"If" Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then...

[Radical]

Then why the consist belief by so many “late” Protestants and mean late because the early reformers believed in her perpetual virginity.

In some cases it is a result of their flavor of Sola Scriptura. That flavor requires only the elimination of tradition that is (expressly) contradicted by scripture.

The terms “brothers” and “until” have been debunked a million times over and yet still Protestants say she had more children?

well, to be precise, what has been debunked is that “brothers” must mean blood brothers and that “until” indicates that a change of action must have occured thereafter. What is left to determine is, what is the most likely meaning of “brothers” in the context of the various passages: is it “cousin”, “blood brother” or “step-brother/son of Joseph”? The question I ask is, “What is the most likely meaning?”…and in that regard I am free to consider “blood brother” as a possibility b/c I free to envision that the CC has erred. The approach that you (and the other Catholics here) use is hamstrung by the absolute conviction that the CC can’t err. As such, the question you ask is, “What is the most likely meaning within those options allowed by the CC?”…That is a good question for a committed apologist, but a very bad question for an historian.

I call it denial and pride.

I don’t care what you call it…I am interested in getting the best answer to my question…if the best answer aligns with the teachings of the CC, then I will have no trouble in adopting that answer. God worked a miracle with Christ’s conception and God could have worked a miracle with the delivery…celibacy is no great miracle…so there is no great barrier (for me) to believe in the PVM, but I won’t adopt it b/c the CC says so, b/c I don’t recognize the CC as a reliable source in all things.

And the failure to mention the miracle disproves Mary’s perpetual virginity?

I haven’t ever said that…but the silence goes to likelihood.

Why would the ECF’s and early chuch need to EXPLICITLY explain or defend Mary’s virginity?

I have mentioned how useful it would have been in confronting the Gnostics.

Why were doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation defined and ratified centuries later? Does it make them an “invention” or what?

I’ll go with “what”…it makes them the product of man’s reasoning (off of scripture)…they are as good as the “reasoning” utilized in their formation.

The other bogus argument and position from many Proetstants. Explicitness. Show me where scripture teaches explicity?

Again, you are failing to understand my position…it is about what likely happened and not merely about what is said to have happened by you and the CC

Show me where scripture explicitly defines the three distinct persons of the Trinity?

this is not germane to our issue

Again,where does scripture refer or state she conceived other children? NO WHERE! Forget the “brother” and “until” argument,it has been proven wrong over and over. Absence? No! Non-existent!

so, when there is a silence WRT something you deny, that silence establishes the thing never happened…and when there is a silence WRT something you support, that silence establishes nothing…is that the way it works with you?..with me, in both cases, the silence is considered in determining likelihood

The whole belief of Mary having other children arised out of pure anti-Catholicism,plain and simple. No different than purgatory and praying for the dead. So many Protestants will go to great extremes to fabricate or impose bogus positions in order to present the early church and fathers as being “Protestant” which is plainly disingenious and absurd!

I take it that attributing bad motives to Protestants makes you feel better about yourself?

 

[Radical]

It seems what you’re saying here is, pick and choose what you like, or what fits your theology, and drop the rest.

no, I am saying that you must approach the question with an openess to allow the evidence to take you where it will…if your approach is to merely pick and choose between those scenarios which do not contradict a position of the CC (and automatically dismiss any scenario that does), then you are not conducting an honest historical investigation. Instead, you are building a case to validate your predetermined position. I am also saying that you should eliminate assumptions such as: 1) If it was believed in 300 AD, then it must have been taught in 200 AD and if it was taught in 200AD it must have been known in 100 AD; 2) if it is believed in Alexandria in 250 AD, then it must have been believed in every other corner of the empire by 250AD.; and 3) history must align so as to validate the claims of the CC…eliminate those assumptions and then tell me what is the significance of Jerome’s (for example) adherence to the PVM WRT the question of whether the PVM was believed by the Christians of Carthage in 200 AD or by the Christians of Jerusalem in 40AD.

 

[guanophore]

And guan, how do evangelicals listen to most of what the reformers said, but not on Mary? Doesn’t that come off as hypocritical?

From an evangelical perspective it is not. If the HS is in every believer guiding them into “all truth” and the written word is the final authority on “Truth”, and every believer is charged with teh duty of “test everything, and hold fast to the Truth”, then every doctrine must be examinied in the light of one’s understanding of Scripture, and if it cannot be supported it is rejected.

