Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Randy_Carson]

Again, my personal belief that Mary remained a virgin has been established, so you are, in effect, preaching to the choir At least as far as I’m concerned.

No worries. That was for Apophasis and PC Master.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

No worries. That was for Apophasis and PC Master.

Does it surprise you to find that I’m not Catholic? I was raised Free Will Baptist? (I know…I’m scared too!)

I have issues with some Catholic dogma/doctrine, and I’ll defend my stance until proven otherwise (and yes, I am open to being proven otherwise).I have no ego to uphold, really.

But it’s nice to know that we Christains, we of faith in Christ, can stand at the apex of the bridge between us, and shake hands.

And now I’m making your original post all about me, when clearly it was not!

 

[Randy_Carson]

For the sake of your Marian dogma you’re denying the difference between connotative and denotative language. In Matt. 1:25 the clear connotation expressed in the text is that Joseph refrained from having sexual relations with his wife until after the birth of Jesus. The connotation expressed in the statement: “He stood under the shelter until the rain stopped” is also quite obvious: When the rain stopped he left the shelter. So, no, Matt. 1:25 does not state “only” that Joseph refrained from having sexual relations with his wife for a specific time frame. It quite clearly states (connotatively) that Joseph refrained from sexual relations with his wife for “only” a specific time frame.

. In Greek, prin (“before”) and heos (“until”) do not imply a reversal of situation upon completion of the “before/until” clause. Notice these examples:

1. “Come down before my child dies” (John 4:49)–yet the child did not die even after Jesus came down.
2. “Until I arrive, attend to reading, exhortation, and teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13)–but Timothy did not give up these activities after Paul arrived. Other non-inferential “until” texts the reader may wish to examine are Romans 8:22, l Corinthians 15:25, Ephesians 4:13, 1 Timothy 6:14, and Revelation 2:25-26.

In short, Matthew 1:18 and 1:25 prove nothing against Mary’s perpetual virginity.

But Chris, my argument stems from what it DOES say. You’re the one basing your argument on what it DOESN’T say.
Matt 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?"The whole town knew His immediate family.

Kinda curious then, isn’t it?

These people are referred to “brothers and sisters of Jesus” and never as the “sons and daughters of Mary” anywhere in the New Testament.

Why is that?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Tradition, Scripture and the Development of Doctrine

The deposit of revelation was complete upon the death of the last apostle. The Church from that day proposes no new doctrine, but only works out the implications of the revelation entrusted to the apostles–and there must be implications for thinking people. The Church is thus the scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, like the head of a household who brings forth from his storeroom both the new and the old (Matt. 13:52).

From the very beginning, the Church, by its teaching authority, residing in the apostles and their successors, developed the implications of its doctrine and absolutized its oral Tradition. (Remember that at the beginning, from the first Pentecost, the Church had only oral Tradition about Jesus and his teaching.)

Read the tenth, eleventh, and fifteenth chapters of Acts. In 10:9-16 Peter received a vision in which God revoked the Jewish kosher food laws. Shocked and doubtful, Peter pondered the vision. He became the type and figure of the Church’s magisterium as it ponders the meaning of revelation. Peter then received a delegation of Gentiles, sent to beg him to come and visit the centurion Cornelius, a Gentile, in his home (vv. 17-23).

Why did he go with them, though it was “unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile” (v. 28)? He went because “God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean” (v. 28). Peter here has engaged in the development of doctrine. His vision had to do with animals. By his apostolic authority Peter drew forth the vision’s implication that no person is unclean.

Later in Jerusalem, the Christians of the Judaizing faction confronted and rebuked Peter (11:2-3). He explained what had happened and so silenced them. As the events in Acts 10 and 11 were going on, everything was done orally. Writing it all down under divine inspiration, as Luke later did, did not increase its validity. Oral and written Tradition are equally valid, then as now. Acts 10 and 11 show that it is unbiblical to deny this.

