Mary's perpetual virginity

[AmbroseSJ]

Randy Carson:

Originally Posted by JB Brother 4446 View Post
The context given in Matthew was that Joseph wanted to divorce Mary not to expose her to shame, not as the second theory indicates.

I hear you. But Scott Hahn (author of the commentary referenced above) is no slouch when it comes to exegesis.

There’s another difficulty with the reverence theory: viz; In Matt 1:20 The angel particularly informs Joseph that he should not fear to take Mary as his spouse BECAUSE the child was of the Holy Ghost. IOW, St. Joseph would not have had an angelic visitation to tell him something he already knew. So no, Joseph had no way of knowing (until the Angel told him) that the child was of the Holy Ghost. IOW, this whole theory is BASED on the premise that St. Joseph knew (making the angelic announcement redundant) Since there is NO mention of St. Joseph learning of this BEFORE the angelic announcement, we should believe that THIS was when he was informed. Which brings up yet another point: Why did Our Lady not simply tell him? But by the Gospels we see that she did NOT tell him! So there is far more going on then can be accounted for in either the suspicion theory or the reverence theory.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Their writings weren’t infallible. In 3rd century Egypt, Origen argued against the large camp of Christians, including clerics, who believed that the so-called brothers of Jesus were the offspring of Mary and Joseph. Origen appealed to the Gospel of Peter to support the view of his camp that they were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. Clement, apparently, relied on the Nativity Gospel of James. The apocryphal texts do contain much fiction. Meanwhile, it appears Mark draws no distinction when we compare 6:3 with the list of the Apostles. Hegesippus was more of a church chronicler of fallible oral traditions than a genuine historian. He was in no position to determine for himself who these brothers of Jesus actually were. Nor was Eusebius.

PAX
:heaven:

Neither were Jerome’s writings. And apochyrphal books show that it was believed that Jesus had stepbrothers.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The Whore of Babylon
catholic.com/tracts/the-whore-of-babylon

Please note that Catholic Answers never even mentions Babylon of 1 Peter 3:15 in this article.

Why?

Because while the Whore of Babylon mentioned in Revelation could be either Rome or Jerusalem, the “Babylon” of 1 Peter is unquestionably Rome.

Eh. Clement the fourth pope met Peter in Jerusalem so it is not that unquestionable.

 

[Good_Fella]

Neither were Jerome’s writings. And apochyrphal books show that it was believed that Jesus had stepbrothers.

I’m appealing to the Gospel of Mark first and foremost, not Jerome’s Letter to Helvidius or an apocryphal text.

Then it was also believed by some - not all - that Mary entered the sacred sanctuary of the temple at the age of three, and that the Roman guards saw three men walking from the open tomb, two of them supporting Jesus while his cross followed after them. Do you believe this, too?

PAX
:heaven:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I’m appealing to the Gospel of Mark first and foremost, not Jerome’s Letter to Helvidius or an apocryphal text.

Then it was also believed by some - not all - that Mary entered the sacred sanctuary of the temple at the age of three, and that the Roman guards saw three men walking from the open tomb, two of them supporting Jesus while his cross followed after them. Do you believe this, too?

PAX
:heaven:

The Gospel of Mark has a lot of support for the stepbrother theory.

I don’t. The question is: do you?