Besides, the Reformers don’t claim to have the gift of infallibilty, so it is permissible to reject some, or all, of their doctrine and still be a good evangelical. I even had a Sola Scripturist push infalliblity so far out the door as to disclaim that the HS worked infallibly through the Church to produce the NT, and therefore, it was a “fallible” collection of “infallible” books. :whacky:

 

[guanophore]

The whole belief of Mary having other children arised out of pure anti-Catholicism,plain and simple. No different than purgatory and praying for the dead. So many Protestants will go to great extremes to fabricate or impose bogus positions in order to present the early church and fathers as being “Protestant” which is plainly disingenious and absurd!

If this were true, then we would not have references to this heresy in the early writings. I think it is an example of what happens when people separate themselves from the Sacred Tradition. when one reads Scripture (such as Helvidius did ) in separation from the Sacred Tradition, one will quickly come to conclusions that contradict what the Apostles believed and taught. This is what Helvedius did.

To this extent, his methods are consistent with modern day Protestants who believe it is not a problem to read scripture apart from the faith that produced it.

 

[guanophore]

What is left to determine is, what is the most likely meaning of “brothers” in the context of the various passages: is it “cousin”, “blood brother” or “step-brother/son of Joseph”? The question I ask is, “What is the most likely meaning?”…and in that regard I am free to consider “blood brother” as a possibility b/c I free to envision that the CC has erred.

Everyone is free to consider that Jesus was telling a lie when He told the Church He would guide them into all Truth.

Catholics also ask “what is the most reasonable meaning”. Instead of relying on our own limited experience, though, we are informed by the One Faith of those who penned the passages. Since they believed that Jesus was the only son of His mother, this knowledge helps us to narrow down the meaning of the text.

The approach that you (and the other Catholics here) use is hamstrung by the absolute conviction that the CC can’t err.

This is not a “hamstring” in the negative sense that you perceive, Radical. You see, God places boundaries around us to protect us. Accepting HIs boundaries is not crippling for us, but freeing.

Did you know that, in the olden days. (I am not sure if this is still done or not) if a shepherd had a prized lamb that kept running off and was in danger of getting eaten he would break the leg of the lamb, and carry it with him whereever he went. This got the lamb to attach and depend upon the shepherd. This is a popular illustration of Jesus. This form of immobility is for our protection,and to keep us close to the Truth.

As such, the question you ask is, “What is the most likely meaning within those options allowed by the CC?”…That is a good question for a committed apologist, but a very bad question for an historian.

The two cannot be separated, Radical, since the CC resides within human history. It is a fact that Jesus died and rose from the dead. It is a fact that He trained and commissioned His Apostles, and built His church upon them. It is a fact that He opened their minds to understand the Scirptures, and that they passed this understanding on to their successors.

It is a fact that there is NO historical evidence for Mary having other children, because there weren’t any.

I don’t care what you call it…I am interested in getting the best answer to my question…if the best answer aligns with the teachings of the CC, then I will have no trouble in adopting that answer. God worked a miracle with Christ’s conception and God could have worked a miracle with the delivery…celibacy is no great miracle…so there is no great barrier (for me) to believe in the PVM, but I won’t adopt it b/c the CC says so, b/c I don’t recognize the CC as a reliable source in all things.

I think this is the crux of the issue, really. On the surface it looks like it is about Mary, but underneath, it is really a matter of not Trusting that Jesus could, would, and did, do what He promised He would do. It reveals a position that Jesus is not really considered the Head of His One Body, the church,a nd that she does not really have as her Soul the Holy Spirit, for it is these divine elements of the Church that make it impossible for her to err.

I note that there is a common misperception about the nature of the Church that she is defined as “the body of believers here on earth”. This definition is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

I'll go with "what"...it makes them the product of man's reasoning (off of scripture)...they are as good as the "reasoning" utilized in their formation.

This is a good point. Either the One Faith was deposited once for all to the Church, or all of her doctrines are products of human reasoning.

Again, you are failing to understand my position....it is about what likely happened and not merely about what is said to have happened by you and the CC

What I notice is that your perception of what is likely seems to be more important to you than what the Apostles believed and taught. I suspect that is because of the serious ramifications if you were to accept the Apostolic faith.

this is not germane to our issue

But they are, Radical. You see, what we are discussing here is method. You have compared Catholic method to “hamstringing” (with a negative connotation). We are trying to point out to you that the same “method” used to develop the docrine about Mary, the hypostatic union, worship on Sunday and the NT canon is that used to develop the doctrine of Trinity. If you can accept all those other doctrines whose existence depends upon the same method, why is this different?

 

[guanophore]

no, I am saying that you must approach the question with an openess to allow the evidence to take you where it will.

