring to immediate family, but there is no reason to resort to this explanation except to disallow Scripture from contradicting a tradition of men, contrary to the most reasonable meaning, that of a normal consummated marriage, resulting in children.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. " (Matthew 13:55-57) and Luke 7:12 specifies when a man was “the only son of his mother.”

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

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

"After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days. " (John 2:12)

"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. " (Acts 1:14)

*The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states, In the Apocryphal Gospels, the attempt is made to supply what the canonical Gospels omit. They report that Joseph was over eighty years of age at his second marriage, and the names of both sons and daughters by his first marriage are given. As Lightfoot (commentary on Galatians) has remarked, “they are pure fabrications.” Theophylact even advanced theory that they were the children of Joseph by a levirate marriage, with the widow of his brother, Clopas. Others regard them as the nephews of Joseph whom, after the death of his brother Clopas, he had taken into his own home, and who Thus became members of his family, and were accounted as though they were the children of Joseph and Mary. According to this view, Mary excepted, the whole family at Nazareth were no blood relatives of Jesus. It is a Docetic conception in the interest of the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. All its details, even that of the advanced age and decrepitude of Joseph, start from that premise. ^

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Cousin” is not required or excluded here, and the Catholic judges himself superior to the Catholic translators of the classic Catholic DRB Bible which has “cousin” here, while determining the meaning of this word by appealing to the Hebrew and Aramaic insults the Holy Spirit who chose Greek with its greater range of expression to give the N.T. to the world (with Greek being the most common language in world of the early church). And and who is shown (in duplicate accounts) sometimes expanding or recasting what Christ said on earth, in providing a more comprehensive revelation in doing what Jesus tells Him to inspire the writers of the N.T. to pen. (Jn. 16:13-15)

Greek also enables a distinction between the many words which can be translated “love.”

As for cousin, in the New Testament the Greek uses “suggenēs” to refer to cousin or kinsmen, (Luke 1:36,58; 2:44; 21:16; 14:12; Mk. 6:4; Jn. 18:26; Acts10:24; Rom.9:3; 16:7,11,21) as well as “anepsios” in Col 4:10: Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas...” ^

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

The dispute is not that “adelphos” in its almost 350 occurrences can often mean “brethren” in the larger sense of the word, but that it is a forced and unwarranted conclusion to assert that it must mean other than biological siblings in the context of “his mother” or father or close familial context, as it would also disallow other “brethren” from being biological brothers or sisters. See Mt. 4:18; 10:2; 22:24; Mk. 5:37; 6:17; Lk. 3:1,19; Jn. 1:40,41; 11:21,32, and other remarks here and here among other places.

One debater states that

Adelphos and adelphe are used 368 times in the NT.

91 times it means sibling.

22 times it means countrymen.

12 times it means fellow man.

243 times it means spiritual sibling. ^

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Here the Catholic fails to see the grammatical distinctions and significance to the order in which the Holy Spirit gives his record.

"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) " (Acts 1:13-15)

The Catholic here seeks to make "his brethren" referred to the 120, but as in John 2:12 ("After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days"), Mary once again is mentioned together with Jesus brethren, and only after that are the total multitude of "disciples" mentioned, in which a specification can be seen being made as to Jesus brethren now being part of the believing multitude.

As for brother meaning kinsmen in Hebrew, this is misleading, as the Hebrew word (''âch”) used for brother approximately 600 times in the Old Testament often means biological siblings, as even a cursory search would reveal. ^

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Again this is not the argument, but that must mean something other than biological siblings which the Catholic cannot establish no matter how much he tries to argue against the biblical norm of marriage and the normal sense of “adelphos” with mother or in like context of close family. ^

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

See above. The problem is none of these prove what the Catholic must as he it is who is making the extraordinary proposition. ^

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (”anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos”) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

The Catholic is referring to the Septuagint not the Masoretic text but there is nothing new here except that the Catholic again fails to prove that “adelphos” cannot refer to biological siblings of Jesus, after the manner that it does in similar contexts.


As for cousin, in the New Testament the Greek uses “suggenēs” to refer to cousin or kinsmen, (Luke 1:36,58; 2:44; 21:16; 14:12; Mk. 6:4; Jn. 18:26; Acts10:24; Rom.9:3; 16:7,11,21) as well as “anepsios” in Col 4:10: Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas...” ^

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

And Joseph's ten brethren ['âch] went down to buy corn in Egypt.” (Gen 42:3) To which multitude more texts can be added.


Thu the Catholic here continues to be misleading in inferring “brethren” only means kinsmen, or disallows biological brothers/sisters. ^

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -”brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

Ditto. Many words in Hebrew or Greek are not precisely restricted to this degree of specificity, and thus a word is translated according to normal usage unless otherwise demanded by context, and which weighs in favor of Jesus having biological siblings.

