The always controversial Mary

In Christian debate, it's often that a comment about Mary comes up.  Most Protestants believe we Catholics give her to much honor, and some even believe we "worship" her.  Generally they have a problem with one (or all) of four main doctrines on Our Lady:
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)
And/or
5. Her bodily assumption


1. As for the her divine maternity, some Protestants may ask, "how can mary, a creature, be the mother of God, the creator?"  The simple answer is that when the eternal son of God became a man, He assumed a human nature, which made it possible for Him to be born of a woman just as we are.  
      We have a few different verses to support this.
•Luke 1:43 (in the new testament, "Lord" refers to God)
•Matt 1:23
•Luke 1:35
•Gal 4:4


2. Their main quarrel with her Perpetual Virginity, has to do with a bible verse often taken out of context:

Mark 6:3- "Is [Jesus] not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon?  And are not his sisters here with us?"

This seems to make it pretty obvious that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, since she apparently had other sons and daughters.  But this verse, when used this way, is taken out of the context of the time, more specifically it is taken out of the context of the ancient Jewish customs and language.
It's important to note, however, that no word for cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, or aunt existed in ancient hebrew/aramaic (the native languages of first century and preceding Jews). That alone could make one doubt the validity of this interpretation of scripture. But it doesn’t totally show how wrong it is.

In addition to this, knowing from Mark 15:40 and John 19:25 show a distinction between Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and Mary the mother of Jesus (Knowing that from John 19:25 that His mother was at the foot of the cross, and Mark 15:40 that the mother of James and Joses looked on from afar).


If Mary had other sons, would Jesus spend his last minutes before his death grievously offending them?
Check out John 19:25-27.

If Mary had other sons, it would be a significant slap in the face for Jesus to entrust her care to someone outside the immediate family.  Jewish tradition at the time was such, that when the father died, care of the mother went to the first born son.  When he died, it carried on to the next son.  If you believe Mary had other sons, then you also believe the last thing Jesus did on the cross was seriously insulting his surviving brothers, by giving his mother off to the disciple whom He loved.

All this in mind, along with the language barrier, we can reasonably infer that Mark 6:3 is talking about the extended, not immediate, family of Jesus: His cousins, or uncles and aunts even, causing us no reason to believe that Mary lost her virginity. (Also, if we take the word ”brothers” literally, in the modern sense, it would appear from Acts 1:13-15 that mary was more likely in perpetual labor! Its obvious how unlikely this scenario is.)


The next three Catholic Doctrines on Mary are a little more challenging to “prove” from scripture. But in Catholic apologetics, it can often be sufficient enough to show that certain doctrines are not contrary to the bible, like some protestants may believe.

And 4. Her sinless nature cannot necessarily be “proved” in the most explicit sense(or if it can be proved using scripture, I haven’t seen such an argument), but we can show that it’s not counter-scriptural, and even provide a good reason to believe it. Along the way we can find good belief in her immaculate conception

First, we do know that Eve was created without sin. This is undisputed by all christians. It shows a principle essential to this argument: God can create a person without sin.

If He created Eve without sin, why not Mary? You could ask: “Who is greater? The woman who was the instrument through which sin came into the world? Or the woman who was the instrument through which SALVATION came into the world?” Is Mary not greater than Eve? Isn’t she “most blessed among women” (Luke 1:42). And ask the question, do all generations call Eve blessed, as “all generations will call [Mary] blessed” (Luke 1:48)? So, isn’t Mary, by the mere fact that she bore God in her womb greater than Eve?

Head over now to Genesis 3:14-15

Let’s logically move backward in that verse. Who strikes at the head of and conquers Satan? Obviously Jesus. Who’s offspring is He? Mary’s. If there is enmity (hostility between enemies) in between “the woman” and Satan, can we say that she sinned? Isn’t sinning doing the work of Satan? How can one be in enmity with him if they are doing his bidding? Eve definitely sinned, so she cannot be the woman referred to here. But we have no example of Mary sinning in scripture. Is it unreasonable to say, from scripture, that Mary did not sin, that there was enmity between her and Satan?

Often in arguing these doctrines, we encounter a verse in opposition like, Romans 3:9-12, 23

“none is righteous no not one... No one seeks for God... No one does good no not one... All have sinned.”

Well that seems to be pretty damning evidence that mary sinned...
Not so fast!

Paul here is quoting from the Old Testament, so in order to put it in its proper context, we must look at the OT passage. See Psalms 14:1-6

We see the quote... But then, we see a distinction between “these evildoers” and “my people”... So he is not referring to “all” in the sense of a totality of human kind, rather he is only talking about the “evildoers”. Also, if he were, what sin have infants/young children committed? They are encompassed in “all”. The same could be asked of the severely mentally handicapped, what sin have they committed? Did Jesus sin? Though he was God, he was also MAN, and ought to be included in “all men.” (also see Luke 1:6, I could point out many more examples from scripture, but for the sake of brevity I’ll leave it here)

We see exceptions to this “all”. So, is it possible that Mary too could be an exception? We see from the example of Eve’s creation and from Luke 1:37 that God having created Mary without sin IS possible. Is it unreasonable to say that God would not or that He could not save His mother before her birth? Notice, that Mary still needed a savior, but unlike the rest of humanity, hers was a preemptive salvation.


As for her bodily assumption, we hit an impasse. It is nowhere mentioned in scripture (to my knowledge). Although, is it counter scriptural to believe such a thing? And is there a bible verse that says “everything you are to believe is written in scripture.” I’ve already written about the flaws in sola scriptura. 

“1 Cor 15:22-23 says that all die and no one rises from the dead on till the second coming of Christ!” says your protestant friend. Oh, yeah?

Hebrews 11:5 and 2 Kings 2:11, show that a person being assumed into heaven is NOT counter scriptural. So what does a protestant care if I have a 2000 year old apostolic tradition that doesn’t contradict scripture?

If you would like to read my lesson on apostolic tradition, or the authority to teach that jesus gave the Catholic Church, here’s the links.

http://lambs-supper.blogspot.com/2011_01_21_archive.html

http://lambs-supper.blogspot.com/2011_02_09_archive.html

I will do a separate lesson on praying to Mary (and the other saints).
Have a great day! And God Bless!
Luke