I agree. I think the only difference is that you do not admit (allow into evidence) the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit, and we do.

Catholics know that the Source of Sacred Tradition and the Source of the Sacred Scriptures is one and the same. Therefore they cannot contradict one another. If there appears to be a contradiction,then the reader is not understanding one, the other, or both.

if your approach is to merely pick and choose between those scenarios which do not contradict a position of the CC (and automatically dismiss any scenario that does), then you are not conducting an honest historical investigation.

I think it seems this way to you because you automatically exclude the historicity of the CAthlic Church. If this were not the case, you would be able to see how we find our view reflected in Scripture, even if you do not agree with it.

Instead, you are building a case to validate your predetermined position.

For us, there is no need to do this.

We know that the NT reflects the Catholic faith, as it is a product of that faith. There is no need to 'validate" what has already been validated by God (divine revelation)

I am also saying that you should eliminate assumptions such as: 1) If it was believed in 300 AD, then it must have been taught in 200 AD and if it was taught in 200AD it must have been known in 100 AD;

I agree that this need not be done by “assumption”, but since Catholics admit evidence that you do not, for us it is more than an “assumption”. We know that the Church had One Faith, andwhen ideas/doctrine/theology was proposed that was contrary to it,the apologists and Fathers piled on the detractors. When we see there is no dispute (like whether or not infants should be baptized), and it is contained in the Apostolic Teachings that are passed down to us, we accept that it has been practiced this way. Also, we don’t believe that God would need to wait 1500 years to correct the Church He founded. If they were drifting into error, He would not leave them orphaned, but would come to them. We believe the powerful Christ that dictated the letters in Revelation has continued to be with the Church continuously.

1. if it is believed in Alexandria in 250 AD, then it must have been believed in every other corner of the empire by 250AD.

We have the testimony of the disciples that the One Faith was the same all over the world.

and 3) history must align so as to validate the claims of the CC…

History is often the product of people’s perceptions. As a human science, it is subject to bias. For example, the Roman authors accused the Christians of being “atheists” because they did not believe in a pantheon of Gods. They also wrote that “these Christians drown their children and eat their god”. We understand from these writings that they are referencing infant baptism and Eucharist, but I am sure it does not seem that way to them.

eliminate those assumptions and then tell me what is the significance of Jerome’s (for example) adherence to the PVM WRT the question of whether the PVM was believed by the Christians of Carthage in 200 AD or by the Christians of Jerusalem in 40AD.

Had you considered that perhaps the Apostles knew that Mary was an avowed virgin?

It seems that, since you are unable to accept that there is One Faith, you will continually be tossed back and forth by the various opinions available. You are unable to accept that Jesus revealed the Truth to His Church, and was able, ready, and willing to preserve it where He placed it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

no, I am saying that you must approach the question with an openess to allow the evidence to take you where it will…if your approach is to merely pick and choose between those scenarios which do not contradict a position of the CC (and automatically dismiss any scenario that does), then you are not conducting an honest historical investigation. Instead, you are building a case to validate your predetermined position. I am also saying that you should eliminate assumptions such as: 1) If it was believed in 300 AD, then it must have been taught in 200 AD and if it was taught in 200AD it must have been known in 100 AD; 2) if it is believed in Alexandria in 250 AD, then it must have been believed in every other corner of the empire by 250AD.; and 3) history must align so as to validate the claims of the CC…eliminate those assumptions and then tell me what is the significance of Jerome’s (for example) adherence to the PVM WRT the question of whether the PVM was believed by the Christians of Carthage in 200 AD or by the Christians of Jerusalem in 40AD.

You pick and choose to dispute, and then avoid questions asked of you. This is more than suspect, in my honest opinion. You cannot pick a little of Tertullian and Jerome and ignore the heresy one slipped into, and the oneness the other exhibited through the writings of others.

Care to show us where the belief you have in Mary was shared by others throughout the years?

We can show our belief was maintained throughout the Church’s history. You should be able to do the same.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

“[11] and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”
[12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away;
[13] and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
[14] All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
[15]** In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), **and said,…”(Acts 1:11-15)

Are we to conclude from these verses that the Eleven are also the sons of Mary?

Are we to conclude that the 120 “brethern” are also sons of Mary, not including the women who were there?..

So you must accept that Mary must have been in a state of perpetual labor her entire life to have had all of these “brothers”?!

Or the term commonly translated as “brothers” from Aramaic really was not exclusive to germane brothers but also included cousins as well.

Or do we need to revisit and demonstrate how the younger James and Joses/Joseph are not Mary’s children?