What is driving the Catholic to absolutely disallow adelphos from referring to Jesus having biological siblings is that of his requirement to support a tradition of men, that of the perpetual virginity of Mary with its own resultant exegetical errors. In other words, his interpretation is driven by his desired conclusion, not what the text best warrants. ^

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

But we do not have any word, context or cause within Scripture that would restrict adelphos to exclude it referring to Jesus having biological siblings. ^

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

And here they were “biobrothers:” Gen: 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. ^

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Contra: Gen 34:25: And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males. ^

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Contra: Gen 42:6 And Joseph was the governor over the land, and he it was that sold to all the people of the land: and Joseph's brethren came, and bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth. ^

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Contra: Gen 47:5 And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee:

Gen 49:5 Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. ^

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

Contra: Gen 50:8 And all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father's house: only their little ones, and their flocks, and their herds, they left in the land of Goshen. ^

Top

 

VI. Mary’s Assumption into Heaven

 

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

Actually, yes, as He did not do so even for Noah, Daniel, and Job, who seem to be set forth as the 3 most righteousness men of the Old Testament, (Ezek. 14:14,20) while what He did not do for Mary is provide any record of the assumption of Mary, unlike for the assumption of Elijah and Enoch, and other extraordinary events of important people, including the virgin birth. And in so doing what He did do is lead us to rightly expect is that He would do so for all the extraordinary exceptions Rome claims for Mary, rather than leaving no manifest Scriptural support for, and which Rome must wrest Scriptures to find.

But consistent with the precedent hermeneutic Rome uses to support the assumption of Mary, one may also teach as dogma that many other persons who are not mentioned also were assumed, or even that Mary was as physically strong as Samson, since having such extraordinary strength also has a precedent.

However because Rome has no problem exalting itself above that which is written, it also presumes that it can declare as dogma whatever tradition is not explicitly disallowed by Scripture, or because it simply has a precedent. Yet Scripture warns "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. " (Proverbs 30:6) Here Roman is presuming to teach for a doctrine a mere tradition of men, which assumption of Mary has no scriptural warrant and is contrary to the way in which Scripture reveals exceptions and establishes dogma. Nothing at all is said about Mary being assumed into heaven, and if she was then it would be expected and required that it be recorded in Scripture, that being the assured word of God, if it were to be declared as dogma. ^

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

Consistent with what has already been seen from Scripture showing the ark not being Mary, the entity it clearly speaks about being “the habitation for the mighty God of Jacob,” (Ps. 132:5) is Christ himself, Jesus being “God manifest in the flesh,” (1Tim. 3:16) and the church itself, "In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. " (Ephesians 2:22) ^

 

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Indeed Paul does speak of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven., evidently speaking of himself, and the reason we know this of a truth is because the Holy Spirit records it in Scripture, and not because it was a oral tradition, and lacks any record in Scripture, which Rome essentially presumes to add to by teaching this tradition as dogma. Moreover, in this case it specifies the subject did not know whether he was in the body or out of the body. ^

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

Indeed bodies of the saints were raised, and again we know this because Scripture records it, though it does not say they went bodily to Heaven. But where is the prophecy or record of Mary's assumption? It simply is not there, nor does anything demand it, and as Scripture is thus silent so must dogma be. ^

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

The careless exegetical contrivances of the Catholic here are an insult to Scripture and sound scholarship, and based upon his hermeneutic there is nothing that cannot be ascribed to Mary that other saints have done, from going 40 days and nights on the strength of a couple meals (1Kg. 19:5-8) to parting the Red sea. And indeed, i have never seen one disciplined for attributing extreme positive claims to Mary, but they quickly censure those for doing as Jesus did in reproving mere traditions by Scripture, (Mk. 7:3-16) and resist exalting Mary after the manner of Rome, but who as Christ did, direct equal affirmation to others who also obey God. (Lk. 11:27,28) ^

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

We have dealt with this already, and what is seen even by many Catholic commentators is that the women here is not Mary, but Israel and by extension the church. Nor are the martyrs petitioning Mary, which would be a first, but God directly, as per Scripture. ^

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

Paul the apostle, who penned Scripture, and affirmed that class of revelation as being wholly inspired of God, is not referring to a stream of various oral traditions that do not come from or depend on Scripture but which sola ecclesia groups as Rome and the EOs and Mormons, etc. may channel into doctrines, but to Scripture-based authoritative apostolic teaching, which unique authority Rome cannot claim (as her successors lack the apostolic qualifications: Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12), and which we can expect was written down, as can be seen was the case with revelation that was referred to as “the word of God/the Lord,” with Scripture being the standard for obedience and testing truth claims.

And by using the Scripture to “prove all things” (1Thes. 5:21) noble souls found assurance of the veracity of apostolic preaching in which they reasoned out of the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2,11) but by so doing to the tradition of Rome we find them to be like the “tradition of the elders” that the Lord condemned by Scripture. (Mk. 7:3-16)

I addition, it is also true that Bible preachers today can call the hearers to obey their words, but all calls to obedience, to church or to the civil powers, is conditional upon obedience to God as per His assured word. (Acts 4:19; 5:29)

Rome claims authority based upon tradition (successors of assured infallible magisterium) history (unbroken succession), and Scripture (texts which the former invoke in support). However, Scripture is not allowed by her to be the supreme authority, by which one may have assurance of doctrine, and instead the church with its perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is, by which one interpretation of Scripture (including Mt. 16:13-19 which the EOs differ on, as did CFs) is given authority over the rest. And upon this premise Rome infallibly declares she is and will be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula. ^

Top

 

VII. Mary’s Coronation in Heaven

 

2 Tim 4:8 - Paul says that there is laid up for him the crown of righteousness. The saints are crowned in heaven, and Mary is the greatest saint of all.