Acts 15 is a nice mix of oral and written tradition: James quotes Old Testament Scripture (Amos 9:11-12), and the apostles and presbyters (the magisterium) write a letter, now a part of the New Testament, thanks to Luke and God’s inspiration. There is plenty of discussion (oral Tradition), which Luke wove later into his narrative, thus making it written Tradition or Scripture.

Taken from: CRI’s Attack on Mary: Part 2 by “Father Mateo”
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea2.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

Matt 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?”
The whole town knew His immediate family.

This verse and argument have been addressed by Mark Bonocore at length in an article entitled, “Jesus’ ‘Brothers’ and Mary’s Perpetual Virginity” available here:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a27.htm

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

In short, Matthew 1:18 and 1:25 prove nothing against Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Nope. They certainly do not.

But as I’ve said before, and will say agian, they don’t necessarily substantiate it, either.

*Randy Carson cowered in the basement until the tornado had passed. * (Cowering in the face of 300 mph winds is hardly cowardice, as far as I am concerned!)

It says nothing whatsoever about what happend afterwards. It affirms the condition at the moment, but leaves the future undecided.

As I have posted before, Matthew 1:25 is not valid evidence for Mary’s perpetual virginity. There are plenty of other sources to defend this belief with.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nope. They certainly do not.

But as I’ve said before, and will say agian, they don’t necessarily substantiate it, either.

*Randy Carson cowered in the basement until the tornado had passed. *(Cowering in the face of 300 mph winds is hardly cowardice, as far as I am concerned!)

It says nothing whatsoever about what happend afterwards. It affirms the condition at the moment, but leaves the future undecided.

As I have posted before, Matthew 1:25 is not valid evidence for Mary’s perpetual virginity. There are plenty of other sources to defend this belief with.

Agreed.

 

[apophasis]

YADA:

Actually, this is not how one would normally read this passage …

The Gospel writiers were not discussing what occurred after the birth of Jesus…that was not the object of the passage. In fact, to fullfill the prophecy Mary had to be a virgin. While you seem extremely willing to believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus [and ergo to believe that the conception was miraculously the result of an over shodowing of the Holy Spirit], the people if the first century knew perfectly well how children came into the world. That there were in apostolic times individuals who were as unconvinced of Mary’s Virgin Birth as there are skeptics here unconvinced of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is certain.

But the obvious connotation in Matt. 1:25 that Joseph refrained from sexual relations with his wife until the birth of Jesus does not at all detract from the truth that Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ’s conception and remained so till the time His birth. Matthew confirms this truth by stating in the verse that Joseph continued to refrain from “knowing her” until AFTER the birth. He clearly communicates to his readers the historical fact of Mary’s virginity and the virgin birth of Jesus. Thereby fulfilling the prophetic sign that a virgin would conceive and bear a son. The sign in Is. 7:14 did not at all require perpetual virginity.

and the word until even today, is only restrictive [directly] upon the events leading up to the restrictive word…

Only in one sense. But in another it means that afterward a change took place. Which is how it is used in Matt. 1:25. Otherwise there would be no need to employ the word “until.” Matthew could have just written that Joseph never knew her if his intention was to communicate perpetual virginity. But no such concept is communicated either before or after the verse.

Was the writer’s focus on what occurred after the rain or before in this passage? Do you know? If the context of the passage is the where the man came from after the rain…you may be correct. However, that would have to be apparent in the wrtings that come before or immediately after this sentence. As a stand alone sentence; you may infer but it is not a conclusive surity…

If the author ended with “He stood under the shelter until the rain stopped” (a “stand alone” sentence), it would connote two things: (1) He took shelter when it began to rain, and (2) he left the shelter upon cessation of it. The sentence (and the author) relies on the power of connotation to communicate the action. Nothing more needs to be said.

