There is no doubt that they EXISTED and that some or all were books referred to by the Jews and/or early Christians, but they were not considered canonized by the Jews or early Christians because they were not written by prophets or apostles and didn’t meet other requirements for canonization.
To me it means that it is evidence she was a virgin but I don’t see any proof that she planned to remain one. Scripturally she would be expected to have marital relations after marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:3)Here’s a great example of biblical evidence: see Luke 1:34.
The archangel Gabriel tells Mary that she’s going to conceive and bear a child.
Now, remember, she’s bethrothed to a man.
Yes, she is bethrothed which is like marriage but with no sexual relations yet (I previously called it being “engaged” and got my head chewed off…but it was like a “very serious engagement”)
What the angel Gabriel is telling her, under “normal” circumstances would be met with, “Of course! That’s what usually happens when people get married and engage in marital relations!”
But, no, the Blessed Mother’s response is, “How can this be since I know not man?” How can I conceive a child when I’m a consecrated virgin?
In modern language she would be saying "How can this be since I haven’t had sex yet?"
Certainly this is Scriptural evidence that she was a virgin, and planned to stay a virgin.
First of all Jesus life fulfilled many prophecies and he didn’t need Mary to remain a virgin to prove anything. It was prophetic that she was a virgin at his birth, but nothing more. Aside from everything else he did, he died on the cross, was buried, resurrected, and ascended into heaven! That should be proof enough.
Actually they were canonized at the Council of Rome in 382 AD and several subsequent counsels. This is what I referred to as a matter of history. As far as passing some sort of a canonization test, a brief history lesson is in order. These seven Books were at one time thought to be written in Greek. We now know that at least two of them were actually written in Hebrew which is one of the tests. Martin Luther removed these seven Books during the reformation (which I refer to as a defection because you can only reform something while still being a part of that something) along with the Book of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. It wasn’t until after receiving pressure from his peers that he included these four New Testament Books within his shortened German Luther Bible. All of the Deuterocanonicals are alluded to by New Testament Scripture, and as the earliest manuscript shows us, along with several Church Father writings from the first couple of centuries, they were all referred to by early Christians.
Amen!
Unfortunately, imjustme, ever since the Reformation, when people do that and think they’re getting the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what happens is they get their own man-made, fallible, non-authoritative doctrines.
I’m going to turn this around on you. It wasn’t important for Mary to be a perpetual virgin for Catholic Tradition. As you say, who would care? Unless of course it was the truth and as the Truth, the Church has an obligation to all to keep it.
imjustme, that simply does not make sense. The angel Gabriel told Mary you are going to conceive, not “you’ve already conceived a baby! Congrats! You’re pregnant already!” If the angel had told Mary the latter, her response would make sense.
Because every single Marian doctrine and dogma reinforces and highlights the divinity of Christ.
Amen!
How do you know there were three James and not only two? Why couldn’t James, the brother of the Lord, also be one of the Apostles? What is your proof of that? It seems to me that there is a much better probability that they are one in the same, the son of Mary and Alpheus, the brother of St. Joseph, as I described in my post above. This must be true if you think the three evangelists saw the same three women at the cross. I grant you that it is possible that they did not, but is seems to me to be more than a coincidence.As I said in another post, there were three James’…and I don’t claim to be infallible…sometimes if something doesn’t make sense I do research (as I’m doing here) and learn more. I have study bibles and bibles in different translations and of course the internet. I also learn from listing to my pastor preaching and I listen to mp3s of Pastor Chuck Smith preaching…so between listening to experienced scholars, studying from reputable texts and the most important…help from the Holy Spirit which was sent by Jesus specifically for this purpose…I do ok
JL: I just found this post looking for something else, I missed it before. Well if this is true don’t you feel it your Christian duty to show us? Why would truth offend anyone? If it isn’t ture then yes that would offend. In fact I am more offended by your accusations without evidence. You made the accusation now show your evidence. I’m not searching the web, doing your work for you. I have a saying, a statement made without evidence is evidence the statement is false. So give your evidence so we can discuss it.
JL: David is the prince, Ez34:24 And I, the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David will be prince among them; I the LORD have spoken. .
Thank You, My wife said it was the first,tell me you do not believe her----LOLJL: I can vouch for you Bill, as I have never seen you make a mistake in all your 50 years.
Actually they were canonized at the Council of Rome in 382 AD and several subsequent counsels.
I had read that they were canonized by the Council of Trent, some 1500 years after they were written. Is this not so?
This is what I referred to as a matter of history. As far as passing some sort of a canonization test, a brief history lesson is in order. These seven Books were at one time thought to be written in Greek. We now know that at least two of them were actually written in Hebrew which is one of the tests.
I don’t doubt that there were copies in Hebrew as my understanding is that they were read by the Jews, however even the Jews of Palestine, including the Jewish Council of Jamnia which met in 90 AD rejected the Apocrypha as scripture. One example, Philo, a Jewish teacher who lived in the 1st century quoted from nearly every OT canonical book, but never from the apocrypha.
