God wrote the Bible not the Catholic Church

[MGEISING]

If you have trouble with the idea of prpetual virginity Arcadia, then you must also have trouble with Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead or feeding 5000 with a few loaves and fishes or the curing of the blind man or the curing of the leper. God can do anything Arcadia, even cause a young jewish girl to remain a virgin after the birth of our Lord or even open the eyes of a protestant.

Arcadia,

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is grounded in Old Testament typology.

Look at the similarities between Mary (the dwelling place for God in the New Testament) and the Ark of the Covenant (the dwelling place for God in the Old Testament). No one could touch the Ark in the Old Testament and similarly Mary remained “untouched” (a virgin). This teaching can be found in the writings of the early Church Fathers.

You should read this article which explains these similarities from a Biblical perspective:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5.asp

Remember, the Marian doctrines are important because of what they reveal about Christ. He is God. If He weren’t God, we wouldn’t be comparing Mary to the Ark of the Covenant.

I was just going to write something on these lines … but … the truth of the matter — people like Arcadia - they are only here to argue what we, Catholics, believe. They have no desire to learn the truth of the Gospel … it is sad … because they feel they have all the answers … and are not willing to absorb all that they can … I feel sorry for them. Because they build their eternal salvation on sand … and we build our eternal salvation on the word of God … written and non-written … We need to keep them in our prayers … and be vigilent for their souls … because they believe a truth … that they will surely regret … as the bible says … the road to hell is wide … pray for them!

 

[arcadia]

The records of The Council of Trent are online. The writings of the Saints of the Counter-Reformation make frequent reference to the burning of Europe by the Lutherans. St. Teresa’s The Way of Perfection was actually a response to the Lutheran attack on the town of Avila.

There are also several histories of Luther - just do a Google search. There was a documentary on Discovery Civilization not too long ago that really highlighted his rebelliousness against all authority. The thesis of the documentary was that he was the world’s first modern individualist.

I started to read both of these documents. (Trent and Teresa) They are both very large. Where in them is the information that you stated about Luther? Can you be more specific?

arcadia

 

[MGEISING]

I started to read both of these documents. (Trent and Teresa) They are both very large. Where in them is the information that you stated about Luther? Can you be more specific?

arcadia

Everyone knows that Luther believe in the “virgin” birth … he had a special devotion to our Lady …

 

[arcadia]

I was just going to write something on these lines … but … the truth of the matter — people like Arcadia - they are only here to argue what we, Catholics, believe. They have no desire to learn the truth of the Gospel … it is sad … because they feel they have all the answers … and are not willing to absorb all that they can … I feel sorry for them. Because they build their eternal salvation on sand … and we build our eternal salvation on the word of God … written and non-written … We need to keep them in our prayers … and be vigilent for their souls … because they believe a truth … that they will surely regret … as the bible says … the road to hell is wide … pray for them!

Not true Janet! Sixtus a catholic started this. He asked a question some thing like this. "What of the RCC is not grounded on scripture?"I only answered it as honestly as I could. I could have said something about bowing down to idols. Instead I answered as best I could about Mary. I do not see this in scripture period. What do expect me to do not answer Sixtus’s challenge?

arcadia

 

[arcadia]

Everyone knows that Luther believe in the “virgin” birth … he had a special devotion to our Lady …

I said he was very Catholic. This is not at all new information, if everyone knows that Luther he believed in the virgin birth etc. why are you sharing it with me?

arcadia

 

[Janet_S]

Not true Janet! Sixtus a catholic started this. He asked a question some thing like this. "What of the RCC is not grounded on scripture?"I only answered it as honestly as I could. I could have said something about bowing down to idols. Instead I answered as best I could about Mary. I do not see this in scripture period. What do expect me to do not answer Sixtus’s challenge?

arcadia

Please do answer Sixtus’ challenge. But then expect to be challenged yourself.

I know this has drifted from the original topic, but you should still read that article by Steve Ray about Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. This article is based on the Bible, so you will probably find it interesting. It may give you some insight on the Biblical basis of the Marian doctrines.