Matt. 1:25 is also a “stand alone” sentence and also relies on the power of connotation. What happened after the birth of Jesus between Joseph and Mary is clearly suggested by what is connotatively communicated in that verse (and subsequently confirmed in Matt. 13:55-56). Nothing more needed to be said by Matthew. It’s all right there. A normal marriage relationship resumed between Joseph and his wife AFTER the birth of her first Son. The verse confirms to Matthew’s readers the virgin birth of Messiah as well as the enjoyment of a normal marriage between Joseph and Mary after the birth came to pass. Perpetual virginity is not even suggested there since it was never required in the first place. That idea is imposed upon the verse, not confirmed by it.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

That really is a red-herring. Telling a parable would have been a time consuming event. Someone that been severely beaten and was near death even before the nails went in would not have resorted to a parable. One day you might understand the medical mechanics of a crucifixion. Once you do, you will have a better understanding of what was said, and what was required of the crucifyee to even speak.

It is not any type of fish, as you suggest, and you misunderstand me.

Christ spoke in parables on occasion. I do not imply that he spoke as such from the cross. He could have. As God Almighty he could have spoken in any form He saw fit. But it’s pretty clear from the Scriptures that he was being direct, and obvious in his intent in his last moments before death.

 

[PC_Master]

I have been thinking about the skeptics and the show me people…How did the apostles “Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt” that Jesus was born of the “Virgin” Mary?..When they offered the biblical exegesis…did the doubters say “That is not the common literal meaning of the passage!”

Scripture (and early church writings) are far more clear about the virgin birth than the perpetual virginity of Mary. Even you should agree with that (if not, we should open another thread). No interpretation was required. A very plain reading of the text explains it. Seriously – give it to a young teenager (old enough so they understand sex, etc), and let them read it.

Regardless, we’re not discussing the virgin birth here. If you’re just trying to make a point that we’re wrong to doubt the church, then say that, but that only fits with my previous conclusion – you believe because the church tells you to.

So what is easier to believe…
That a virgin concieves a child by an ‘over shadowing’ of the 'Holy Spirit" [whatever that can mean] and has a God-Man child [wholly divine and wholly human]?

Or that two persons could marry and yet remain chaste?

So it was easier for Joseph and Mary (two human beings who were created by God to have sexual desire) to remain celibate than it was for the creator of the entire universe to cause a virgin to become pregnant? Your comparison doesn’t hold, in any case – we know that in Jesus’ given example, it was good for both things to happen, and they did. No person here has yet shown why it is at all important for Mary to have remained celibate.

Funny how noting the root error is always “best left for another thread” when it is questioned.

Actually, it’s an entirely different subject. Your position is “the RCC has authority to interpret scripture and define these dogmas infallibly”. Mine is that the RCC does not have such authority. A discussion of which of those positions is right would not be within reasonable scope of this discussion, in my opinion.

The only relevance the authority of the church has in this conversation is how it affects our beliefs. You believe, basically because the church says to. I do not believe, and the church saying to doesn’t matter to me. It’s that simple, and we might as well accept these premises and move on to other points or drop the discussion. If you’re going to condemn my belief as wrong simply on the basis of me rejecting church authority, and not on a basis of factual evidence, then the perpetual virginity of Mary is a matter of faith only, for you.

By the way, revelation to individual believers is not the same as “personal interpretation”, which I assume is an allusion to the writings in scripture against private (as in, good for one person, but not another) interpretations of scripture and/or visions by believers.

Nope. They certainly do not…But as I’ve said before, and will say agian, they don’t necessarily substantiate it, either…It says nothing whatsoever about what happend afterwards. It affirms the condition at the moment, but leaves the future undecided.

Amen. I really don’t understand why we’re tossing back and forth the arguments like so…

“The word ‘until’ doesn’t say that it did happen afterward, so I won’t believe it did!”
“The word ‘until’ doesn’t say that it didn’t happen afterward, so I won’t believe that it didn’t!”
[repeat 10x]

If there are other sources, bring them up. Either way, we need to agree to disagree on the matter of what scripture says on this. Both sides have presented explanations which speculate and explain all of the scripture verses referenced regarding Mary. Both sides have rejected the case presented by the other side. There seems little more to be gained from that line of discussion.