Martin Luther removed these seven Books during the reformation (which I refer to as a defection because you can only reform something while still being a part of that something) along with the Book of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. It wasn’t until after receiving pressure from his peers that he included these four New Testament Books within his shortened German Luther Bible. All of the Deuterocanonicals are alluded to by New Testament Scripture, and as the earliest manuscript shows us, along with several Church Father writings from the first couple of centuries, they were all referred to by early Christians.
**Yes, they were sometimes alluded but not quted as canonical text. There are other places in the NT where non-canonical text is alluded to or referred to, but that does not make them all canonical.
I’d appreciate your reply on these two questions:
*- Please show me some place where Jesus or one of His apostles quotes any of it as being inspired?
I’m interested to read your response, however I am aware that we are off topic and I don’t know the forum rules for this…please let me know, as I’m new here and don’t want to overstep my welcome
- If the apocryphal books are inspired, why weren’t the writers of these books confirmed by miracles or include prophecy like OT and NT writers?***
Amen!
Thank you! I’m glad we agree on this, at least!
However, to paraphrase St. Augustine, you would not believe in the Bible were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church!
**I don’t know why YOU believe in the Bible, but I personally believe in it after reading, studying and learning about it through the help of the Holy Spirit.
Honestly…I’m not speaking from any dogma on my part or anymosity towards Catholics…but my personal experience is that I was raised in a Catholic home and provided with lots of Roman Catholic doctrine. This included 6 years of Roman Catholic boarding school in Italy (with nuns as teachers) and having several Catholic religious in the family (including one that worked at the Vatican)…I was Catholic into my 40s, yet I never was taught to read and study the Bible. With all the books and fancy things we needed to show up with each September, can you believe that a Bible was not one of them? So, I can not honestly say that the Catholic Church helped me come to my current belief in the Bible. **
Unfortunately, imjustme, ever since the Reformation, when people do that and think they’re getting the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what happens is they get their own man-made, fallible, non-authoritative doctrines.
Yes, I also agree that some people have claimed false doctrine either due to ignorance or for their own gain. This however was predicted in Jesus’ days, so we shouldn’t be surprised. It is further inspiration to me to read and study more, because that way when I see false doctrine, I will recognize it better. To me it is like when one of my children calls me on the phone…they may not say who they are but I recognize the very sound of their breathing…they might only ‘sigh’ and I’ll say “what’s wrong?”…we need to get to this intimate closeness with God through reading and learning His Word so that when it’s not Him, we can hang up!
The existence of over 40,000 Christian denominations is testament to that fact! :sad_yes:
Here’s a (non-exhaustive) list of different things that Christians have all come up with their own ideas about, just by reading the Bible and believing “with heart and mind in Jesus and” asking “guidance from the Holy Spirit”
Baptism
**Yes, I’ll stop at Baptism…can you tell me where the Catholic practice of Baptism is shown in the Bible? Specifically I mean 1) Baptism of a child vs adult and 2) sprinkling vs. immersion
I’m curious about this on a personal level because I have been baptised as a child by the Roman Catholic Church and am considering being rebaptized and wonder if it would be biblically necessary. Thanks.
**
Rapture
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Divorce
Abortion
Homosexuality
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Once saved, always saved
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Women pastors, no women pastors
Hell, or no hell
The Eucharist (Communion)
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
Ordination
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
Death/Soul Sleep
Church leadership, or no leadership
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Judge others, don’t judge others
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
themselves)
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Predestination
Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
(adapted, with his permission, from a post by ProdigalSon)
I’m going to turn this around on you.
Haha…so what’s new?
It wasn’t important for Mary to be a perpetual virgin for Catholic Tradition. As you say, who would care? Unless of course it was the truth and as the Truth, the Church has an obligation to all to keep it.
Ask yourself, why it is important to you that Mary did not remain a virgin. Does making her ,more worldly help your faith in any way?
**Mary was blessed to have been chosen by God to bring Jesus into this world as a Man. She is an inspiration of faith and obedience to God and I have no reason to discredit her as a faithful person, God fearing believer and earthly mother of Jesus Christ.
Her being a perpetual virgin or not does not affect my faith in anyway, because my faith is in God regardless of Mary. Scripturally Mary is very important because she had to be a Jew from the house of David…as you may know, Jews inherit “their Jewishness” from their mothers and the OT prophecies were that she would come from that bloodline. After that (giving birth), nothing more about her matters…Jesus the Messiah came…she fulfilled her prophetic calling and that is all that she had to do.**
Or is it just a way to attempt to discredit the Catholic Church which you left?
**I have no specific interest in discrediting the Catholic Church. My only personal goal is to learn the truth and remain scriptural and to me it is clear that Mary was not ever virgin.
If you have a dilemma and it comes down to scripture vs. the Catholic Church, which do you choose? I chose the Bible, but would be interested to hear your honest thoughts. **
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t able to upload pictures here and that is why I directed you to a way to see something of what I was referring to…all I asked you to do is do a simple google search to see similar pagan rituals with statues of Mary being done throughout Italy. I don’t have to do your homework.
Thank you for your reply. At least we are not too far from eachother on the understanding of that. Just checking