Let’s face it, the early Church believed Mary was a perpetual Virgin. St Jerome believed this, and he was much more knowledgable of the Bible that any Protestant is today. He was a Greek, Latin, and Hebrew scholar, and he translated the NT from Greek to Latin. What insight does 21st century Protestantism have today that Jerome lacked in the 4th century? Does it ever bother you that your church has drifted so far from historical Christianity or are you aware that it has?

This is what Jerome said:“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this in order to condemn marriage: for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage. . . . You say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary 19 {al. 21} [A.D. 383]).

 

[jmcrae]

I started to read both of these documents. (Trent and Teresa) They are both very large. Where in them is the information that you stated about Luther? Can you be more specific?

arcadia

Unfortunately, they did not devote specific chapters to Luther. Instead, they simply make reference to his activities while talking about other things, throughout the whole document. For example, as you are going through the Council of Trent, you will come across notations such as “Delayed - waiting for Martin Luther to arrive.” Stuff like that. Or in St. Teresa - “I hear that the Lutherans have burned down another city. Let poverty be our weapon; let our treasures be in Heaven - we must own nothing that they should wish to steal. Build nothing that they should wish to burn down.” Etc.

They actually don’t take very long to read - if you can read the Bible, then you will have no trouble reading these.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

It does leave me to make the inference. And that is what I am inferring. Also the scriputures about the siblings of Jesus back up this inference.

arcadia

PS I respect Mary.

Just think about this from 1 Corinthians 7:27ff. Mary was called as a virgin, and a virgin she remained. Mary and Joseph dedicated their whole lives and being to Jesus.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

John 5:39 is frequently misunderstood. It is not an imperative but is an indicative. “You search the scriptures,” He’s making a statement; He is not urging them to do something. He tells them that they search the scriptures thinking in them they will find eternal life, but they don’t understand that the scriptures testify of Jesus. They knew the scriptures but failed to see the Messiah to whom the scriptures pointed. Don’t become so involved in religion that you miss Christ, I think was the point.
And it doesn’t contradict Sola Scriptura if interpreted correctly.
Please don’t be so sarcastic, as it serves no constructive purpose.

No, I haven’t misunderstood anything. Those who practice Sola Scriptura believe they gain eternal life from the Scriptures, just like the Pharisees did.

I heard a Jewish convert put it this way. Think of Jesus as a candy bar and Scriptures as the wrapper. The Jews studied the wrapper diligently. Then Jesus came on the scene, and said “I am the candy”. The Jews said “I don’t know, I need to study the wrapper some more”. Jesus replies, “You don’t understand, I am the candy, I am what the wrapper is all about. I am the goodness and sweetness.” And the Jews reply “Does the wrapper say that?”.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

It does leave me to make the inference. And that is what I am inferring. Also the scriputures about the siblings of Jesus back up this inference.

Think about the modern meaning of until that you are ascribing to this verse. In the modern usage, it implies that the action is perform at the moment of mention. For instance:

Jerry was single until his wedding day. - at the moment of mention, his wedding day, he immediately became married.

Ellen fasted until noon. - at the moment of mention, noon, she immediately ate.

The usage does not imply that sometime in the future, not immediately but definitely in the future it must occur. For instance:

Hank couldn’t see until he put on his glasses. - thie doesn’t imply that he put on his glasses and then a week later could see. No, at the moment of mention, putting on the glasses, he could immediately see.

Apply this usage, which you advocate, to the verse “but knew her not until she had borne a son” and it gets very strange. Are we to believe that they had relations that night right after Jesus was born - which is the moment of mention?

No, no, no!!! This usage is the older meaning, used almost exclusively (I say almost because I have not encountered anywhere that this is not the case, but I have not exhaustively searched) in Scriptures. This usage describes a condition up to a point in time, but makes no indication of the condition afterwards. For instance, in the Old Testament we see alot of:

And such and such a marker stands until this day. - we cannot take it to mean that that very day the marker came down. But, it is very likely that over the course of thousands of years that the marker could have succumbed to weather or hostile forces.

