I know the Bible doesn't contain everything. But it DOES contain all that is necessary for a knowledge of Christ and for faith and salvation. That is its purpose. It is not lacking in this area.
Here are two quotes. The first I'm sure you are aware of, from 2 Timothy. The second you might not be so familiar with. It is from Paul's first letter to Timothy.
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:14-17
I know you are aware of this passage, but take a good look at it. We know from chapter 1, verse 5 that Timothy was raised by his mother and grandmother, both women of faith. Were they scholars? No, women did not receive that kind of training. But the knew the Scriptures, and made sure little Timothy did, too. At that time, the Scriptures would have been only our "Old Testament." And yet Paul says clearly that even and only these are 'able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.' No Mary as co-redemtrix, no rites and rituals, none of the requirements imposed by the Catholic faith for salvation. Only knowledge of the Scriptures and belief in Christ. That's it. Scripture was enough for salvation and, more than that, for thoroughly equipping a man for EVERY good work.
So while Scripture may not tell us the color of Timothy's hair, or everything about Mary, it contains all needed for salvation and wisdom and living a life pleasing to God. The Roman Catholic church was not necessary for Timothy.
Please now take a look at something else Paul wrote to Timothy. It's in the first letter, and closes it with Paul's charge to Timothy. Starting with 6:11:
But you, man of God, flee from all this [the love of money and all it leads to], and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance, and gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this commmand without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time -- God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
I read nothing in Paul's letter to Timothy about honoring anyone but God. I read nothing about praying to Mary for intercession. I read nothing about necessary rites or even going to synagogue or church regularly!
What I read about is Timothy's profession of faith and Paul's command for him to pursue what we know as the fruits of the Spirit.
At no point in the above, or anywhere else in the Bible, do I read that it takes any kind of authority to tell common people what the whole thing means! Even when Paul spoke, the common people in Berea checked the Scriptures for themselves, as you have been told, and Luke commends them highly for it in Acts.
And so we also search the Scriptures to see if what Rome says is, indeed, true. And we don't find it to be true. That is what Sola Scriptura means. It means you check the Scriptures for the final word on doctrine. If something disagrees with God's holy Word, then that something is wrong. Period.
That is the point about Mary. And about Peter. What the Roman Catholic church claims about them is not Scriptural, and therefore it is wrong.
And while I don't have to read the Bible in paleo-Hebrew to know what it says, I do have access to both Hebrew and Greek interlinear texts, the Alexandrian LXX, and a very good friend, Dr. Bernard Northrup, who was a professor of both Greek and Hebrew for some time and assisted in checking translations of the Bible into various languages around the world in the past fifty years. With these resources I can state at least a few things with a pretty high degree of confidence in what I am saying if someone wants to challenge me on the Greek or Hebrew.
However the translators of the Bible weren't too shabby, either, and the basics at the least are extremely clear for anyone who wants to read it.
The fact, by the way, that Mary did have other children and was a good and godly wife to Joseph in the biblical sense is only denied by those who have to twist Scripture to get to that interpretation. Scripture itself is quite clear in Matthew 13 especially that Mary and Joseph had what we would consider today to be a large family.
When the Bible says ALL have sinned -- going down your post now -- it means all. Why you thought I meant otherwise is beyond me. All have sinned. The question is not sin, it is accountability before God. Nor is this my own idea. It's in the Bible.
First of all, the age at which God drew the line regarding those who would perish in the wilderness and those who would be allowed into the Promised Land was twenty. (That was also the age of the census for manhood and for military service. ) In other words, no matter how much any of those teenagers might have joined in with their parents in the rebellious activities and words, God did not hold them accountable.
Second, Jesus said the children are His. Period. No baptism necessary, no rites necessary, no statements from the kids necessary. They are His. Do they sin? Yes. Are they held accountable spiritually? No. They are His.
Thirdly, in Romans 7 Paul makes a clear point to state he was previously alive until sin came to life in his life and caused his death. Was he reincarnated? No....he is speaking of spiritual life and death, which is the topic of both chapters seven and eight. If he was spiritually alive before, that means in his childhood. It also means that nothing had to be done by his parents to get him to be spiritually alive. He was born spiritually alive, as we all are. You see, it is not our sins which send us to hell. At least not according to the Bible.
Everyone knows John 3:16, but many forget what follows immediately:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly what he has done has been done through God.
Understanding that, as James points out so clearly, belief is not simply an intellectual affair, but a life commitment, all it takes is faith to be saved. Not Mary. Not a church. Not the Pope. Not rites. Not baptism.
This is directly contrary to Roman Catholic teaching.
It's from the Bible. In fact, it's in red letters -- meaning these words are from Jesus Himself.
You stated the Bible is not the only rule of faith. For the Christian it is. For Paul it was. For the Bereans it was. For those who follow Christ it is.
You also presented the entirely false argument regarding 'couldn't God do something'. It's not a matter of what He could or could not do. It is a matter of what He told us He has done.
