help please

[coolduude]

But surely having sex inside of marriage is not sinful, so if she did, she still would not have sinned. Again I ask, how does being a virgin make one more holy?

The names of Jesus’ sisters are not given. But four men are mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. They are James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Who were they? The Gospel readings shed some light on their identity. In John 19:25 we read: “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.” In Matthew 27:55-56 we read: “There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” Here we see the identity of two of the four above mentioned, that is, James and Joseph. They are sons of a Mary who is the wife of Clopas. This Mary is different from our Blessed Mother. So James and Joseph, the so-called brothers of Jesus are not our Lord’s biological brothers. Also in Mark 16:40: “There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.” Clopas is Greek. Cleophas is Aramaic. Alphaeus in Aramaic can be rendered in Greek as Alphaeus or Clopas. So it seems the Clopas, Cleophas or Alphaeus mentioned in the biblical passages are the same person, the father of James and Joseph, and the husband of the Mary who stood at the foot of the cross with our Blessed Mother. According to Hegesippus, a second-century historian, this Cleophas was St. Joseph’s brother. If this is the case, then James and Joseph, the “brothers of Jesus,” are actually cousins of our Lord. This makes sense, because the Hebrew and Aramaic languages have no word for cousin. (The Hebrew term ahim can mean brother or cousin. The translators of the Septuagint translated it into adelphos, a Greek word meaning brothers, not anepsios, meaning cousins.) Cousins are called brothers. As for the other two names, Simon and Judas, they also may be children of Alphaeus by a previous marriage.
Most Fathers of the Church believe that Mary took a vow of virginity. St. Augustine reasons about Mary’s answer to the announcing angel: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” She would not have said this unless she had already vowed virginity to God. In his monumental Summa Theologiae St. Thomas Aquinas gives three reasons for Mary’s perpetual virginity: First, Jesus is the Only-Begotten of the Father, so it was becoming that he should be the only-begotten of his Mother. Second, Mary’s virginal womb is the shrine of the Holy Spirit, wherein he had formed the flesh of Christ; wherefore it was unbecoming that intercourse with man should desecrate it. Third, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God’s Mother: For she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son.
Other defenses of Mary’s perpetual virginity may be found in the writings of Origen, St. Ambrose, St. Peter Chrysologus and St. Ildefonsus of Toledo.
The Church has always professed the truth of Jesus’ virgin birth and the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Mother. In the Creed we assert that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. In the divine office of the feast of the Annunciation we officially pray, “Zion, let your wedding chamber be prepared to receive Christ your King. The Virgin conceived and gave birth to a son, yet she remained a virgin forever. She knelt in worship before her child.” And in chapter VIII of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium (On the Church), the Second Vatican Council clearly and amply reaffirmed Jesus’ virginal birth and Mary’s virginity. Mary’s perpetual virginity is an article of faith. We believe it wholeheartedly.

(es.catholic.net/sacerdotes/430/996/articulo.php?id=19021)

 

[onmyknees]

But surely having sex inside of marriage is not sinful, so if she did, she still would not have sinned. Again I ask, how does being a virgin make one more holy?

Like St. Paul wrote, “The The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests divided.”

 

[silentstar]

Every mathematician that uses our number system ever.

Here I have to support Bibleguy b/c he is correct.

I have a degree in physics with a math minor and I spent years taking advanced physics and mathematics courses. This does not make me smarter than other people but it means I have thought more than many other people about how science and mathematics “work.”

However, it takes no advanced background in these topics to know that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is not a matter of someone’s authority or someone’s belief.

the numbers 2 and 4 are called “natural numbers.” These numbers were developed to count real objects in the real world. for example, I have 4 stones, 4 pieces of paper, 4 cars, etc. These numbers start at 1, some people say 0, and do not end b/c there is no end to how high these numbers can go - the end point is infinity which means there is no end.

Two plus two equals four means that if I have two pieces of paper and I add two pieces of paper, I have four pieces of paper. That is not a matter of belief or authority.

Here is an example that shows why it is not a matter of belief. If you have two one-hundred dollar bills and I add two more one-hundred dollar bills, you have four one-hundred dollar bills. If I try to declare as a matter of authority that I know you have only three hundred dollars, when there are four one-hundred dollar bills in front of you, you will know you are being cheated and protest.

If on the other hand I assert as a matter of authority that two plus two equals five, that is as if I say that I have two one-hundred dollar bills and I add two more one-hundred dollar bills and that gives me five hundred dollars. Everyone who sees me count the bills will know that is not correct.

In my opinion, it is unfortunate but science and mathematics are not taught very well and one of the areas where the teaching really falls apart is in relating these principles and realities to real life as people experience it. I don’t mean to be condescending b/c this goes way, way beyond two plus two equals four. It is endemic to the entire field of science, the physical sciences, and mathematics. There are some very good teachers and some very good books and many people in the school system do a really good job as well but then there are other approaches that explain what people need to know but don’t link it to why they need to know it or why it makes sense.