So, would anyone else (or even more from previous posters) care to explain to me in more detail how the outcome of this question actually matters at all? What benefit does it provide for Mary to have remained a perpetual virgin over having not remained one? What is it that she does better, or does at all, that could not be done equally well if she weren’t a perpetual virgin?

 

[HailMary]

It answers a question – it tells us why Joseph was going to put Mary away instead of stoning her (which was customary – things out of the ordinary often need explanation). Second, it clarifies that Jesus was not the son of Joseph (and that Joseph knew this to be the case). If it had simply said “before they were married, Mary was found with child”…how do we know it wasn’t Joseph’s?

But instead, it says Joseph was a righteous man, and was going to put her away quietly instead of having her stoned, thereby implicitly showing that he had not committed adultery with her, which is a crucial point to the virgin birth.

However, that seems rather off-topic, and doesn’t help us draw an analogy for this question. If there is a connection I haven’t seen, you’ll have to illustrate it for me.

Thats a nice answer, which truth in there, but I am not trying to discuss St. Joseph and his glory. I’m simply asking you, in the context of true Christian thought, are you allowed to think that St. Joseph was unjust? An honest answer would be, no, since its TRUTH that St. Joseph was just and we know this from the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition.

I will ask you the same genre of question you keep asking me: right now, today, if you believed everything the same as you do, but BELIEVED that St. Joseph, Terror of Demons, to be unjust, would that, what did you say, hinder your salvation or your worshiping abilities?
Let me remind you of, John 4:24
God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.

Therefore, to believe the Blessed VIRGIN Mary to have been the Mother of other Children in the flesh, would be the same error of believing St. Joseph to be unjust. In one situation, we can easily prove St. Joseph’s righteousness, in the other, I claim its just as easy to prove Mary perpetual virginity, but with a warped image of who she is, and an existing theology your local bible study taught you, this may be difficult because you are not in the light of the world, the Church: you are doing your studies in a dim room, so I can understand why this can be so difficult. But for those who have a hard time reading the bible since, as St. Peter put it, we may distort it to “our own destruction” because certain parts are difficult to understand, you appeal to Sacred Tradition, but that isn’t even necessary because God, working through the Church, put forth a DOGMA that she was a perpetual virgin. How awesome is that? I’d like to go to your parish and take a survey and lets see how many of your own people believe as you do. You will not find consensus. However, unlike the protestant faiths, to be Catholic, in truth, you must believe and accept all the dogmas of the Church. You will reply, most definently, that those people who hold the Apostolic view, are simply wrong, mislead, and you will continue to maintain your position. You are not much different then me, I simply assert that the Catholic position is infallible and you assert your position is (whether you want to admit that or not).

That faith you put in the written Word of God, in the context of TRUE CHRISTIAN LIVING, is also applied in Sacred Tradition, as practiced by the Church, the children of God. So, as usual, this problem and every other thing that separates us all of us is: AUTHORITY, you guessed it.

With that being said, I leave you peace and will ask the Virgin Mary to pray for you, as always.

God Bless

 

[HailMary]

So, would anyone else (or even more from previous posters) care to explain to me in more detail how the outcome of this question actually matters at all? What benefit does it provide for Mary to have remained a perpetual virgin over having not remained one? What is it that she does better, or does at all, that could not be done equally well if she weren’t a perpetual virgin?

The same reason why if someone claimed that Jesus had a girlfriend, that idea must be rejected. Simply because its not true.

 

[apophasis]

These people are referred to “brothers and sisters of Jesus” and never as the “sons and daughters of Mary” anywhere in the New Testament.

Why is that?

Because (1) when you mention siblings (as in Matt. 13:55-56) “brothers and sisters” is how you would express it. (2) The Gospel accounts are about the life of Mary’s first Son. His brothers and sisters are only mentioned.

“I hope this helps.” :doh2:

 

[HailMary]

Because (1) when you mention siblings (as in Matt. 13:55-56) “brothers and sisters” is how you would express it. (2) The Gospel accounts are about the life of Mary’s first Son. His brothers and sisters are only mentioned.

