HI folks!
As I intended when I started this email/blog program I have received a counter argument. The best way to be shown apologetics is to see it in action. The following is a friend of mine’s response to my previous post about Mary. I am not sure if he read my original post in it’s entirety, or if maybe he skimmed, but he seems to try to make claims that I’ve already shown hold no water when compared with the context of scripture.
The highlighted portions are his response. I periodically interrupt with my own counter to his response. After I post this, I will be sending him a link to it to give him the opportunity to defend himself.
This is a response to the the post in
The worship of a women has been common in human history. Through out the Bible, God’s chosen people fell into idolatry. In the same case, many Christians fell into idolatry (without realizing it) thanks to Babylon (The Catholic Church).
A doctrine taught by the Catholic church about Mary, “the mother of God” states:
1. Her Devine Maternity (she's the mother of God)
2. Her perpetual virginity (she remained a virgin throughout her life)
3. Her sinless nature.
4. Her immaculate conception (She was born without original sin)
5. Her bodily assumption
Biblically, this doctrine is wrong and leads to idol worship.
1. The first part of the Catholic doctrine suggest that Mary has always been existent and never created. For if she is the mother of the entire Godhead then, she would be greater than God.
First lets understand the Godhead:
The Father Yahweh
The Son Yeshua
And the Ruah Ha-Kodesh (Holy Spirit)
Mary had to be the mother of all three to make the doctrine correct, however she was only the mother of Yeshua. Many Catholics believe that since Mary was the mother of Yeshua, then by default she had to be the mother of the entire Godhead. However Scripture says otherwise.
•Reading Luke 1;41-80 in context
Luke 1:41-80 And it happened, as Elizabeth heard Mariam's greeting, the babe in her womb leaped, and Elizabeth was filled of the Holy Spirit. (42) And she cried out with a loud voice and said, You are being blessed among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (43) And why is this to me that the mother of my Adonai [Lord] comes to me?
Before continuing, I must say that here Elizabeth is calling Mary the mother of her Lord Yeshua, not the entire Godhead. Lord, in the Bible, is just a title used to not pronounce the name of Yahweh or supremacy. Sarah called Abraham her lord—is Abraham her God? (Genesis 18:12) Absolutely not, for Lord is just a title and in regards to God, Lord was used to not say His name.
(44) For behold, as the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped in exultation. (45) And blessed is she believing, because there will be a fulfillment to the things spoken to her from YAHWEH. (46) And Mariam said, My soul magnifies YAHWEH, (47) and my spirit exulted in Elohim My Savior.
Another important thing here to understand is that Mary does call Yahweh her savior. But how can this be if she is perfect and is her mother, according to Catholic dogma? Well apparently that is another flaw in the doctrine.
There is a separation between Yahweh, the Father, and Yeshua, the son. Lets look at this verse:
John 14:28 “You heard that I said to you, I am going away, and I am coming again to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I said, I am going to the Father; for My Father is greater than I.”
In context the verse says that Yeshua would be returning to Heaven and the Ruah Ha-Kodesh (Holy Spirit) would be sent by the Father. How can the Father be greater than the Son if according to Catholic doctrine, they are the same (co-equal)? The Bible does not teach that. And by saying that Mary is the mother of God, would mean that Mary is the mother of all three Individuals, but she is only the mother of Yeshua. There is no scriptures to support that Mary is the mother of all Three.
•Matt 1:23, Luke 1:35, Gal 4:4 all speak of Yeshua being born of Mary. Note, only Yeshua is born of Mary, not all three.
This Argument against Mary’s motherhood of God is faulty in a few ways. I’m not sure if my friend read my entire post carefully, because he fell into the traps of misconception that most who argue against the Catholic Church do.
The first is misunderstanding what Catholics believe. I thought I explained clearly, but I must not have been explicit enough. His claim that Catholics believe that Mary was not created and has always existed shows quite clearly that he is ignorant to Catholic teaching (despite being a former Catholic, as he claims). The church teaches that God created Mary, and she is NOT the mother of the entire Godhead (trinity). Rather, she is the mother of Jesus (or the hebrew equivalent “Yeshua,” as my friend prefers).
The second is ignoring what the Catholic Church claims, just for the sake of protesting the Church. As he pointed out, in the Old Testament, the term “lord” is used for Abraham (Genesis 18:12 and others) and the Lord God, but in the New Testament the term “Lord” refers to the Lord God, “the Lord of lords”. The term comes up many many times in the NT but John 20:28 is a great depiction of what is meant in the NT by “Lord.” To argue that Mary is not the mother of God, as I said in my original post, is equivalent to saying that Jesus is not God (if you want to argue his divinity see John 1:1, 5:18, 8:19, 8:58, 10:30, 12:45, 20:28, Acts 20:28, Col 2:9, and others). I briefly stated this in my original post, I don’t know why he glossed over that.
