G
guanophore
Guest
It is a very bad idea to construct doctrine from “the most likely” speculation.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Does scriptures tell us everything had been written down? John 20:30, 21:25
Why is it a modern day preacher, or layperson, knows more than the first Christians that practiced the faith?
Why does scriptures tell us the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and the place where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known, instead of scriptures?
G
guanophore
Guest
You are not being very consistent, Rightly. It cannot be “proved” that your Bible came from Christ or the Apostles, but you accept that without reservation. It cannot be "proved’ that there is a Trinity, either (this word is not in Scripture). It cannot be “proved” that Christians observe the Lord’s Day on Sunday, not Saturday (as the Scriptures clearly command). You cannot “prove” that Jesus constitutes a hypostatic union, etc, etc.
The number of CAtholic doctrines you accept on the basis of Sacred Tradition constitues a majority of your beliefs, which cannot be “proven”.
The Protoevangelium was never “condemned” by any Catholic council. It was not selected to be in the canon, as were not many other books which are commended for reading by the faithful but not inspired.
Indeed there are many possibilities about the identity of these near relatives of Jesus. All we know for sure is they did not come out of the womb of the mother of Jesus, because he was an only child.
R
Radical
Guest
It seems that you and Keohane are missing an obvious problem with this analysis. As you have noted the 12 are named early in the 3 Synoptic gospels. After that naming (in Matt 10, Mark 3 and Luke 6) we find the incident where Jesus’s mother and brothers arrive outside the house where Jesus is teaching (at Matt 12, Mark 3 and Luke 8). In Mark 3 we are told that Jesus’s family thought that he was out of his mind (v. 21). They went to take charge of him (v. 21). They arrive and are identified as his mother and brothers (v. 31). Jesus gives priority to his spiritual family over his earthly family (his brothers, sisters and mother. v. 33-34). In John 7:5 we are told that even Jesus’s brothers did not believe in him.
As such, if :
a) there were 2 Simons, 2 Jameses, and 2 Judases within the 12 disciples/apostles who followed Jesus; and
b) at the time that the 12 were following Jesus his brothers (and mother) went to take charge of him b/c they thought that he was mad (ie they did not believe in him); then
c) why would you include his unbelieving brothers among the believing 12 (or 11 if you prefer)?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
And still, no scriptures refers to any of them as ‘child of Mary’.
R
Radical
Guest
You are correct…but then scriptures tend to focus on the more important matter of Christ and how one related to him. While we are noting what scriptures do and don’t mention, it might be worthwhile to note these things:
a) perpetual virginity (as defined by the CC) involves:
i) virginity before the birth (the scriptures and the earliest church fathers are clear on this)
ii) virginity during the birth process (scripture mentions quite a bit about the events on the night of the birth, but the scriptures and the earliest church fathers fail to mention this miracle)
iii) virginity for the rest of Mary’s life, after the night of Christ’s birth (the scriptures and the earliest church fathers fail to mention this)
b) other children from Mary eliminate her alleged perpetual virginity (I don’t think anyone is prepared to claim multiple virgin births), whereas the absence of other children from Mary doesn’t establish (but is consistent with) her alleged perpetual virginity.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I believe you’re mistaken. If you’ll read back through this thread, there are several quotes from the early Church fathers supporting the perpetual virginity.
The Early Church Fathers on
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
I’ve asked Rightlydivide and I’ll ask you, please provide the writings of the earliest Christians to state Mary definitely had other children.
R
Radical
Guest
you are not reading my post carefully enough…I said earliest church fathers…meaning the ones we find in first two centuries AD (I wouldn’t classify the Protoevangelium of James an ECF)
Here is Tertullian’s position wrt the PV of Mary:
- To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not–when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? … Even if it had been necessary that He should thus be tried in the investigation of His birth, surely any other proof would have better answered the trial than that to be obtained from mentioning those relatives which it was quite possible for Him, in spite of His true nativity, not at that moment to have had. For tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them? …… If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that “whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him.” Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess.* Against Marcion IV .19
*But let Apelles, as well as Marcion, hear from me what was the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother and brethren. Our Lord’s brethren did not believe in him: this also is included in the Gospel as it was published before Marcion’s day. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys are often mentioned as being in his company. At this juncture their unbelief at last comes into the open. When Jesus was teaching the way of life, when he was preaching the Kingdom of God, when he was occupied in healing infirmities and sicknesses, though strangers were intent upon him these near relations were absent…‘Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’? When Christ was preaching God and giving proof of him, was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and was dispelling the darkness of long ages past, was it without justification that he used this expression to castigate the unbelief of those who stood without, or at least to expose their unseasonableness in calling him back from his work? * On the Flesh of Christ 7
**here Tertullian indicated a lack of evidence of Mary’s adherence to Jesus, thereby questioning her faithfulness to the Lord at the time of John 7:5…Why do venerators say God ensured the perpetual virginity of Mary? Isn’t a main reason to emphasize her absolute purity?..something entirely at odds with questioning her faithfulness to the Lord. Do you really think that Tertullian would call into question Mary’s faithfulness and still feel the need assert her virginity after Christ’s birth? **
She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son.* Now, as a wife, she was under the very law of opening the womb, ** wherein it was quite immaterial whether the birth of the male was by virtue of a husband’s co-operation or not;** it was the same sex that opened her womb**. Indeed, hers is the womb on account of which it is written of others also: Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. * On the Flesh of Christ 23
Here Tertullian declares his belief in Mary’s virginity at conception and indicates that the birth process opened her womb …no virginity in partu
Turning now to the law, which is properly ours— that is, to the Gospel— by what kind of examples are we met, until we come to definite dogmas? Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest;…For who was more worthily to perform the initiatory rite on the body of the Lord, than flesh similar in kind to that which conceived and gave birth to that (body)? And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. On Monagamy 8
Here Tertullian sounds as if he is putting forward a view similar to Helvidius’s (as described by Jerome)…namely that Mary held both of the titles of sanctity by being both the virgin and the wife (a wife being a non-virgin, as being under the very law of opening the womb).