The Catholic not only asserts Mary is already crowned, but that she is the greatest saint of all, however, contrary to the miscontruance of Scripture by the Catholic in order to support his claims, not only are the saints not crowned until the return of Christ - which the invoked refernce actually states - (2Tim. 4:8; 1Pt. 5:4; Rv. 11:18) but there is nothing in Scripture about Mary being the greatest saint of all, nor is this warranted.

While the Holy Spirit shows Mary to be a spiritual holy young women, and one that was blessed among — not above — women as bearing Christ, He does not present her as the “greatest saint of all” by matter of faith, virtue and power. And when provided an opportunity to exalt Mary as one that uniquely is not to be refused, the Lord Jesus Himself makes all who obey the will of the Father to be His mother. (Mt. 12:48-50)

Moreover, in contrast to Mary, the greatest testimony of Scripture as regards a New Testament saints in faith and righteousness are those who endured and labored much in love. Mary is not shown and laboring day and night for years in the care of all the churches, and suffering great persecution as she did so, or constantly feeding the church with her words, or even being a worker of many miracles and being an instrument of healing for many. Instead, the most preeminent example of this, after the Lord Jesus, is the apostle Paul, who is largely marginalized by Rome behind Mary and Peter. Considering the unwarranted excess of attributions given to Mary by Catholics wresting Scripture, one can only imagine what more they would do if even 10% of the manifestations of the above attributes was given to Mary. ^

James 1:12 - those who endure will receive the crown of life which God has promised. Mary has received the crown of life by bringing eternal life to the world.

"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. " (James 1:12)

The Catholic here continues to carelessly and irreverently force Scripture to conform to his tradition, as Scripture is even his real authority for this or overall. What temptation Mary endured by faith did not set her above all others whom God honor, many of whom manifestly overall endured more. See above for one. ^

1 Peter 5:4 - when the chief Shepherd is manifested we will receive the unfading crown of glory.

No, not “we” are referring to Catholics, but faithful pastors, which, if this is referring to one of the many different kinds of crowns, is only ascribed to such pastors, who are entitled “elders” and “bishops,” these being interchangeable, (Titus 1:5-7) and is different than the word for “priests,” which they are never distinctly called, but all believers are priests, as saith Peter. (1Pt. 2:9)

Thus once again there is nothing that supports Mary's supreme status which the Catholic is so desirous to support with Scripture in order to silence those who hold to the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture. ^

Rev. 2:10 - Jesus will give the faithful unto death the crown of life. Jesus gave Mary His Mother the crown of life.

Once again there is nothing here that supports Mary's supreme status, as this applies to all who are faithful unto death

In addition, the crowning of saints does not occur until the Lord's return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev. 11:18; 22:12) when believers will forever be with the Lord, (1Thes,. 4:17) that being the “day of Christ,” (2Thess. 2:2; 1Cor. 1:8; Phil. 1:6,10; 2:16) and which “day shall declare” the manner of work one has built the church with, (1Cor. 3:13ff) and reward saints accordingly. But which eschatology the Catholic was likely ignorant of, and if not, then he is once again engaging in special pleading, that of not only making Mary the greatest saint of all, and exercising powers which are only ascribed to God, but that she alone is already crowned in Heaven. ^

Rev. 12:1 - Mary, the “woman,” is crowned with twelve stars. She is Queen of heaven and earth and the Mother of the Church.

See above, as well as here and here and those sections as regards Rev. 12:1. Nowhere does Scripture teach that Mary is the Queen of heaven, nor is she the Mother of the Church. ^

Wis. 5:16 - we will receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord. Mary is with Jesus forever crowned in His glory.

See above. ^

Top

 

VIII. Misunderstanding about Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew her “not until”)

"And knew her not till[“heōs”] she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. " (Matthew 1:25) ^

 

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (”heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not...until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

The Catholic claim that heos does not mean “did not...until after” is presumptuous, as while heōs does reference the past, as it denotes a terminus, including to a point, yet this usually indicates or allows for a change, but which rarely allows continuity of that which it refers to, and it never does in a construction after the manner of Mt. 1:25. “But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” (Luk 12:50)

Here again the burden of proof is upon the Catholic to prove that “heos” is used contrary to its normal meaning, in order to support the extraBiblical tradition of a celibate marriage, which contrary to its normal meaning, and which the Holy Spirit never manifests, contrary to His normal practice in cases of important or notable deviations from the norm by important or semi-important characters. The fact that the Holy Spirit again confirms the virgin birth is a testimony to that principal, and the fact that the asserted continued celibacy by Joseph and Mary is not, and that “heos” here would normally indicate an end to that condition, all work contrary to the Catholic tradition of men, and leave it with out any real support. ^