“I hope this helps.” :doh2:

or, Mary never had any other children. I’d rather go with the Apostolic Churches, not the “traditions of man”.

This thread is going down the drain. time to unsubscribe. Later guys and gals. I’ll pray for you (and I will ask Mary too!).

 

[YADA]

But the obvious connotation in Matt. 1:25 that Joseph refrained from sexual relations with his wife until the birth of Jesus does not at all detract from the truth that Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ’s conception and remained so till the time His birth. Matthew confirms this truth by stating in the verse that Joseph continued to refrain from “knowing her” until AFTER the birth. He clearly communicates to his readers the historical fact of Mary’s virginity and the virgin birth of Jesus. Thereby fulfilling the prophetic sign that a virgin would conceive and bear a son. The sign in Is. 7:14 did not at all require perpetual virginity.Only in one sense. But in another it means that afterward a change took place. Which is how it is used in Matt. 1:25. Otherwise there would be no need to employ the word “until.” Matthew could have just written that Joseph never knew her if his intention was to communicate perpetual virginity. But no such concept is communicated either before or after the verse.If the author ended with “He stood under the shelter until the rain stopped” (a “stand alone” sentence), it would connote two things: (1) He took shelter when it began to rain, and (2) he left the shelter upon cessation of it. The sentence (and the author) relies on the power of connotation to communicate the action. Nothing more needs to be said.

Matt. 1:25 is also a “stand alone” sentence and also relies on the power of connotation. What happened after the birth of Jesus between Joseph and Mary is clearly suggested by what is connotatively communicated in that verse (and subsequently confirmed in Matt. 13:55-56). Nothing more needed to be said by Matthew. It’s all right there. A normal marriage relationship resumed between Joseph and his wife AFTER the birth of her first Son. The verse confirms to Matthew’s readers the virgin birth of Messiah as well as the enjoyment of a normal marriage between Joseph and Mary after the birth came to pass. Perpetual virginity is not even suggested there since it was never required in the first place. That idea is imposed upon the verse, not confirmed by it.

Ah, but that is not what Matthew wrote! You have added words to force your interpretation much as Luther did…

Matthew wrote

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, 12 and he named him Jesus.

You wrote tat he had no relations with her until AFTER she bore a son…funny, I do not see the word AFTER in the text…

 

[PC_Master]

Thats a nice answer, which truth in there, but I am not trying to discuss St. Joseph and his glory. I’m simply asking you, in the context of true Christian thought, are you allowed to think that St. Joseph was unjust? An honest answer would be, no, since its TRUTH that St. Joseph was just and we know this from the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition.

Aye, truth is important. However, one should consider that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. If Joseph were unjust (instead of just) and still put Mary away, then perhaps we can believe he committed adultery with her, and was going to put her away to cover it up (because he thought the child was his). It causes us to doubt the virgin birth, which is very bad.

However, it says he was just, and there is also independent attestation of the virgin birth by other scriptures (scripture does this for all important points – two or more references are available to strongly support a doctrine).

Now, in comparison, what do I lose by not believing that Mary was ever-virgin? What doctrine of faith does it harm? None.

I will ask you the same genre of question you keep asking me: right now, today, if you believed everything the same as you do, but BELIEVED that St. Joseph, Terror of Demons, to be unjust, would that, what did you say, hinder your salvation or your worshiping abilities?

As given above – yes, it would, for it would cause me to doubt the virgin birth.

Let me remind you of, John 4:24
God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.

I take it you are trying to imply that we must adore him in spirit and in complete truth (that is, accuracy about what is true). While I agree this is a worthy goal, unfortunately, this is humanly impossible to do. Thus, it stands to reason that God would most prefer that we care about the important things first, with minutia coming later.

We can’t know for certain (outside of having faith that the RCC got it right, which is something we’ll obviously not agree on) whether or not Mary remained a virgin.