G
guanophore
Guest
There is nothing in any of the text you posted that indicates John was a nephew of Mary.
This is incorrect, Rightly. The same 27 books of the NT canonized by the Catholic Church are held by all of these groups.
The Reformers rejected part of the Alexandrian Septuagint which was used by Jesus and the Apostles because the contents were too “Catholic”.
They were also going of incomplete scholarship, also a shortcoming they got from the Jewish scholars. All of them believed that the Deuterocanon did not exist in Hebrew. The find of Qumran proved them all wrong, as the originals were found in Hebrew.
G
guanophore
Guest
If you think about it, Rightly, you will realize that the speculation about the relatives resulted from the fact that all those personally acquainted with the Apostles and the “brethren” has passed away. They had the Teaching of the Apostles that Jesus was his mother’s only child, so they were trying to make sense of these NT references, just as we do today.
The nature and role of Mary was not a major focus of the Church (in a doctrinal sense) for centuries, until it became necessary to define it more as a result of rampant heresies. One of those heresies was the idea that she gave birth to other children.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
You’re misreading, or misinterpreting, these.
Now, let me repeat the request specifically and see can you understand it this time. Please provide the earliest Christian writings that specifically state Mary had other children. Nothing above does. It is my hope you will not ‘fish’ for anything you might think to be ‘anti-Catholic’ and look for that which you fully believe in yourself.
G
guanophore
Guest
You are correct. Heretical writings were destroyed. But if Jesus kept His promise to guide the Church into “all Truth”, then why did he let these writings be destroyed?
R
Radical
Guest
nope…they’re pretty clear…Tertullian declared that Mary’s womb was opened and that Mary was not shown to have adhered to Jesus…
I understand you perfectly…you want to limit the focus rather than address the words of an ECF that contradict your belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The main (only?) reason we discuss whether Mary had other kids is to determine the validity of the Catholic claim to her perpetual virginity…well we don’t have to trouble ourselves further…Tertullian’s words deny her perpetual virginity and strongly indicate that he believed that she gave birth to other kids…(my reading coincides with the scholars, BTW)
have you produced the earliest ECF that declared Mary’s virginity ante partum, in partu and post partum? Remember all three are taught by the CC…how much later than Tertullian is that ECF?
G
guanophore
Guest
Augustine
“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
There are writings about persons who embraced this idea. They were called “heretics”.
L
LOCO
Guest
- Originally Posted by LutheranDK View Post
I do not follow that logic at all? There is nothing at all in the message of the Angel to Joseph prohibiting him from having sex with Mary, as there were bans on people touching the ark. Typologies have a place, but they can also be taken too far. And this seems to me as a clear-cut case of that.*
The Ark of the Old Covenant contained the word of God in **stone **(Commandments etched in stone given to Moses)
The Ark of the New Covenant contained the Word of God in flesh - Jesus
The Ark of the Old Covenant contained Manna (Bread of earthly life)
The Ark of the New Covenant contained Jesus (Bread of Eternal life)
The Ark of the Old Covenant contained the Rod of Aaron the High Priest
The Ark of the New Covenant contained Jesus the The Eternal High Priest
Compare the following OT/NT Scriptures:
Exodus 2:34 and Luke 1:35
2Samuel6:9 and Luke 1:43
2Samuel6:17 and Luke 1:44
2Samuel6:11 and Luke 1:56
If Jesus is the New Covenant.
Who was the Ark of the New Covenant?
The following is a shorter prettier presentation of why Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.
youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA
Yours in Christ
P
PRmerger
Guest
Good for you!
At any rate, what you have determined is that some other authority discerned for you what was Scripture and what was not. Whoever it was–Catholic or Orthodox–it certainly wasn’t Scripture that told you.
Thus, you see, Rightly, that saying Scripture is your final authority is a self-defeating, contradictory and irrational statement.
You would not know what’s an inspired book, *unless someone else told you. *
Sometimes, in response to this, a Fundamentalist will respond with the goofy:
I know what’s inspired because it’s in the Bible.
I know what’s in the Bible because it’s inspired.
Think about how ludicrous that is!
I’ve also heard a Fundamentalist say:
I know Scripture because it is self-evident.
Seriously! That was said to me!
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Clear according to a misinterpretation.
Don’t change the subject now. I specifically asked you to produce the earliest Christian writings stating that Mary definitely had other children. You produced a copy and paste job you’ve used before on this very same topic, in a different thread. I am not limiting a focus by asking you to provide what was originally requested, which you have not done.
Do you believe that Mary did not adhere to Jesus?
It seems some would use anything to denounce Catholicism, even things they don’t believe themselves. That makes that a very important question. If you don’t believe what you’re using, then what point does it make?
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is an excellent definition of Sacred Tradition, Rightly!
Those early Christians “recognized” Scripture because they had received the same doctrines as the Apostles themselves through…
Sacred
Tradition.
R
Rocky
Guest
I interpret this as: Mary as wife of Joseph was “under the law” and so she performed the ritual purification at the Presentation as all new mothers would do. But this does not mean that she was a non-virgin when this happened— only that she also carried that title of wife, and therefore is a model for not just all virgins but for all wives too.
G
guanophore
Guest
How do you account for the fact that Scripture says all these “brethren” belong to parents other than Joseph and Mary?
- Status