 

[Tomb54]

I believe that what you have quoted here is not recognized as a legitimate passage from Papias…it may be from Papias of Lombardy (century XI), You may be better served by looking at the fragments from Hippolytus…I think there is one that calls Mary ever-virgin (though I have never checked into its legitimacy)

Thanks for the info. I looked at several sites and books and some say it is his and a couple do not but say as you do that it is from Papias the Lexicographer 11th century. So enough to question who the ral author is.

I’ll look into it further to see what is said about it. I’ll check on the Hippolytus fragment too.

 

[guanophore]

“[11] and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”
[12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away;
[13] and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
[14] All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
[15]** In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), **and said,…”(Acts 1:11-15)

Are we to conclude from these verses that the Eleven are also the sons of Mary?

Are we to conclude that the 120 “brethern” are also sons of Mary, not including the women who were there?..

So you must accept that Mary must have been in a state of perpetual labor her entire life to have had all of these “brothers”?!

Or the term commonly translated as “brothers” from Aramaic really was not exclusive to germane brothers but also included cousins as well.

Or do we need to revisit and demonstrate how the younger James and Joses/Joseph are not Mary’s children?

Hey, I never thought of this, but what if Mary and Joseph both had a rare genetic predisposition to the creation of quintuplets or sextuplets? That way she would not have had to carry 120 pregnancies, but only about 20 of them in multiple births!

 

[PRmerger]

Hey, I never thought of this, but what if Mary and Joseph both had a rare genetic predisposition to the creation of quintuplets or sextuplets? That way she would not have had to carry 120 pregnancies, but only about 20 of them in multiple births!

 

[Radical]

Hey, I never thought of this, but what if Mary and Joseph both had a rare genetic predisposition to the creation of quintuplets or sextuplets? That way she would not have had to carry 120 pregnancies, but only about 20 of them in multiple births!

I can’t imagine that this would count as the most outlandish thing that a Catholic has claimed for Mary…so I guess that we will just have to wait and see if this “development” of yours catches on.

…oh BTW, if you want to improve your chances, I think that you need to “undevelop” this understanding as it relates to Joseph. Quintuplets/sextuplets are all about the eggs…the sperm, not so much.

 

[guanophore]

I can’t imagine that this would count as the most outlandish thing that a Catholic has claimed for Mary…so I guess that we will just have to wait and see if this “development” of yours catches on.

…oh BTW, if you want to improve your chances, I think that you need to “undevelop” this understanding as it relates to Joseph. Quintuplets/sextuplets are all about the eggs…the sperm, not so much.

Oh, yeah, I forgot! The brethren in the upper room were clearly not identical twins, so there would have to be divine intervention so that half a dozen sperm could get at half a dozen eggs, or that the eggs would divide so as to produce a majority of fraternals. Could you imagine what siblings of Jesus would have done to history, but even more so multiple sets of identical twins from Mary and Joseph!

It is good., Radical, that you can see the absurdity of the brethren here being uterine brothers of Jesus. I can understand why it would also be easy to be misled about the other references to siblings of his in Scripture. This is a good example of why it is so essential to read the scriptures from the point of view of those who wrote them. This is what Sacred Tradition is, and from what the Reformers separated themselves 500 years ago. The longer the separation persists, the more outlandish the departures from theOne Faith of the Apostles the speculations get.

Another example is one I have heard from evangelical preachers saying the God the Father turned His back on Jesus while He hung on the cross. This is their misunderstanding of Matt 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

 

[wmscott]

If this were true, then we would not have references to this heresy in the early writings. I think it is an example of what happens when people separate themselves from the Sacred Tradition. when one reads Scripture (such as Helvidius did ) in separation from the Sacred Tradition, one will quickly come to conclusions that contradict what the Apostles believed and taught. This is what Helvedius did.

To this extent, his methods are consistent with modern day Protestants who believe it is not a problem to read scripture apart from the faith that produced it.

Exactly, and this brings us to the analogy of the three legged stool. The seat is the Catholic Church and the three legs (foundations) are 1. Sacred Scripture, 2. Sacred Tradition, and 3. The Magisterium to the Church. Remove one leg and the stool fails; remove one of the three foundations and the Church fails. Quite simple, quite pure, but so true.

1Tim 3:15 - Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Then why the consist belief by so many “late” Protestants and mean late because the early reformers believed in her perpetual virginity.

In some cases it is a result of their flavor of Sola Scriptura. That flavor requires only the elimination of tradition that is (expressly) contradicted by scripture.