My husband is very bright and he is a physicist who works for NASA and he hated mathematics although he took advanced courses b/c he found it too unrelated to the real world which is the problem a lot of people have. It’s not that they are not good at it but that they find it boring b/c they don’t see any real application and they don’t feel any need to persist in doing the work, given that reality.

This is especially true once people get into high school. I think the teaching in grade school is usually pretty good in many ways although it still might not tell people why they need to know this but in high school it is often, ‘take algebra and geometry or else’ and even if the teacher is very good and the material is presented very clearly, it turns people off b/c they don’t see the real-world application. and then b/c it’s being pushed down many students’ throats, they come to see science and mathematics as “do it b/c I said so.” It comes to seem like it is a matter of authority, like religious belief in some ways. I’ve seen a lot of people react like this.

• sermon over - sorry, this is a subject I feel strongly about.

as for which Church is correct, that is to some degree a matter of faith b/c for example, if it depends on what happens after death, there is no proof of that. that does not mean an afterlife does not exist. there is no proof of that either. I do not believe science and religion are opposed to each other. But I think science needs to respect its boundaries and not make firm pronouncements about religious views. I do not believe it is OK for scientists to say you have to be an atheist to be rational. There is no proof that God does not exist. OTOH, some things have been settled scientifically and are not a matter of faith. For example it used to by a myth that a god carried the Sun across the sky in a chariot. I think that was either a Greek or a Roman myth. that has been shown to be untrue so continuing to believe it when you know about astronomy would not work either.

take care.

 

[onmyknees]

The great majority say a sin, including the NAB which the Catholic Church (I’m pretty sure) officially uses, the NIV, the Douay-Rheims, which many people on here consider the best, as well as the KJV. Funny how such a big disagreement can occur over the presence of an article, the smallest word in our language.

If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.

usccb.org/nab/bible/1john/1john5.htm

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
One should never apply the term “infallable” to the written word. It would be more correct to say that the “Written Word of God” is inerrant, that is does not contain error.

No they are not.
Something can be written down with perfect precision and without error by you and yet be read and misunderstood by me.
Once the word is correctly written, tha tis contains no error, it will be forever inerrant.
However -
Those written words can be incorrectly understood (fallible).

See the difference?

Peace
James

 

[bibleguy180]

Like St. Paul wrote, “The The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests divided.”

“God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number;”” - Genesis 1:28

Last time I checked, God> St. Paul

 

[coolduude]

“God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number;”” - Genesis 1:28

Last time I checked, God> St. Paul

Please read my last two posts, bibleguy

 

[bibleguy180]

Please read my last two posts, bibleguy

St. Siricus was elected pope in 384, hardly a first hand account

 

[coolduude]

St. Siricus was elected pope in 384, hardly a first hand account

No, no I’m talking about the posts where I quote the website on Mary’s Virginity

 

[bibleguy180]

No, no I’m talking about the posts where I quote the website on Mary’s Virginity

I thought the Gospels were written in Greek?
Also, interpreting Ezekiel as if it means Mary is a stretch

 

[coolduude]

I thought the Gospels were written in Greek?
Also, interpreting Ezekiel as if it means Mary is a stretch

I wouldn’t say so. There is a thing called Biblical typology, in which the OT foreshadows the NT. Here’s a website that talks all about it: catholicbible101.com/themaryverses.htm

About the Gospel written in Greek:

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

(catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp)

I hope that helped! If it didn’t, then keep the questions coming

What did you think of the 3 defenses of Mary’s Virginity that St. Thomas Aquinas used? (they were in bold in my post)

 

[Milesius]

Every mathematician that uses our number system ever.

So we learn the truth about 2+2=4 by having faith in what the mathematicians who first taught our number system taught and accepting their authority just like we learn the truth about God by having faith in what the shepherds He has sent to teach His Truth’s teach and by accepting their authority given by him.

So why do you have faith in mathematicians in maths but not Gods priests in religion?

What you are doing is like a boy in a maths class who refuses to accept that his own sums could possibly be wrong because he believes his own mathematical methods of calculating are infallible and could not possibly be wrong. So the boy decides the teacher who has studied maths much longer than him and has been sent to teach maths by those with the authority to spread the knowledge of maths must be wrong when he tell the boy that he has made a mistake.

Please don;t waste any more time bickering with me about what was just supposed to be a metaphor and is not literal and go and read all the links I posted earlier about the scriptures and then if you still think you are right and every Catholic is wrong then so be it.

