Replies

“You want a list?”

Yes.

“Start w/post #33 above.”

It doesn’t say anything about tradition trumping scripture. Try again.

“Then let’s move to the tradition that Jesus was an only child.”

You think there were other Sons of God? Scripture says Mary was a virgin and implies she intended on staying that way; Scripture says Joseph was a righteous man. A righteous man would not touch what had been given to God. Scripture says Jesus was THE son of Mary. Scripture says those who modern Protestants think of as the brothers of Jesus were the sons of Alpheus/Cleopas and another Mary. Scriptures says Jesus gave Mary to John for her care while he died on the cross. If He has siblings that would be a violation of all law and custom.

“Then the tradition that Mary was sinless.”

Doesn’t trump scripture. Nothing in scripture says Mary was sinful, for instance. Verses about “all” being sinful are not statements about Mary but instead hyperbole. And Luke’s use of kecharitomene: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm

“Then the immaculate conception (of Mary).: Ditto: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm; http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm

“You really don’t wanna go there...”

Absolutely.

“there’s innumerable examples.”

So far you haven’t presented even one. When will you start?

“Yes: Catholic traditions very often supercede the written Word.”

No, but let’s try something different. Show me, using scripture alone, where it says either of the following:

1) Matthew wrote a gospel.
2) Matthew’s gospel is inspired.

"Scripture says Mary was a virgin and implies she intended on staying that way"

Actually states (clearly) just the opposite:

Matthew 1:24-25: "24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son."

Even the RSV/Cathloic Edition: 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son...

I know the RCC wants to spin this another way, but that's simply not the plain meaning of the text.

Next: the only child thing

Matthew 12:46: "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him."
> Certainly this doesn't mean his disciples, for they had direct access to him always; the context indicates that was a special visit. The original text uses the plain, ordinary word for a sibling - a brother.

But since I know you won't buy that... Galatians 1:19 is helpful. Paul is writing:
"18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."
Of course, since he already mentioned 'apostles', there's no need to refer to James as a brother/apostle... unless he meant something else: that he was really Jesus' half-brother James - who became the head of the first church and later wrote the epistle we call James. Clearly, Paul mentioned him as the brother of Jesus to distinguish him from any other James.

Heck Mark 6:3 NAMES his brothers and mentions sisters as well! This is the best context to prove the point: it's the words of local townspeople that KNEW the family and were clearly referring to them!

Regarding your further commentary about this:

"You think there were other Sons of God?" No, but there were other sons of Mary and Joseph... half-brothers, if you will. But I already showed that in scripture.

"Scripture says Joseph was a righteous man. A righteous man would not touch what had been given to God." Not relevant - you are imposing a meaning the isn't in the text. Mary was used for one purpose: to birth and raise the Son of God. Righteous, in that context, simply meant that he was intending to do the right thing and not expose Mary to public ridicule once he found out she was preggers.

"Scripture says Jesus was THE son of Mary." It also says that he was the son of Joseph. If your argument is based around insisting that "the" is a singular article, then that's a little silly, given that it's easily refuted. In either case, nothing is implied in any translation I searched tonight that there is an exclusivity intended by this particular 'the'. And yes, I have cited scriptures to support my interpretation.

"Scripture says those who modern Protestants think of as the brothers of Jesus were the sons of Alpheus/Cleopas and another Mary." Not in my Bible. James of Alpheus is referred to twice, Levi of Alphesus once. John 19:25 refers to Mary of Cleopas as the sister of Mary. I only found these references in Young's Literal Translation.

"Scriptures says Jesus gave Mary to John for her care while he died on the cross. If He has siblings that would be a violation of all law and custom." In the light of the previous evidence, I think I'd defer to our Lord on what might be right and proper to do with his mother.

Way too long already, but Matthew has evidentiary evidence to prove he was a gospel writer... not a 'tradition'. It's both internal and external. I googled multiple sites for this. Have at it. That's the most straightforward argument I can make in this forum.