Yep! Flavors of SS much like different flavors of Protestanism,fundamentalism,etc.And to bad no [T]radition contradicts the early church or scripture,since it Scripture is
[T]radition penned.

well, to be precise, what has been debunked is that “brothers” must mean blood brothers and that “until” indicates that a change of action must have occured thereafter. What is left to determine is, what is the most likely meaning of “brothers” in the context of the various passages: is it “cousin”, “blood brother” or “step-brother/son of Joseph”? The question I ask is, “What is the most likely meaning?”…and in that regard I am free to consider “blood brother” as a possibility b/c I free to envision that the CC has erred. The approach that you (and the other Catholics here) use is hamstrung by the absolute conviction that the CC can’t err. As such, the question you ask is, “What is the most likely meaning within those options allowed by the CC?”…That is a good question for a committed apologist, but a very bad question for an historian.

What is the most likely meaning? Why the fuss over the meaning? The entire issue revolves around a Jewish girl and her culture. The meanining lies with the original meaning what those terms meant in those days,not the current applications of “what is the most likely” meaning.

Quote:
I call it denial and pride.

I don’t care what you call it…I am interested in getting the best answer to my question…if the best answer aligns with the teachings of the CC, then I will have no trouble in adopting that answer. God worked a miracle with Christ’s conception and God could have worked a miracle with the delivery…celibacy is no great miracle…so there is no great barrier (for me) to believe in the PVM, but I won’t adopt it b/c the CC says so, b/c I don’t recognize the CC as a reliable source in all things.

And frankly I do not care if you accept what I call it because a lot of it does stem from denial and pride. Afraid to admit one has been following a relatively novel belief of Mary conceiving more children. It is much more difficult to admit error and much easier to remain in denial.

Quote:
And the failure to mention the miracle disproves Mary’s perpetual virginity?

I haven’t ever said that…but the silence goes to likelihood.

Likelihood to what? I find it so odd not single word of bros and sisters after long Jesus death? What became of his sibilings? The brothers and sisters of the Son of God and history is completely silent about them?

Quote:
Why would the ECF’s and early chuch need to EXPLICITLY explain or defend Mary’s virginity?

I have mentioned how useful it would have been in confronting the Gnostics.

Oh, now early church history is applicable,especially like a topic of Mary’s virginity?

I’ll go with “what”…it makes them the product of man’s reasoning (off of scripture)…they are as good as the “reasoning” utilized in their formation.

Not only off scripture,but…TRADITION something many Protestants flat out reject.The church also used TRADITION to defend against and fight off heresies,not only scripture.

Again, you are failing to understand my position…it is about what likely happened and not merely about what is said to have happened by you and the CC

What “likely” happened? Since apparently you either reject or deny the Catholic position,then tell us all what “likely” happened?

this is not germane to our issue

Of course it is germane to the issue. Where does scripture explicitly state Mary had other children? So many non-Catholics slam Catholic beliefs and doctrines due to the claim it is not explicit in scripture. So we as Catholics will go off your standards:

Where does Scripture explicitly claim Mary had other children?

so, when there is a silence WRT something you deny, that silence establishes the thing never happened…and when there is a silence WRT something you support, that silence establishes nothing…is that the way it works with you?..with me, in both cases, the silence is considered in determining likelihood

Silence is your weapon? But funny how your own term can be used against you. Again,tell me where it says Mary without a doubt gave birth to multiple children? Hhmmm…smells like silence to me-eh? Or better yet,pure conjecture.

Quote:
The whole belief of Mary having other children arised out of pure anti-Catholicism,plain and simple. No different than purgatory and praying for the dead. So many Protestants will go to great extremes to fabricate or impose bogus positions in order to present the early church and fathers as being “Protestant” which is plainly disingenious and absurd!

I take it that attributing bad motives to Protestants makes you feel better about yourself?

Sorry,it has nothing to do about making me feel better. I have God to solve that personal problem,not Protestants. Sorry,God is not about my personal feelings or warm fuzzies,but about the Truth. God is not concerned with human opinions about this or that. Geeee…do you think “feelings” is one leading cause to massive divisions within Protestanism?

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

James, the brother of the Lord, was an Apostle. They are mentioned in the NT but they are not the focus of the NT. As far as the ECF, here is Hegesippus, the earliest Christian historian from around the year 130-150 AD.

I think that you forget that the language they spoke was Aramaic. And words like “brother” really mean “cousin” or other distant relations. Don’t believe me? Than perhaps you’ll believe Martin Luther, a die-hard believer of Mary’s perpetual virginity:

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . ."