2. Point two is Perpetual Virginity,
Mar 6:1-3 And He went away from there and came to His own country, and His taught ones followed Him. (2) And Sabbath having come, He began to teach in the congregation. And many who heard Him were astonished, saying, “Where did He get all this? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such miracles are done through His hands? (3) “Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Miryam, and brother of Yaʽaqoḇ, and Yosĕph, and Yehuḏah, and Shimʽon? And are not His sisters here with us?” And they stumbled in Him.
According to this verse and many other verses, Mary had more children.
In addition to this, Mark 15:40 and John 19:25 actually support this verse instead of “contradict it”. Clearly, Mark 15:40 and John 19:25 are talking about the same event yet different time in the event. For Mark 15:40 is after Yeshua died and John is before Yeshua dies.
As a result, there is plenty of evidence that Mary had children, yet no evidence that she stayed a virgin her entire life. Many will claim that the word brothers used in the verse means “cousins”. Yet in the Greek, the word used is adelphos which literally means brothers. The participle of this word is delphus which means “womb”. So can two cousins be of the same womb?
Matt 27:56 when Mary the mother of James and Joses was identified as looking on from a distance with Mary Magdalene (Mary was a common name), it was right when Jesus died (see the context: Matt 27:45-55). Contrast this with John 19:26 when Jesus is dying (He dies in the verses directly after) and talks to his mother and the disciple who he loved who were at the very foot of the cross. Now, either Mary the mother of James and Joses is different from Mary the Mother of Jesus, or we have a contradiction in scripture.
And quite frankly, the greek is irrelevant because we know that aramaic was spoken at the time and was translated into greek to spread the Gospel outside Israel. In aramaic, as I stated in my original post, there is no word to reference extended family, and the term “brother(s)” was used.
3. Point number three, Her sinless nature, in Catholic doctrine about Mary is absolutely wrong. First of all, lets say that the Original Sin Doctrine was true, which is not. Mary, by default, had to be born by sin and this would have made her a sinner! Oh Catholic doctrines and their contradictions! Yet in order to work, the Original Sin Doctrine is overlooked just to support their tradition. Slap on Yeshua’s face! There goes Point number 4 of the doctrine as well.
Mark 7:9 “And He said to them, “Well do you set aside the command of Elohim, in order to guard your tradition.”
Original sin is another debate for another day. But to say that God saved her before her birth from sin (are not all things possible with God?) is not contradictory to the doctrine of original sin. My challenger states that it is, but states not how this is so. No Catholic doctrine teaches that mary did not need a savior. Rather, by a special intervention of God, she was preserved from the stain of original sin at her conception by virtue of the redemption of the Son she would bare. Why would God not honor His mother in this way?
Now lets examine this doctrine through the Scriptures.
Like the author of the blog I am replying to, Romans 3:23 does not apply to Mary since it is quoting the Old Testament. Check Psalms 14 and see how it is talking about evildoers. There is a similar case going on in both chapters but if you read Romans 3, you will understand that Romans 3 is actually talking about RELIGIOUS MEN. Oh the irony! People who profess to be good men by following Torah and say that they are not sinners, or in this case say that Mary has not sinned, are proven wrong by this chapter. The entire Bible is dedicated to those religious men that say they have not sinned but actually have.
I do not see how this argument counters what I said. Because whether Romans 3 is talking about religious men, or all men, or non religious men, does not matter! My point was not refuted and that was that there are still exceptions to this idea that all have sinned (Luke 1:6). And to claim that the Church teaches that. No where in this chapter does it say that Mary sinned or that she specifically is not an exception. And I’ve never read a bible verse that claims the bible is dedicated to “those religious men that say they have not sinned but actually have.”
In a similar way, people would say that Mary was blessed so that would make her sinless. However, that is not true. Being blessed doesn’t make you sinless. For example: Genesis 28:1 “And Yitsḥaq called Yaʽaqoḇ and blessed him, and commanded him, and said to him, “Do not take a wife from the daughters of Kenaʽan.” Is Ya’aqob (Jacob) sinless? No!
Yes Mary was blessed over all women, but wasn’t also Jael? (Judges 5:24) Is she also sinless? Mary is no goddess yet through this doctrine she seems to be one! Jeremiah surely talked about the “queen of heaven” and how it “provoke Me to anger.” (Jeremiah 7:18) Once again, leading to idolatry.