PS I respect Mary.

From what I have heard you reply, I would have to surmise not.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Where do you get this information?arcadia

May we assume that your new found interest in references indicates:

(a) that you will read and respond directly to those references that we give you and

(b) that you will in kind post references backing up your points of view?

Yes or no answers please. Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

arcadia:

It does leave me to make the inference. And that is what I am inferring.

You are inferring with a lack of knowledge of what the terminology meant when it was written. In other words you are interpreting from a 21Century Western perspective. Therefore you are inferring incorrectly.

arcadia:

Also the scriputures about the siblings of Jesus back up this inference.

I responded to this. I see that, rather than respond to the information which I posted, you are choosing to ignore my post and simply tautologize your point of view. Without evidence.

Please post evidence supporting your 21Century Western interpretation of the terminology “knew” and “brother.”

Here are some expert opinions on the ossuary (now known to be a fraud) with the inscription ‘James brother of Jesus’:

Bad Aramaic Made Easy

In English when we say “brother” we usually mean full brother–a male sibling sharing both biological parents. But the term has a broader range of meanings. It can include half-brother (male sibling sharing one biological parent), step-brother (male sibling sharing one parent by marriage), and adoptive brother (male sibling adopted into the family). It can be given figurative meanings, such as “comrade,” as when military men are described as “a band of brothers.”

So even a 21 Century Western interpretation would have to allow for ‘brother’ to mean not necessarily a male sibling sharing both biological parents!

Why then, arcadia have you arbitrarily decided that this is the only possible meaning which could be attributed to the references to the term ‘brother’ to which you have pointed?

And why then, arcadia, have you arbitrarily decided that your 21 Century Western interpretation is justified in examining a 1st Century document written in Koine Greek from Aramaic-specific concepts? And why have you done so without even attempting to address same and argue against same?

Which applies to the brethren of Christ in Scripture?

It is unlikely that the term “brother” is being used figuratively or mystically because all Christians are Christ’s brothers in that sense, making it pointless to single out certain individuals for this description. Full brother is impossible, as Protestants also acknowledge, since Jesus was not the biological child of Joseph. Half-brother is ruled out by the fact that Mary remained a virgin. It is possible they were adoptive brothers, but there does not seem to be any evidence for this in the biblical or patristic record.

More plausibly, they were step-brothers: children of Joseph who were Jesus’ brothers by marriage. There is some evidence for this in the writings of early Christians. The earliest discussion of the matter that we have–in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James (c. A.D. 120)–states that Joseph was a widower who already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a consecrated virgin…

The step-brother hypothesis was the most common until St. Jerome (the turn of the fifth century), who popularized the idea that the brethren were cousins… [Even though the Gospels were in Greek] probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic-speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic…

This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for “brother” (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.

In fact, there was no word for “cousin” in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana (“kinsman”), qariwa (“close relation”), or nasha (“relative”). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

arcadia, here is some more info on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Please respond to it:
The Bible Defends the Catholic Church! The “Brothers” of Jesus/Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

John 19:26-27: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, “Woman, behold thy son!” Then saith he to the disciple, “Behold thy mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

If Jesus had brothers and sisters, there would be no need to put His mother under the care of John. In fact, it would probably be an insult to His siblings. On the other hand, if we assume Jesus had no siblings, the way He provided for the care of His mother makes perfect sense.

*Luke 1:35: *

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee… The language used here to describe how Jesus would be conceived (“the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee”) indicated that there was a union of marriage between Mary and the Holy Spirit. Since that’s the case, it would be adulterous for Joseph to have sexual intercourse with Mary.

Read further down the explanation of how the word ‘brother’ is used in the bible.

It is claimed that the following verse says that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus’ birth:

*Matthew 1:25: *

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
…the word “till” in this verse does not imply that Joseph “knew” Mary after the birth of Jesus (that is, that they eventually had sexual intercourse). Here’s a Biblical example to demonstrate this:

*1 Timothy 6:14: *

“I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Does this imply that we are allowed to sin after Jesus appears? Of course not.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

arcadia, here is a very thorough article describing the exact relationship among Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. Please respond to this information.