These are all real documented quotes from his sermons. Though he was very misguided, and had some problems brought up from childhood, he never once considered this to be false. So to be a true Protestant, you too must believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[Radical]

Everyone is free to consider that Jesus was telling a lie when He told the Church He would guide them into all Truth.

ah yes…the treasured circle that goes like this:

1. because the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error,
2. the Catholic Church must be right when it claims
3. that the promise that the “Spirit would guide the disciples into all truth” means that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error; and
4. therefore, we know that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error…

Further, it would seem that by your reasoning God must have lied when he promised the children of Israel the promised land, b/c they have lost it a couple of times.

Catholics also ask “what is the most reasonable meaning”. Instead of relying on our own limited experience, though, we are informed by the One Faith of those who penned the passages. Since they believed that Jesus was the only son of His mother, this knowledge helps us to narrow down the meaning of the text.

I agree, the Catholics on this thread also ask “what is the most reasonable meaning” but only after they have narrowed down the possibilities to eliminate any meaning that would contradict Catholic teaching (it seems to me that they don’t even begin to consider how reasonable or superior that eliminated interpretation might be…it never makes it on to the table)

This is not a “hamstring” in the negative sense that you perceive, Radical. You see, God places boundaries around us to protect us. Accepting HIs boundaries is not crippling for us, but freeing.

Did you know that, in the olden days. (I am not sure if this is still done or not) if a shepherd had a prized lamb that kept running off and was in danger of getting eaten he would break the leg of the lamb, and carry it with him whereever he went. This got the lamb to attach and depend upon the shepherd. This is a popular illustration of Jesus. This form of immobility is for our protection,and to keep us close to the Truth.

to be hamstrung by Christ would be a good thing…to be hamstrung by the CC…well, you have your opinion and I have mine…but, as an aside, this is exactly why American bishops had to complain about who was teaching at Catholic universities…hamstringing isn’t well received in academic circles

The two cannot be separated, Radical, since the CC resides within human history.

and a not so glowing history at that…but somehow that doesn’t constitute a breach of any promise from Christ

It is a fact that Jesus died and rose from the dead. It is a fact that He trained and commissioned His Apostles, and built His church upon them. It is a fact that He opened their minds to understand the Scirptures, and that they passed this understanding on to their successors.

well, apart from your use of “successors” (which isn’t in scripture and which carries a lot of baggage), you have stated some facts that are recorded in scripture…if you could only stop there. This also highlights why the explanation for the 200 + year gap that the Catholics have provided on this thread is so very weak…(that explanation was that doctrine is only defined when it must be defended…and so, presumably everyone agreed that Mary was a perpetual virgin and so there was no need for any NT writer or 2nd century ECF to mention it.) Besides its usefulness in opposing Gnosticism that I have already pointed out, this is how that explanation plays out in reality (starting with Matthew’s description of Christ’s birth):

a) Matthew mentions the Magi coming from the east…I guess that needed to be defended, b/c people were denying that it ever happened…but people weren’t denying that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so Matthew didn’t mention the miraculous delivery that allowed Mary to remain a virgin through the birth process.

b) Matthew mentions that the Magi followed a star…I guess that needed to be defended, b/c people were denying that it ever happened…but people weren’t denying that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so Matthew didn’t mention the miraculous delivery

c) Matthew mentions that the Herod tried to use the Magi to kill Jesus…I guess that needed to be defended, b/c people were denying that it ever happened…but people weren’t denying that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so Matthew didn’t mention the miraculous delivery

…we could go on into the hundreds of examples in Matthew of things that were mentioned instead of the PVM…but let’s jump to Luke:

d) Luke mentions the angels appearing to the shepherds…I guess that needed to be defended, b/c people were denying that it ever happened…but people weren’t denying that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so Luke didn’t mention the miraculous delivery

e) Luke mentions that Jesus was born in a manger,…I guess that needed to be defended, b/c people were denying that it ever happened…but people weren’t denying that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so Luke didn’t mention the miraculous delivery

…one could go on and on WRT things that are mentioned in the NT (instead of the PVM)…they would total in the thousands, but I’ll leave it at a mere five. I am not sure, however, that you will appreciate exactly how terribly, terribly weak the explanation for the gap looks from over here.

 

[Radical]

It is a fact that there is NO historical evidence for Mary having other children, because there weren’t any.

well, it is a fact that the scriptures designate certain people as the brothers of Christ (in a fashion that doesn’t mean spiritual brothers)…and so you must explain away that evidence…and the question is whether you do an adequate job of it…and the answer is that you don’t for many learned scholars and so that is where your treasured circle comes in (yet again). The Aramaic language doesn’t have a word for “cousins” would be a lot more significant if any of the gospels were written in Aramaic…we assert that the gospel authors were inspired (but apparently, from that POV, none of the four was inspired enough to use the available Greek word for “cousins” when recording those verses…instead they each wrote “brothers” when they actually meant “cousins”…is that your position or do you hold to the “earlier sons of Joseph theory”?)