 

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

The use of heōs here does denote a terminus with an expected change, not of the Lord's presence at home in Heaven, but of His special period of necessary guidance to His pilgrims in this foreign world, and valley of the shadow of death, until its end, and the saints reign with Christ, with them ever being with the Lord in the afterlife. (1Thes. 4:17)

Likewise in Mt. 1:25, heōs denotes a terminus indicating a change, that of the end of a special period of celibacy and the entering into the norm of marriage, that of cleaving. (Gn. 2:24; 1Cor. 7:5) ^

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

The Catholic here continues to prove nothing in his favor, and instead this is another text that refutes him, as heōs here again denotes a terminus indicating a change, that of the end of John's desert seclusion, and the beginning of his manifestation to Israel. Desert means a deserted, lonesome place, (Mk. 1:35) as in wilderness, which in Scripture is allegorical to testing. Luke picks up from where he left John in this verse in Lk. 3:2ff, recording that “the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” ^

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

The word in Lk. 2:37 is simply “hōs,” and which is usually translated “as” or “when,” how,” “about,” etc., and never “until” in my Bible (KJV), which states here “And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years...” The difference can be seen in texts in which both occur, such as Act 13:20” “And after that he gave unto them judges about[hōs] the space of four hundred and fifty years, until[heōs] Samuel the prophet. ^

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

Until” here does not refer to the position of the apostles, but that of Christ, "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. " (1 Corinthians 15:25) "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. " (1 Corinthians 15:28)

Though the Son was always Divine, God the Father made His Son Lord and judge of all due to His overcoming work of redemption, (Acts 2:36; 10:42) so that it is Christ who runs the universe unlike before, but after all the enemies are subdued then the Father will resume His functional position as Head. And thus heōs here signifies an end, and a change in status, per usual. ^

1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

1Tim 4:13 Till[2193] I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

This also denotes a terminus and change, not of ceasing from all ministerial work, but in context that of ceasing from what Timothy was to preoccupy himself with doing until Paul arrived (which is why “till I come” is the preface), in which case his normal routine and ministerial work would be interrupted by ministering to Paul and being tutored by him. ^

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

First, while the Greek has Hebrew equivalents, it is best to examine how the Holy Spirit uses this word in the New Testament, and it is the Greek, not the Septuagint (LXX) that both we and Rome translates the New Testament from, even though it selectively quotes from the Septuagint.

However, the Catholic also skews the meaning of this verse, as ‛ad (until) is not referring to the raven starting to fly after dry land appeared, but refers to it flying back and forth looking for a place to land. And which searching quest ceased when land appeared and when normal flight patterns would resume.

Likewise “till” in Mt. 11:25 best refers to an end of a special period and beginning of marital normalcy. ^

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Until” here is from 3 words, once of which is translated “if,” “when,” and other words and like as in Mt. 28:29, the promise does not simply refer to the Lord's presence, which a man cannot flee from, (Ps. 139:7-12) but to a special dispensation of grace until it be accomplished, that of God's necessary and special protective guiding presence being with Jacob until God's will was accomplished. This special guiding protective presence was what Moses prayed for in Ex. 33:14, and to which God responded, "My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest. " (Exodus 33:14) ^

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

This type of construction is one of the few places where “until” means “even until,” and denoting continuity, as no man knew up until the time of the writing. And this type of conveyance is contrary to Mt. 1:25, which does not speak in terms of “even until,” as if Joseph knew her not even till this writing, but is written to confirm the past, that of Mary being a virgin till she gave birth, signifying the end of that special period and realization of marital normalcy; it being a characteristic of Divine revelation to record deviations from normalcy, which a lifelong celibate marriage also would be, but is not recorded and instead normalcy is indicated. ^

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

Same as above, the meaning being obvious, as child bearing is not possible after death. ^

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

An apocryphal book is no applicable (see here on apocrypha), but the above would apply here as well.


For a compilations of all occurrence of the use of “heos” in the New Testament, and examination of other particular instances of it, see here (awaiting completion . ^

Top

Here the Catholic attempts to defend a Scripturally unsupported tradition, that Mary went her whole life without ever having committed one sin, by commission of omission, and that the Holy Spirit uncharacteristically did not deem it worthy of mention. ^

IX. Misunderstanding about Romans 3:23 (”All have sinned”)

What follows are basically arguments from silence, that since Scripture does not say Mary sinned then it cannot be proved that she did. However, arguments from silence cannot overcome the weight of the norm, in which all souls, presupposing accountability, (Is. 7:15,16) are called sinners, and exception to to such norms are expressed, and thus Scripture notes both particularly righteous but not sinless souls as well as the sinlessness of Christ. In contrast, the arguments from silence from the Catholic is that he is utterly unable to establish that she was sinless, and must try to extrapolate support from typology and the specious premise that she had to be. ^

Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned “ only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

In making Scripture conform to his creed, the Catholic here simply asserts that “all have sinned” “only means that all are subject to original sin.” Yet the polemic of Paul here is that both Jews and Gentiles have actually disobeyed the law, which defines sin, whereby all the world may become guilty before God. In chapter one Paul shows how the Gentiles disobeyed the light they had, and in chapter two he indicts the Jews for breaking the Law which God gave them.