The Brethren of the Lord

Rather than repeat what I have already posted, here are some new aspects of the question:

Mary’s annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matthew 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her?

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these “brethren” are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not.

This last argument disposes also of the theory that the “brethren” of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter’s cousin.

The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: “He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son”…

I have already dealt with this from the point of view of ‘til’ not necessarily meaning a change in conditions between before and after.

And I have already dealt with this from the point of view of ‘knew’ meaning a recognition of the divinity of Jesus (at the time of His birth) and therefore a recognition of the identify of Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

…and from Luke 2:7: “And she brought forth her firstborn son”. Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children.

“Firstborn” (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. “Opening the womb” is there given as the equivalent of “firstborn” (prototokos). An only child was thus no less “firstborn” than the first of many.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

arcadia, the following links gives comprehensive lists to references concerning the question you have raised concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. Please respond to this information.

Scripture:

The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God
Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant
Mary is Ever Virgin
Jesus’ “Brothers”= Cousins or Kinsmen

Tradition/ChurchFathers:

Mary is the Mother of God
Mary’s Immaculate Conception
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.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

arcadia, another comprehensive list of references and explanations thereof. Please respond. Notably on

Matthew 1:25: “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son…”

From fisheaters Mary:

Genesis 8:7: "the raven “did not return *until *the waters were dried up” (the raven never returned even after the waters were dried up);

Deuteronomy 34:6: “and no one knows his [Moses’] grave *until *this day.” (Moses’ grave was never found)

Luke 1:80: “[St. John the Baptist] was in the deserts *until *the day of his manifestation to Israel.” (St. John stayed in the desert afterwards, too)

1 Corinthians 15:25: “For He must reign *until *He has put all enemies under His feet” (Christ will reign forever and ever!)

1 Timothy 4:13: “*until *I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine” (Trust me, St. Paul gave a lot of attention to doctrine after he came!)

Revelation 2:25-26: “But hold fast what you have *until *I come. And he who overcomes and keeps My works *until *the end, to him I will give power” (we should hold fast and obey even after Jesus returns)

And there are more examples. See what Origen (A.D. 185-232) had to say about the use of the word “until” in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. In this work, he refutes those who think “that the promise of the Saviour prescribes a limit of time to their not tasting of death, namely, that they will not taste of death “until” they see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom.” Read also what St. Jerome (A.D. 340-430) wrote on the same topic.

Now, arcadia, there is much much more available to refute your 21 Century Western point of view that Mary was not a virgin and in fact had children after giving birth to Jesus. But this should keep you busy for quite a while.

Please note that the writing for which I have provided links is an example of research providing a point of view (the Church’s method) as opposed to a point of view searching vainly for a proof-text to support it (your method).

Research rests on community, reference, communication, study, prayer, and the test of time – among other disciplines.

Proof-texting rests on individual opinion. Nothing else.

 

[arcadia]

arcadia, the following links gives comprehensive lists to references concerning the question you have raised concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. Please respond to this information.

Scripture:

The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God
Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant
Mary is Ever Virgin
Jesus’ “Brothers”= Cousins or Kinsmen

Tradition/ChurchFathers:

Mary is the Mother of God
Mary’s Immaculate Conception
Mary is Ever-virgin

You guys have given me a lot to read. I will not promise to read it all or comment on it.

arcadia

 

[Ani_Ibi]

You guys have given me a lot to read. I will not promise to read it all or comment on it.arcadia

Noted and bookmarked. Thank you for your candor.

 

[Janet_S]

You guys have given me a lot to read. I will not promise to read it all or comment on it.

arcadia

I have been on threads with Arcadia before. Usually he does read what you ask him to read. (There may be too much presented to him now, though.) But for the most part he listens to the people he is debating with. I admire him for that.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I have been on threads with Arcadia before. Usually he does read what you ask him to read. (There may be too much presented to him now, though.) But for the most part he listens to the people he is debating with. I admire him for that.

Thanks for this, Janet.