Do you not respect His choice and His Word?
Where was Peter during the crucifixion? Scared, either standing in the crowd far back or not there at all. On this you want a church to be built?
I never said I don't believe, or at least put some stock in, tradition. That was not the point. Mary and Joseph had a number of other children. Whether or not they waited until Jesus was almost a teen is actually not relevant to the idea that they were preoccupied with their other children, whatever ages they were, on the way back from the Temple! Jesus, being the eldest, was expected to be where they felt He was supposed to be. Their irritation with Him was evident that this had not been the case!
As far as decrying something as being a 'tradition of men', you are right. The minute it disagrees with the Bible it is only a false teaching, no matter how traditional it is.
In giving His mother to John, Jesus was entrusting her care to someone He trusted. Period. It says nothing about any other children Mary might have had. It only says Jesus entrusted His mother to the disciple whom He loved.
I know that the probable age for Jesus' crucifixion is 33, however we KNOW the year He was crucified, but there is some argument about when He was born, so I simply gave an age range which has 33 in the middle. It is not something that is terribly important to me. It is the fact of the crucifixion and the glorious resurrection which I treasure, not how many years and months old on this earth Jesus was when it happened.
In the meantime, 2000 years ago, 20-25 was considered quite young for a man, just not for a woman. Many men did not marry until their thirties or even forties. Those early adult years were time for military service, time to get established in a trade, etc. This is why tradition (so sorry about that) has it that Joseph was about 40 years old when he married Mary. This was not unusual for the time.
In Acts 1:14, you claim that the 'brothers' were cousins. Strange that the mention of them immediately follows the mention of Mary among the women.... almost as if they were really Jesus' half-brothers.....
When you brought up Mark 6:3, you sure cut that verse short! Here is all of it:
"Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
Did you think no one would notice? Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was His mother and, by implication in that verse you referenced, their mother, too! There is NO mention that these are OTHER than brothers and sisters as we know them.
Consider Simon and Andrew (Matt. 4:18 ) -- were they not children of the same parents -- brothers? Or are you going to call them cousins, too?
Are we degrading Mary? No. We are honoring her in her rightful place. She is indeed blessed.
Actually, a lot of us are. It is just that we are not called blessed by all generations, and she is. I am extremely blessed in my life and totally grateful to God for so much! But there is no reason all generations should call me blessed! They will never know me. But we know Mary. We know what God chose her for and that she was indeed blessed in that role. But she was not perfect or sinless. She was just like us who are believers and lovers of God.
The cross upon which Jesus hung was normal wood. The tomb in which His body was laid was a normal cave. The chalice at the last supper was a normal chalice or normal metal or leather or both. The donkey He rode into Jerusalem was a normal donkey. The clothes He wore were normal clothes. And the woman who bore Him was a normal woman. Blessed, yes. But also normal.
Some time ago -- about 150 years ago -- a book was started and finished some years later which researched how and why Mary was elevated the way the RC church has elevated her (for the Bible does not do that). I challenge you to read this research:
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm
Of course, the Catholic church will not approve of you reading this. I'll tell you that right now. But the research is faultless and the conclusions in line with the facts discovered and linguistics applied.
I'll tell you what the conclusion is, because I am so sure you will not have the courage to read even the first couple of chapters: the Roman Catholic Mary, portrayed historically as a blonde or at least light-skinned woman, is not the mother of Jesus at all, but a paganistic 'reincarnation' of Nimrod's wife, Semiramis. In paganism she takes the place of the Holy Spirit in their unholy trinity. If one looks at the attention paid to Mary (consider the Rosary, for instance) in the Roman Catholic church, it appears she has been given the function of the Holy Spirit and been elevated to queen of heaven, becoming effectively the third person in the Catholic trinity.
Not in name yet, but perhaps that is only a matter of time. She certainly is taking over the Holy Spirit's function in doctrine!
That, to any Christian, is heresy.
We prefer to give Mary her rightful place as an incredibly blessed lady, but a human, and sinning lady nevertheless.
You told Aineo that you know EXACTLY what you believe. That is not true, unless you are simply saying you believe exactly what the Roman Catholic church tells you to believe, for you admitted you had to go back to RC authority to find out something!
Depending on a vision to tell you that Mary is the 'new Eve' is directly contrary to Scripture. Scripture NEVER mentions a 'new Eve.' Thus, we have evidence that the vision, if such there was, was demonic. After all, the Roman Catholic church has NO WAY of discerning a demonic vision from any other. There is no infallible standard which they can look to for truth, as they reject the Bible as the final word and have to depend on men and their minds and experiences. This is a foundation of sand and has been crumbling from the start.
Those who claim it has ruled Europe, etc., seem to forget two things
1. Jesus said HIS Kingdom is NOT of this world
2. The horrors the Roman Catholic church has been responsible for through the ages, including the murder of hundreds of thousands of those who did not agree with them, stands as testimony to the fruit this church bears: death and horror.