I think this is the crux of the issue, really. On the surface it looks like it is about Mary, but underneath, it is really a matter of not Trusting that Jesus could, would, and did, do what He promised He would do. It reveals a position that Jesus is not really considered the Head of His One Body, the church,a nd that she does not really have as her Soul the Holy Spirit, for it is these divine elements of the Church that make it impossible for her to err.

this of course is a misrepresentation of the true issue…slanted to ridicule the non-Catholic position. The issue is not one involving trust in Jesus…the issue concerns the proper understanding of Christ’s promise and whether the CC is the one true Church. For you, after you have employed the treasured circle described above, all you need to do is have the CC: a) declare what Christ said that he would do for the one true Church; and b) declare itself to be the one true Church…and then you are set. For the rest of us…they are merely self-serving declarations w/o substance…and those are the things that shouldn’t be trusted

I note that there is a common misperception about the nature of the Church that she is defined as “the body of believers here on earth”. This definition is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

actually, that definition is derived directly from Paul’s letters

What I notice is that your perception of what is likely seems to be more important to you than what the Apostles believed and taught.

no, b/c two of the considerations are: 1) beyond scripture, is there likely anything that the apostles believed and taught? and 2) what is the most likely meaning of the various apostolic teachings found in scripture?

I suspect that is because of the serious ramifications if you were to accept the Apostolic faith.

nope, b/c I already hold to the apostolic faith

But they are, Radical. You see, what we are discussing here is method. You have compared Catholic method to “hamstringing” (with a negative connotation). We are trying to point out to you that the same “method” used to develop the docrine about Mary, the hypostatic union, worship on Sunday and the NT canon is that used to develop the doctrine of Trinity. If you can accept all those other doctrines whose existence depends upon the same method, why is this different?

and I have shown you how the subject matters involved are very different and how the development is very different such that you are comparing apples to orangutans…I also asked (someone) how exactly a belief in the PVM would develop? It seems to me that it was a historical reality or that it wasn’t, but that was just another question of mine that has gone unanswered…In any event, I do not view any of those items (Sunday worship, NT canon, doctrine of Trinity etc.) as being above review…it is that the PVM doesn’t hold up well under review…nowhere nearly as well as the other items.

 

[guanophore]

ah yes…the treasured circle that goes like this:

1. because the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error,
2. the Catholic Church must be right when it claims
3. that the promise that the “Spirit would guide the disciples into all truth” means that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error; and
4. therefore, we know that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error…

Silly, is it not? You might consider abandoning that vicious and fruitless merry go round!

On the contrary, the Catholic Church believes that Jesus, the Head of the One Church, is infallible, and cannot teach error.

Jesus taught the Apostles that He would never leave them, or forsake them, that He would send the HS to guide them into all Truth.

Catholics believe Jesus. He kept His word.

Since God does not “build” what is fallible, when He build His 'Church upon the foundation of Apostles and prophets, and ensouled her with the HS, He built her so that she would be led “into all Truth”.

Catholics believe He is who He said He is, and did what He said He would do.

Further, it would seem that by your reasoning God must have lied when he promised the children of Israel the promised land, b/c they have lost it a couple of times.

It may seem this way to you, being contaminated by the heresies of Calvin as you may have been. But Catholics believe that God always keeps His promises,and that they are yet free to abandon His promises if they so choose.

I agree, the Catholics on this thread also ask “what is the most reasonable meaning” but only after they have narrowed down the possibilities to eliminate any meaning that would contradict Catholic teaching (it seems to me that they don’t even begin to consider how reasonable or superior that eliminated interpretation might be…it never makes it on to the table)

I think you are right. Catholics know the deceptive nature of human reasoning, and we know that we are much safer following the voice of the shepherd when using it. For Catholics, it is faith, seeking understanding. We accept Him as the infallible shepherd first,a nd that rules out some of the “roads” we could take.

to be hamstrung by Christ would be a good thing…to be hamstrung by the CC…well, you have your opinion and I have mine

Indeed. Catholics accept that Jesus identifies Himself completely with His One Body, the Church. We believe that He has kept His very great and precious promises (above)

…but, as an aside, this is exactly why American bishops had to complain about who was teaching at Catholic universities…hamstringing isn’t well received in academic circles

At least not in academic circlies that claim to be Catholic. If one claims to teach the Catholic faith, or espouse a Catholic identity, then they should do so. If not, they should not misrepresent what they are teaching as Catholic when it is not.