As for the “mud puddle” analogy, the Divine Son of God brought His written word through men who were born in this “mud puddle” of a world, and Himself came into it and went through a lot of “mud puddle” places, and never needed a sinless vehicle to do so.

In addition, it is not the act of baptism that cleanses sin, but the faith behind it which appropriates washing and justification. ^


 

Rom. 3:23 - “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

This is true, as judgment is according to righteousness and grace and ability, and Isaiah 7:15-16 speaks of such in stating, "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. "

But just as Is. 7:14 foretells of the extraordinary nature of the birth of Christ, consistent with its revelation of notable and important deviations from the norm, both positive and negative, so we can rightly expect that the sinlessness of Mary would be likewise stated. But instead all that is recorded are things which go along with the norm (Mary calling God her savior, and being purified) and the norm needs no confirmation. ^

Rom. 3:23 - finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

There are certainly exceptions to the rule as regards “all,” (“pas” from which pantes is derived ) but few they be, and in the case of exception to sinlessness then then this is duly stated, with it being taught that Christ was sinless at least 3 times. (Jn. 8:45; 2Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15)

Dogma is not to be based on what can be, even without clear contradiction, and if it were then much speculation could be become dogma, but instead it must be based on the weight of scriptural warrant, which the exceptional status of Mary as sinless and a perpetual virgin, and realizing bodily assumption to become a heavenly object of prayer, etc., fails to have. ^

 

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all (”pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (”pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

If the Catholic looks as the Greek as he does sometimes in some other attempts to force Scripture to support the Marian exceptions, then he should know that the Greek does not say “in Adam all have died,” but that “all die,” as consistent with Heb. 9:27, and thus it is surmised by many that Enoch and Elijah might be the later-day two “olive tree” prophets. (Zech. 4:11-14; Rv. 11:2-11)

As for “in Christ shall all be made alive,” this is contextually referring to the saved, in contrast to the lost.

But while it is true that all that are in Adam and not in Christ shall die, in more ways than one, yet that “all” here is in the general sense is accepted, but which works contrast to the doctrine of Mary, as consistent with the general law of exceptions, the Holy Spirit makes the assumption of Enoch and Elijah clear, in contrast to Marian exceptions. ^

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all (”pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

See above. It is wholly insufficient to find some instances in which “all” is used in the general sense: one must establish Scriptural warrant for the exception for Mary like as the Enoch and Elijah exceptions have, which the Catholic has yet to do. ^

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Ditto. “Many (“polus / polos”) is not precise and is a general term meaning multitude here, and is used in correspondence to the “all” in the previous verse who became condemned, and to the many who become justified through faith in the Lord Jesus, as through Adam's sin all men were under condemnation; but “even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”

Nor is Paul restricting “sinners” to being subject to a sinful nature, but to offenses done by it, “the free gift is of many offences unto justification.” (Rom 5:16) ^

Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Unlike the Catholic here, Bible Protestants usually know that the New Testament interprets the Old, as regards defining it, which is abundantly evidenced in the New Testament references of the Old.

And if Paul is not teaching that all have sinned, then it follows that all (accountability being a given) do not need redemption, which is contrast to his polemic. Which is that,

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; (Rom 3:9)

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Rom 3:19) And thus all accountable souls need salvation. ^

Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Even though each verse does not apply equally to all, nor to all stages of one;s life, saved or lost, but both Rm. 3:9-18 and Ps. 14 are a wholesale indictment of mankind in its lost conditions and one of more applies to all. “ “There is none that seeketh after God” is universal, as until the Father draws them they do not come.” ^


 

Psalm 53:1-3 - “there is none that does good” expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people “good.”

Ps. 53 is a reiteration of Ps. 14, and applies per above. ^

Luke 18:19 - Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says “The good man out of his good treasure...” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

The Bible defines itself, calling God “just” in absolute terms, but revealing men like Noah and Zechariah to bw just in relative terms, as He reveals their goodness to be a general faith characteristic, in which sin is an exception.

The Lord Jesus was obviously not excluding Himself from being good, or being Divine, as this was a test, but here He does define “good” in absolute terms while “good” in the second case is according to the second class.

Neither of these examples serves to disallow “all have sinned” from being inclusive of all accountable souls, much less support the Marian exception. ^

Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

The Catholic once again evidences his eagerness to leap to conclusions to Marian exceptions to the norm have no actual support, which are merely based on what could be, and what he imagines must be despite the silence of Scripture. In no place do we see that Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin. This is pure fantasy. ^

Luke 1:47 - Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Holding that holy Mary was also a sinner, which the Holy Spirit refers to mankind in general is not denigrating Mary, which what Catholics actually do to the Scriptures by teaching doctrines of men which Scripture does not warrant, such as their extremes in Mariology.