This section seems to argue that there is but one meaning to the word “blessed.” I would argue from scripture, it is evident that there are multiple meanings. I do not argue that “blessed” attributed to mary makes her sinless. Rather it is the whole first chapter of Luke. We can look at a few different things:
-Lk 1:28- Mary is “full of grace,” grace being the life of God. Can we say, if she sinned, that she was completely “full” of God’s life?
-Lk 1:39, 43, and 56- contrast these verses with 2 Samuel 6:2,9, 11, 14, and 16 (put this in the context of Revelation 11:19-12:2). Mary is likened to the Ark of the Covenant! The Ark was kept in the sacred area called the “holy of holies” in the Jewish temple. The ark was plated with “pure gold inside and out.” If Mary is to reflect the purity (inside and out) of this ark, then could she be sinful?
-Lk 1:46- Mary’s “soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord.” Could that be so with sin in her soul?
Also, Catholic teaching is not to worship her. None of us say she is a goddess. That is a protestant view on catholicism where they actually put words in our mouths and misrepresent our beliefs. For people to lie about what I believe about God, to slander me into polytheism and/or paganism is offensive. I ask anyone who is reading this, Catholic or protestant, to understand what you are saying and not to make ignorant judgements about the beliefs of others.
Point number 5
Well their no scripture truly supporting this point! As a result, there is no reason why to support a doctrine that doesn’t have scripture to support it and only contradicts scripture itself.
Romans 3:20-23 “Because by works of the Torah not one of all flesh will be justified before Him, for through the Torah is the full knowledge of sin. But now a righteousness of YAHWEH has been revealed apart from the Torah, being witnessed by the Torah and the Prophets, even the righteousness of YAHWEH through the faith of Yahshua Messiah toward everyone and upon all those believing; for there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of YAHWEH.”
Since she did sin, then she would have died, since death is the wages of sin. But if you believe she was sinless, then you totally ignore all scripture. To be without sin means she must have followed all Torah!
This, again, seems to ignore completely what I wrote in my original posting. A quote from my original post: “Hebrews 11:5 and 2 Kings 2:11, show that a person being assumed into heaven is NOT counter scriptural.” Furthermore, from what my challenger has shown, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of YAHWEH” and, “death is the wages of sin,” then, we have another biblical contradiction. Hebrews 11:5 and 2 kings 2:11 say that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven, avoiding death. Were they sinless then? Why is it such a far stretch to say the same gift was granted to the mother of the savior of the world? It most certainly is not “totally ignore[ing] all scripture.”
People would have to ignore the entire Bible to believe this doctrine. Some say that sola scriptura is not logical but I would say that their doctrines are not Biblical so they would have reasons why not to believe in the Scriptures. The Apostles always used and practiced Scripture, which for them was the Tanak (old testament). Even with the Tanak, this doctrine is a flaw.
As a result of this doctrine, many people were led to idolatry. Many call Mary the queen of heaven and make statues just for her. As a former devote Catholic and Catechism believer, I know the deception these people have. Yet, these verses sum up the doctrine:
Jeremiah 7:18 “The children are gathering wood, the fathers are lighting the fire, and the women are kneading their dough, to make cakes for the sovereigness (queen) of the heavens, and to pour out drink offerings to other mighty ones, to provoke Me.
Exodus 20:1-6 “And Elohim spoke all these words, saying, (2) I am YAHWEH your Elohim, who has brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. (3) You shall not have any other Elohim before My face. (4) You shall not make a graven image for yourself, or any likeness in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth; (5) you shall not bow to them, and you shall not serve them; for I am YAHWEH your Elohim, a jealous El, visiting the iniquity of fathers on sons, on the third and on the fourth generation, to those that hate Me; (6) and doing kindness to thousands, to those loving Me, and to those keeping My commandments.”
Mark 7:9 “And He said to them, “Well do you set aside the command of Elohim, in order to guard your tradition.”
I hope that if you have not accepted Yeshua as your Savior, you will do so!
Galatians 4:16 Have I become an enemy to you because I proclaimed to you the truth?
Again, it is so important to restate, that Catholic teaching forbids worship of Mary. We do not call her “goddess,” nor do we equate her with or place her above God.
Another important thing is this: Just because there were some in the Old Testament who DID worship a goddess, the “queen of heaven” does not mean that all who acknowledge the mother of our Lord as queen of heaven are worshiping her in the same way as described in Jeremiah 7:18. We do not commit idolatry by giving her the same honor that God gives her.
He claims to “know the deception these people [catholics] have.” But he has done nothing but prove that he is completely ignorant of Catholic teaching; which I think might be the reason he got converted away from the faith. Had he known the full truth of what he was really dealing with in the Catholic Church, he would never leave her and reject Jesus, and His Father, by rejecting those He sent. (Luke 10:16)
As always I am praying for my readers, and ask that you do the same for me.
God bless!
Luke