You would be hard put, to support the idea that Catholicism does not support “academic circles”, Radical, as it was Catholics who invented the university system, preserved Scholarship in the West when it was overrun by heathens through monsteries and seminaries, founded the scientific method, and invented the printing press. It was Catholics that began the education of children, and laid the foundations for modern American public School systems.

and a not so glowing history at that...but somehow that doesn't constitute a breach of any promise from Christ

Clearly making an assertion that the Catholic Church is at odds with education demonstrates that your apprehension of the history of your Christian faith is all but glowing.

Scholarship does not constitute a breach of any promise from Christ. Abandining the One Faith which He commited to the Apostles does.
.

well, apart from your use of “successors” (which isn’t in scripture and which carries a lot of baggage),

The Apostolic succession is clearly shown in scripture, Radical. Perhaps that is a topic for another thread. Would you like me to start one? Or we could revive one.

The word Trinity is not in scripture either, but you and I would both agree it is clearly shown there. The Apostolic Succession may “carry a lot of baggage” for you, but to us it is a great gift from God. Have you considered setting down your baggage, so that you can take hold of His Gift?

 

[guanophore]

you have stated some facts that are recorded in scripture…if you could only stop there. This also highlights why the explanation for the 200 + year gap that the Catholics have provided on this thread is so very weak…(that explanation was that doctrine is only defined when it must be defended…

Do you take issue with this explanation? If so, how do you account for the fact that the word Trinity does not appear earlier? Why did it itake so long to define the hypostatic union? Why was the canon of Scripture not closed until 382? All these developments occurred to combat heresies Radical.

presumably everyone agreed that Mary was a perpetual virgin and so there was no need for any NT writer or 2nd century ECF to mention it.)

You will never catch me espousing such a presumption , but if you do, please be swift to correct the error. I believe there were heresies present from the very beginning, and these can be clearly seen in the NT. It was not until the heresies became rampant and were disturbing the faithful that action had to be taken. This is why many of the divergent ideas were left alone and allowed to die out.(like baptism of the dead)

Besides its usefulness in opposing Gnosticism that I have already pointed out, this is how that explanation plays out in reality (starting with Matthew’s description of Christ’s birth):

a) Matthew mentions the Magi coming from the east…I guess that needed to be defended, b/c people were denying that it ever happened…but people weren’t denying that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so Matthew didn’t mention the miraculous delivery that allowed Mary to remain a virgin through the birth process.

b) Matthew mentions that the Magi followed a star…I guess that needed to be defended, b/c people were denying that it ever happened…but people weren’t denying that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so Matthew didn’t mention the miraculous delivery

c) Matthew mentions that the Herod tried to use the Magi to kill Jesus…I guess that needed to be defended, b/c people were denying that it ever happened…but people weren’t denying that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so Matthew didn’t mention the miraculous delivery

…we could go on into the hundreds of examples in Matthew of things that were mentioned instead of the PVM

Matthew is writing the “memoirs of the Apostles”. They were never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. However, I do agree with what you are saying. There was significant skepticism about all these points, but especially that He was born of a virgin. This is not only evident in the NT, but in the early writings as wll.

…but let’s jump to Luke:

d) Luke mentions the angels appearing to the shepherds…I guess that needed to be defended, b/c people were denying that it ever happened…but people weren’t denying that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so Luke didn’t mention the miraculous delivery

I think you are confusing the purpose of writing the Gospels with the purpose of some of the Apologetic works of the fathers.

The Gospels were written to those who had already received the faith:

Luke 1:1-4
1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

The Apologies were written to or about those who had rejected it.

…one could go on and on WRT things that are mentioned in the NT (instead of the PVM)…they would total in the thousands, but I’ll leave it at a mere five. I am not sure, however, that you will appreciate exactly how terribly, terribly weak the explanation for the gap looks from over here.

You are right, I cannot appreciate it. I fear I am hampered by my Catholic faith. I have also spent the last few years deep in the Christian history from the East. Since they derive from Churches founded by Apsotles, they also share this belief with “Romans”, indicating, along with the other 98% of shared doctrine, that it comes from the same Source.

I have studied Church history from the beginning of the Reformation unitl today, and the points of view of modern American Fundamentalism, and Evangelicalism, but I have spent more time in the documents of previous history. I have read enough to know that the abandonment of this doctrine of the faith is very recent (within the last 200 years) as most of the innovations have been.