Once again the normal use of a word is unequivocally disallowed to support a Scripturally unsupported tradition. ^

Luke 1:48 - Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.

I am unaware of any argument that uses this to support Mary being a person who has sinned, nor it is needed. The Catholic is the one who must resort to untenable assertions to support the unsupported premise that Mary went her whole life without ever having committed one sin, by commission of omission, and that the Holy Spirit uncharacteristically did not deem it worthy of mention. ^

Top

3-25-2012: I hope to go through the remainder soon by the grace of God. ^

X. Misunderstandings about Jesus “rebuking” Mary

 

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - when Jesus asks, “Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?,” some Protestants argue that Jesus is rebuking Mary in order to denigrate her. To the contrary, when Jesus’ comments are read in light of Luke 8:5-15 and the parable of the sower which Jesus taught right before His question, Jesus is actually implying that Mary has already received the word as the sower of good ground and is bearing fruit. Jesus is teaching that others must, like Mary, also receive the word and obey it.

Jesus is indeed teaching that others must, like Mary, also receive the word and obey it, but while it is a stretch of language, that Protestants see Jesus rebuking Mary in order to denigrate her, yet it may be seen as a gentle reminder once again of the priority His call to be about the Father's business, (Lk. 2:49) and thus the words about doing God's will.

But what is clear is that Jesus did not act according to the Catholic portrayal of His relationship with His mother, which is that far from immediately attending to her, or affirming her unique, privileged, supreme status which the Catholic Mary has, much less promise her up to half His kingdom, the Lord spiritually equated her with any who do the will of His Father.

^

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - Jesus’ question about “who are my mother, and sisters and brothers” was also made in reference to Psalm 69:8-9. Jesus the Prophet was answering the psalmist’s prophecy that those closest to Him would betray Him at His passion. Jesus is emphasizing the spiritual family’s importance over the biological family, and the importance of being faithful to Him. While many were unfaithful to Jesus, Mary remained faithful to Him, even to the point of standing at the foot of the Cross.

This is simply the Catholics private interpretation, as he attempts to divert “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children” from referring to His immediate family, as Jn. 1:11; 7:5 can refer to.

Most Roman Catholics i have dealt with on this thus seek to disallow this from being prophetic of Christ at all, based on v, 5, which would apply to David.

However, a Messianic verse is not determined by whether all of the context is about Christ, and this very Psalm which is rejected as having this Messianic text is quoted from by the Holy Spirit as such more than once.

Thus contrary to that rule, Ps. 41:9 (“Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me”) which is confirmed (Jn. 13:18) to be prophetic of Christ, is not disallowed as being such by v. 4 which states, “I said, LORD, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee.”

In addition, right after the text at issue it says,

“For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me,“ (Psalms 69:9) which is just what the Holy Spirit in Jn. 2:17 states:

“And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. “ (John 2:17; cf. Rm. 15:3)

Moreover, if Ps. 69:5 disallows v. 8 from speaking of Christ, then it would follow that Ps. 69:4 (They that hate me without a cause..) which is referenced in Jn. 15:25 cannot be either. And the same gospel that invokes Ps. 69:9 in applying it to Christ, also records that “His own received Him not,” “neither did His own brethren believe in Him.” (Jn. 1:11; 7:5)

It is of note here that while the word for “own” (idios) can mean “own” as in “own disciples or “own city”, it can also refer to one's own immediate relations, and its use in Jn. 5:18 denotes the Lord's ontological oneness with the Father, for which the Jews sought to kill Him. ^

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - finally, to argue that Jesus rebuked Mary is to argue that Jesus violated the Torah, here, the 4th commandment. This argument is blasphemous because it essentially says that God committed sin by dishonoring His Mother.

What is blasphemous is the attribution to Mary in Roman Catholicism of powers which are nowhere given to any but God, such as present exaltation in Heaven and the ability to hear and respond to an infinite amount of prayers.

As for the charge that it would be a violation of the commandment to rebuke Mary, this is another example of the Catholic's irreverent misappropriative use of Scripture to support his tradition of men, as honoring one's parents would not exclude such discreet rebuke as here, while King Asa righteously removed his own mother from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove! (1Kg. 15:13)

Nor does reverencing the king and those in authority exclude solemn (not careless) rebuke for sin, such as by a prophet speaking for God. (Mk. 6:18) ^

Luke 11:28 - when Jesus says, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it,” some Protestants also call this a rebuke of Mary. Again, to the contrary, Jesus is exalting Mary by emphasizing her obedience to God’s word as being more critical than her biological role of mother. This affirms Luke 1:48.

Covered already above.

Luke 11:28 - also, the Greek word for “rather” is “menounge.” Menounge really means “Yes, but in addition,” or “Further.” Thus, Jesus is saying, yes my mother is blessed indeed, but further blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. Jesus is encouraging others to follow Mary’s example in order to build up His kingdom.