Therefore, to believe the Blessed VIRGIN Mary to have been the Mother of other Children in the flesh, would be the same error of believing St. Joseph to be unjust.

No – it’s not the same error. In the former, nothing of our worship of God is affected. In the latter, the virgin birth can be doubted, and thus, the divine nature of Christ.

In one situation, we can easily prove St. Joseph’s righteousness, in the other, I claim its just as easy to prove Mary perpetual virginity…

It’s obviously not easy, for you haven’t done it yet.

…but with a warped image of who she is, and an existing theology your local bible study taught you, this may be difficult because you are not in the light of the world, the Church: you are doing your studies in a dim room, so I can understand why this can be so difficult.

Now see, this is rhetoric. It’s akin to me saying…

You are the one who has a warped image of who she is, and the one who has an existing theology the Roman Catholic Church taught you. This may make things difficult for you to understand, because you are not in the truth. You are conducting your studies with materials authored by men, instead of materials authored by the king of kings, so I can understand why this might be difficult.

Do you see how offensive that sounds? It’s borderline ad hominem, and certainly is unduly patronizing.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

You need to understand that we do not, and will not agree on the authority of the church in this issue. If that is what you’re relying on, you should just say so. Be like the others who have said “the church says so, so you’re wrong – case closed”, and step away from the debate, rather than going on about the point repeatedly without anything new.

I’d like to go to your parish and take a survey and lets see how many of your own people believe as you do. You will not find consensus.

I never expected you would. Heck, I don’t expect that the first century church had consensus in every small detail.

It’s real simple – there’s truth, and there’s non-truth. If you believe the truth, you’re right, and it doesn’t matter what denomination you’re a part of. If Mary was a perpetual virgin, those who believe it, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist, are right. If she’s not, those who believe it are wrong.

I’m not arguing over whether or not it is true. I’m asking what difference it makes in relation to the worship of God, and you guys keep failing to provide anything.

However, unlike the protestant faiths, to be Catholic, in truth, you must believe and accept all the dogmas of the Church.

I know – the RCC says you must. I do wonder, though, what happened to those who worshiped God and had no belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary who lived before the dogma was issued. The fact of the matter didn’t change, and I’m sure there were those in the church who didn’t believe it. So, what’s the difference between them (in that time period), and those who were the same in every other respect, except for the lack of belief in this one now-dogmatized issue?

Man will not be perfect in every belief he holds. Even the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t claim that it possesses the complete and authoritative truth on every issue. It simply refuses to speak on some things. For instance…was Mary 14 years old when she conceived Jesus? Obviously, there is a truthful “yes” or “no” answer that can be given to this question. Either she was 14, or she wasn’t 14. By your view (spirit and truth), not believing correctly is as bad an error as not accepting the perpetual virginity of Mary. The reality, however, is that it doesn’t matter.

Since it doesn’t affect my faith in any way (now or in the future), I won’t bother worrying about it. Likewise with the perpetual virginity of Mary – I have no doubt that it can truthfully be answered; either “yes” or “no” will be correct. But it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t affect my faith in any way, so I choose not to be concerned with it, or even to have a definite belief one way or the other.

Can you provide a good reason for me to establish a definite belief? If not, I won’t.

With that being said, I leave you peace and will ask the Virgin Mary to pray for you, as always.

If you want to pray for me, that’s fine. However, I see no benefit in Mary doing so, were she at all capable of hearing your request and honoring it. (But that’s another thread or two altogether.)

The same reason why if someone claimed that Jesus had a girlfriend, that idea must be rejected. Simply because its not true.

Okay, so not knowing the answer, or knowing a wrong answer, is simply unacceptable? That’s what it all boils down to apparently. It doesn’t affect my faith. It doesn’t change who, or how, I worship. It just matters because it’s got to be the truth?

In that case – was Mary 14 years old when she conceived Jesus? There is a true answer to the question, and believing any differently than the truth is obviously harmful in some way (though you’ve not told me how, exactly), so I really need to know.