 

[bibleguy180]

So we learn the truth about 2+2=4 by having faith in what the mathematicians who first taught our number system taught and accepting their authority just like we learn the truth about God by having faith in what the shepherds He has sent to teach His Truth’s teach and by accepting their authority given by him.

So why do you have faith in mathematicians in maths but not Gods priests in religion?

What you are doing is like a boy in a maths class who refuses to accept that his own sums could possibly be wrong because he believes his own mathematical methods of calculating are infallible and could not possibly be wrong. So the boy decides the teacher who has studied maths much longer than him and has been sent to teach maths by those with the authority to spread the knowledge of maths must be wrong when he tell the boy that he has made a mistake.

Please don;t waste any more time bickering with me about what was just supposed to be a metaphor and is not literal and go and read all the links I posted earlier about the scriptures and then if you still think you are right and every Catholic is wrong then so be it.

1. ALL mathematicians agree that 2+2=4
2. Read silentstar’s post

 

[Milesius]

1. ALL mathematicians agree that 2+2=4
2. Read silentstar’s post

Have you read my links yet?

 

[bibleguy180]

I wouldn’t say so. There is a thing called Biblical typology, in which the OT foreshadows the NT. Here’s a website that talks all about it: catholicbible101.com/themaryverses.htm

About the Gospel written in Greek:

(catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp)

I hope that helped! If it didn’t, then keep the questions coming

What did you think of the 3 defenses of Mary’s Virginity that St. Thomas Aquinas used? (they were in bold in my post)

Not sure about the first one, but as for the second one intercourse certainly does not “desecrate” anything, it is a shame we view it as dirty today because God made it as a very holy thing meant to be treated as respect. As for the third, I don’t agree. I’m the oldest child in my family and the reason my parents had more kids is certainly not because they were ungrateful for me.

 

[bibleguy180]

Have you read my links yet?

yep

 

[Milesius]

yep

Thoughts?

 

[bibleguy180]

Thoughts?

I feel like Ive refuted most of the arguments in earlier posts.
Also, most of those arguments seem to rely very heavily on the assumption that Peter is the rock and that the church is the Catholic Church, not a church of believers.
EDIT: this is a pretty good article why Peter is NOT the rock:
carm.org/is-peter-the-rock

 

[Milesius]

I feel like Ive refuted most of the arguments in earlier posts.
Also, most of those arguments seem to rely very heavily on the assumption that Peter is the rock and that the church is the Catholic Church, not a church of believers.
EDIT: this is a pretty good article why Peter is NOT the rock:
carm.org/is-peter-the-rock

What seems new to you I read ten years ago, there is nothing new in that article it is the same old errors and you are putting your faith in man, you are just putting it in a man named Matt Slick who has not been sent by God rather than the Pope chosen by Christ to teach.

There was a lot more in those links that I posted then just Peter been the rock, what about the one about how the bible comes from the authority of the Catholic Bishops who preceded the creation of the Bible?

Here is the answer to the petra/petros issue by the way:

Jesus did not speak to Peter in Greek He spoke in Aramaic, in Aramaic words do not have gender. Jesus used the same Aramaic word both times, the word is Kepha. What Jesus said was “You are ‘Kepha’, and upon this ‘Kepha’, I will build My Church.”

The use of two words in the Greek one masculine and one feminine is due to the simple reason that they chose to use the word Petros because they did not want to use a word with a feminine gender to refer to a man, perfectly understandable and did not cause any confusion at that time, you will not find any Christian among the early Church fathers agreeing with Matt Slick.

 

[coolduude]

Not sure about the first one, but as for the second one intercourse certainly does not “desecrate” anything, it is a shame we view it as dirty today because God made it as a very holy thing meant to be treated as respect. As for the third, I don’t agree. I’m the oldest child in my family and the reason my parents had more kids is certainly not because they were ungrateful for me.

My friend, you are missing the Truth in this.

Intercourse does not desecrate anything, you are right (except for sex outside of marriage, but that’s obvious). What St. Thomas was saying is that for a man to have intercourse with Mary would be desecrating to her womb because it was in that womb, Mary’s very womb, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost Himself. God quite literally acted in Mary’s womb in a way that He has not done since; to later have intercourse in that sacred womb would clearly desecrate it. Make sense?

Secondly, there is a big, big difference between you and Jesus. Jesus is God, you are not. What St. Thomas is saying is that Mary would seem ungrateful if she wanted another son (or daughter) after Jesus. After all, Jesus is God, and Mary should be perfectly content, even overly happy, with having given birth to Him (it’s not every day that someone gives birth to God, ya know ). To want another son, an imperfect, sinful son, after conceiving and giving birth to Jesus would be ungrateful: “Oh, I just gave birth to God in human form BUT I want another son/daughter. He just wasn’t good enough for me”. Get it?