Nowhere else in the N.T. is this used to mean “further,” as in “further blessed, but denotes an emphatic affirmation, as in Phil, 3:8; Rm. 10:18, and is rhetorically also used to affirm a disallowance in affirming a correct idea in Rom. 9:20.

The Lord did not go to His mother when informed of her waiting, as He would if consistent with the Mary of Rome, as His must be about the Father's business. Nor did He say, yes, Mary is blessed indeed, but further blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it, but spiritually equated all doers of the Word of God — which the Mariology of Rome is contrary to — to being His mother. Catholicism is contrary to both here. ^

Luke 11:27-28 - finally, Jesus is the one being complimented, not Mary. Therefore, Jesus is refocusing the attention from Him to others who obey the word of God. If He is refocusing the attention away from Him to others, His comment cannot be a rebuke of Mary His mother.

The rebuke would be that He did not go to His mother when informed of her waiting, and instead once again referred to the priority of doing His Father's business. (Lk. 2:49) ^

John 2:4 - this is another example that Protestants use to diminish Mary’s significance. Jesus’ question to Mary, “what have you to do with me?” does no such thing. To the contrary, Jesus’ question illustrates the importance of Mary’s role in the kingdom. Jesus’ question is in reality an invitation to His mother to intercede on behalf of all believers and begin His ministry, and His Mother understands this. Mary thus immediately intercedes, Jesus obeys her, and performs the miracle which commenced His ministry of redemption.

The problem here is that the interaction here does not support the importance of Mary’s role in the kingdom.

Mary was not shown to be in any seat of prominence, nor asked to do anything, but the Mary of Rome is already crowned and enthroned with almost unlimited power.

The Lord's response is not that of, “ask me anything, even the half of My kingdom,” but one which again reminds the women (Lk. 2:49; 11:48) of the priority of the Father's will. And this being said, He acts according as led by the Father, and turn water into wine (not under the appearance of water, but resulting actual manifest change).

Mary is not shown dispensing grace, or giving prophecies, but being reminded Jesus can only acts if and as the Father wills, she simply tells the servants to obey Jesus. But which excludes the excess unscriptural exaltation Catholicism gives to their extraBiblical Mary, turning the humble holy handmaid of the Lord into a supreme, almost Divine Queen of Heaven goddess.

In the same gospel, we see that His own brethren also wanted Him to do something, which He once again responded to by emphasizing that all must be done in the Father's will, saying, “My time is not yet come,” and when they left Him then He acted according to their advice in the Father's will, and offered living water. (Jn. 7:2-10,38) But this does not make them unusually significant in the kingdom.

Others came to Jesus with needs, and which occasioned miracles, even if prefaced with a word of chastisement, (Mt. 17:14-17) but which does not make them unusually significant in the kingdom. ^

 

Luke 8:28 - the demons tell Jesus the same thing, “what have you to do with us.” The demons are not rebuking Jesus, for God would not allow it. Instead, the demons are acknowledging the power of Jesus by their question to Him.

An invalid parallelism. The response in Jn. 2 is by Jesus, and which seems to be along the order of, “what are you presuming of me” while the demon is the one asking the question is the second case, that being “what are you going to do with me?” “Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.”

Both are in reference to an unknown, but the second as the recipient of judgment has no authority to challenge what the Lord may do, while He has the right to correct any presumption or constraint to act if it is not according to His Father's will. ^

John 2:4; 19:26 - when Jesus uses the title “woman” (gnyai), it is a title of dignity and respect. It is the equivalent of Lady or Madam. Jesus honored His Mother as God requires us to do.

No one should argue that “women” is disrespectful, nor that it cannot refer to a women negatively, as in (Rev. 7:3.

But Catholics would rather Jesus refer to Mary as mother, and the more formal “women” in the context of the Father's will may be used to remind her to always be conscious of that, and act in submission to it (by doing whatever Jesus says), as the sword would pierce her because of His Son so doing;

And as used in Jn. 19:26, the gospel of the Divinity of the Son of God, “women” may refer to her racial and spiritual position as one who did the Father's will, along with others He also called women. Such as on Mt. 15:28

Finally, what this and all other text utterly fails to do is provide the substantiation for the exceptional exaltation and extraBiblical attributions given to the Mary of Catholicism, which the burden of proof is upon them to produce, but which they can only attempt to wrest from texts and engage in special pleading for, as the Holy Spirit does not provide in Scripture, and which warns against thinking of mortals above that which is written. (1Cor. 4:6) ^

 

Catholic ascriptions to Mary (More can be seen at this link (The up mark ^ points to the last referenced source.).