 

[JoeyWarren]

BanksOfTheTiber said: However, as much it I don’t want to be a wet blanket: Some of the Catholic positions on Mary are a leap of faith. One that I can find little substantiation for. Could they be true? Sure! Are they? I dunno.

What takes a greater leap of faith?

Catholic posistions on Mary

or

Existence of God and the fact that Bible is a work of truth and not a work of mythology?

My own personal experience with the false teachings and false interpretations of my Pentecostal family and church I grew up with held problems with me since my own readings of scripture (which btw would eventually follow what the RCC teaches) contradicted what was being orated from the pulpit and the sunday school class to the point that I became an Atheist because I came to the conclusion Christians were so full of that which fertilzes the earth naturally.

Hanging with the Atheist crowd gave me an incredible insight into how they feel and believe. The Bible is no more a credible truth than Homer’s “**Iliad and Odyssey” **The Bible and Christianity is nothing more than a framework designed to control man thru fear. Religions are created to enslave man with the Religious leaders being the Dictatorous Slave Drivers. Furthermore there is no physical or historical evidence of the existence of this One God that is credible.

So what takes a greater leap of faith?

 

[guanophore]

“Why wouldn’t he” does not answer the question of why would he! Again, the absence of a negative does not neccesarily imply a positive. I humbly submit to you that my question is no less valid than your own.

Oh, I agree. But those of us that have accepted the Apostolic deposit of faith know that He did, indeed, start with His mother. you asked for another source of testimony (was that you?) It is essential to interpret the scriptures in context. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. The passages are to be understood in the light of the Teachings.

If Mary were THAT important. If she were SO worthy of our praise and adoration, don’t you think that God Almighty, in His infinite wisdom, would have made it quite clear to us?

Of course! It is quite clear to us. It does not appear in the NT because the time had not yet come. There were many truths about Jesus that took centuries to clarify.

Don’t you think that our Lord and Saviour, would have worked in the hearts and minds of the writers of the Gospels, to make this clear to us?

Not necessarily. I was listening to the days’ readings on the radio this morning. Paul is writing to Timothy, and tells Timothy to bring him parchments. Why is this in the holy writ? What bearing does it have on my salvation? On the contrary…

“…you have become obedient from the heart
to the pattern of teaching to which you were entrusted.” Rom. 6

I have received a pattern of teaching from the Apostolic source that has been entrusted to the faithful by way of the succession. this pattern includes the Divne Revelation, found in the Holy Writings, and the Sacred Traditions. According to that Tradition, Mary was ever virgin.

I can’t see that it bears on my salvation, either. It seems to me that God can do whatever He wants, however He wants. If he wants Mary and Joseph to have a big family , so be it. However, this is not the Divine Deposit of Faith that I have received. For me, it has to do with the Authority of the Church to teach in the name of Jesus, and my willingness to accept and abide by the pattern that has been handed down to us. This is what affects my salvation, not how many kids Mary had, or whether Timothy brought parchments to Paul.

With tears in my eyes from gratitude, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Seriously. Thank you for lifting my friend up in prayer in the hour of his need.

From Today’s Mass, ps.145

The LORD is just in all his ways
and holy in all his works.
The LORD is near to all who call upon him,
to all who call upon him in truth.

May His justice shine upon you, and may He make Himself Holy in you and yours (his works) and be near to you as you call upon HIm in truth. Amen.

 

[apophasis]

Ah, but that is not what Matthew wrote! You have added words to force your interpretation much as Luther did…

Matthew wrote

You wrote tat he had no relations with her until AFTER she bore a son…funny, I do not see the word AFTER in the text…

That’s your whole defense? “…and took her as his wife and he kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a son…” To me, like Luther’s justification by faith “alone,” the text connotatively demands it. I do not agree with everyone on this thread that Matt. 1:25 is totally undefined on the issue, or that Matthew himself intended it to be so. I’m not forcing an interpretation out of it, nor, like others, am I imposing upon it an external dogma. When left alone the text clearly speaks for itself.