We must never adore her; that is for God alone. But otherwise we cannot honor her to excess, because it is not possible to overestimate the privileges God gave her in making her His own Mother. “What the church teaches,” by Monsignor J.D. Conway/ Imprimatur of Ralph L. Hayes,, New York; Harper and Brothers; 1962 (He also states, “It seems manifest that Christians simply adapted the art of pagan Rome to their religious needs:” p. 218)

Pope Pius XII asserts in an address on the Queenship of Mary, “after your assumption into heaven, he crowned you Queen of the Universe....In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognise that they are all brothers. Receive, O most sweet mother, our humble supplication above all obtained for us, that on that day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars. You are all beautiful, O Mary, you are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honour of our people.’ Catholic Culture, Prayer of Pope Pius XII, Composed for the Marian Year, 1954

The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help...How rightly, too, has every nation and every liturgy without exception acclaimed her great renown, which has grown greater with the voice of each succeeding century. Among her many other titles we find her hailed as ‘our Lady, our Mediatrix,’ — (St. Tharasius, Orat. in Praesentatione) ‘the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.’ (On Off. Graec., 8 Dec.).” Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #8. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm

When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.... — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, #27, 246. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter...She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity...the holy City of God, the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived...her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands...because it is always humble and conformed to his will, the dispenser of all he possesses...What immeasurable greatness...Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven...God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her...They greet her countless times each day with the angelic greeting, "Hail, Mary", while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests...The whole world is filled with her glory,... Moreover, we should repeat after the Holy Spirit, "All the glory of the king's daughter is within".... Whatever desires the patriarchs may have cherished, whatever entreaties the prophets and saints of the Old Law may have had for 4,000 years to obtain that treasure, it was Mary alone who merited it and found grace before God by the power of her prayers and the perfection of her virtues. " St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, miscl. http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/docs/true.doc

According to Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), an English monk and student of Anselm, “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Through her “the elements are renewed, the netherworld is healed, the demons are trodden underfoot, men are saved and angels are restored.” — Andrew Taylor, “Three medieval manuscripts and their readers,” University of Pennsylvania press; page 173

In "Glories of Mary" by Liguori, whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVI (1839) in the bull of his canonization, he teaches,

He who is under the protection of Mary will be saved; he who is not will be lost . . . O immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection, and therefore we have recourse, to thee alone, and we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil. - . . Thou (Mary) art my only hope. . . . Lady in heaven, we have but one advocate, and that is thyself, and thou alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation ... My Queen and my Advocate with thy Son, whom I dare not approach “ (From Judge Fairly, p. 5).

Richard of St. Laurence encourages sinners to have recourse to this great name, "because it alone will suffice to cure them of all their evils;" and "there is no disorder, however malignant, that does not immediately yield to the power of the name of Mary." — St. Alphonsus de Liguori http://www.doctorsofthecatholicchurch.com/AL.html

The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. — Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Pope Leo XIII, 1894

But by her compassion for her Divine Son she had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin. It was not only during the Passion that Jesus and Mary suffered for our sins, for all their lives that heartrending vision was before them in every detail, and never for a moment forgotten. The Reign of Mary, Vol. 40; Issue 48

"We were condemned through the fault of one woman; we are saved through the merits of another woman. Just as Eve was the root of death for everyone, so Mary was the source of life for everyone. — Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary,” by John Ferraro, Nihil Obstat John C. Hogan, Diocesan Censor; Imprimatur (1) - Richard Cardinal Cushing Daughters of St.Paul, 1964).

"After God, it is impossible to think of anything greater than His Mother." - — Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, p. 83 1 (Tan Books & Publishers, Inc., 1974). Imprimatur: +Cornelius, Ep. Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rossesis, October 7, 1954;

"As Mother of the Word Incarnate, Mary was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father." - p. 83 ^

..to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood...Next to God, she deserves the highest praise....no creature, can ever be compared to her:"To what shall I compare thee, or to whom shall I liken thee, O daughter of Jerusalem." (Lam. 2:13) [another verse taken out of context, as it refers to the affliction of Jewish mothers in general due to the judgment upon Jerusalem.] http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-098.html

...all graces of the Precious Blood come through Mary. — http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/virgin-eucharist.htm

"O Christian who comest full of faith to receive the Bread of life, eat It worthily, and remember that It was fashioned out of Mary's pure blood." Mary can quite rightfully beckon to us and speak to us in the words of the inspired prophet, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5).

"The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is the mediatrix of all graces given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose." Manteau-Bonamy, Immaculate Conception, 91; F.X. Durrwell, The Holy Spirit of God (Cincinnati: Servant Books, 2006), 183-185.

..."Limitless is the difference between God's servants and His Mother...Your honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation; your greatness places you above the angels...from her union with Christ she attains a radiant eminence transcending that of any other creature; from her union with Christ she receives the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the Divine Redeemer's Kingdom;... she intercedes powerfully for us with a mother's prayers, obtains what she seeks, and cannot be refused....Theologians and preachers...must beware of unfounded opinions and exaggerated expressions which go beyond the truth." [an in-credible injunction if Scripture is to be held as the Truth, as going beyond the Truth us exactly what Pope Pius XII is doing. But Scripture is not the supreme authority for Rome, but is made into a servant for her purposes, and Truth to Rome can be whatever she autocratically declares.] — Ad Caeli Reginam, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam_en.html