Reload this Page BAHA'I thread IV - feel free to ask of Baha'i any questions

[arthra]

Steve,

Thanks for your post…

Three things…

(1) It’s not just Christian scripture being alluded to here when it says…

• As a general rule, the works embodying the most recent revelations are viewed as the most authentic; the farther back in time a revelation occurred, the less accurately it is likely to have been preserved. Usually the Bahá’í view corresponds with the judgment of historians and textual critics.*

We’re talking about all previous scriptures whether Christian, Zoroastrian, etc. The more ancient the less reliable.

(2) You comment above:

“The Church already held the same dogmas and doctrines that we hold today before the New Testament was even written and nearly 400 years before the sacred texts were canonized.”

I don’t think we necessarily have to discuss this as it relates more to how the church formed over four hundred years… There’s certainly various opinions on that process but we can agree probably that for you apparently the New Testament is secondary to the Church holding certain dogmas and doctrines.

I don’t think arguing about church history will accomplish very much.

(3) For us of course the Qur’an would be the last scripture before the Writings of the Bab and Baha’u’llah…because from revelation through Prophet Muhammad it was recited immediately after and collected it is in our view accurate.

 

[arthra]

Any one interested can read the Tablet to the Hague written by Abdul-Baha in 1919 translated into English here:

bahai-library.com/abdulbaha_lawh_hague_bwc

Also from the book Abdul-Baha The Centre of the Covenant by H.M. Balyuzi p. 438

'Abdu’l-Bahá addressed a second and shorter Tablet to the Hague Committee, in July 1920. He wrote:

Your kind answer to my letter, dated 12th of June 1920,
has arrived and greatly pleased me. Praise be unto God,
that it was indicative of the fact that your motive and
purpose is identical with that of ours. Its contents also
consisted of spiritual susceptibilities which are expressive
of sincere love.

We, Bahá’ís, feel great affection towards that honorable
Assembly. Therefore have we sent two honored persons[1]
to that highly esteemed Assembly as a sign of strong
relationship.

[1 Hippolyte Dreyfus-Barney and Ahmad Yazdani of Tihran.]

Today the most important problem in the affairs of the
world of humanity is that of the Universal Peace, which is
the greatest means contributing to the very life and
happiness of mankind. Without this most luminous reality
it is impossible for humanity to attain to actual comfort
and proficiency. Nay rather, shall it have, day by day, some
actual misfortune and tragedy . .

…

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
. If I may throw my two cents into the ring here… I think that where there were centuries between actual occurrences or Figures in religious history before anything was actually set down in writing there tends to be less certainty. For example, Buddhist and Hindu traditions were oral for several centuries and came down with some variations as well as grand embellishments which cannot reasonably be attributed to Buddha or Krsna, but to the minds of those who passed along the stories over time. This does not mean that these Figures did not exist or that there aren’t divine truths within the stories as told, just as when we read the Old Testament that there weren’t divine truths being taught that mankind needed, for it is clear that we do need the guidance of God in whatever form it may be given to us.

. I believe that regarding the accuracy of the Quran, this is based upon it being written down some 3 or 4 years after the passing of Muhammad. As I understand it, there were a number of people who memorized the verses of the Quran as they were revealed during the 23 (lunar) years from 610 AD to 632 AD and that they were being killed off in the wars, hence the need realized to write them down was sensed very early on.

. The essential truths of the Gospel are upheld by the Baha’is with certainty as guidance from God Himself, while at the same time recognizing that recollections, as I understand it, contained certain variations according to the memory, or Gospel “according to” Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John, for example. Again, this does not diminish the intent and purpose of the Sacred Texts, but recognizes the human variations as they are. How we wish that Jesus Himself had written in His own Hand. Even Muhammad did not do this, for it was known that He was illiterate and stated that the Verses did not originate with Him, but were given to Him by the Angel Gabriel, Who also appeared to certain Old Testament Prophets.

. Several tens of thousands of pages in the handwriting of the Bab and Baha’u’llah have been authenticated and are held in the Baha’i International Archives, a portion of which have been translated into English. Perhaps 80 to 90 % have yet to be translated from the original Farsi or Arabic from this volume.

I think I have said this before, but it bears repeating. We are not a faith of the Book. As Pope benedict XVI said “Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.” It is not dependent upon writings either, but rather an encounter with the living God. The deposit of faith given to the Church is in its heart, its very life, and this faith has been closely guarded and protected from error since its inception.

As to error within the Christian Scripture, we believe that it is divinely protected from error. That is why I wanted to understand the Baha’i meaning of “scripture”, which I have learned is not the same at all.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,

Thanks for your post…

Three things…

(1) It’s not just Christian scripture being alluded to here when it says…

* As a general rule, the works embodying the most recent revelations are viewed as the most authentic; the farther back in time a revelation occurred, the less accurately it is likely to have been preserved. Usually the Bahá’í view corresponds with the judgment of historians and textual critics.*

We’re talking about all previous scriptures whether Christian, Zoroastrian, etc. The more ancient the less reliable.

Yes, I understand.

(2) You comment above:

“The Church already held the same dogmas and doctrines that we hold today before the New Testament was even written and nearly 400 years before the sacred texts were canonized.”

I don’t think we necessarily have to discuss this as it relates more to how the church formed over four hundred years… There’s certainly various opinions on that process but we can agree probably that for you apparently the New Testament is secondary to the Church holding certain dogmas and doctrines.

I don’t think arguing about church history will accomplish very much.

(3) For us of course the Qur’an would be the last scripture before the Writings of the Bab and Baha’u’llah…because from revelation through Prophet Muhammad it was recited immediately after and collected it is in our view accurate.

My only point was that the notion that because something is ancient it is then automatically less reliable is a false notion. I am offering the Catholic Church as evidence of this. It is ancient and very well documented.

 

[tonyfish58]

“Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.”

Steve - This is true Faith and what it is to be Christian, this is also what it is to be a Baha’i.

Baha’u’llah said His greatest proof is His own Person. History confirms this.

But we have to look with the eyes of Justice. Just remember the Jews mocked Christ because He had no Father. We can not judge them by Human Standards, but by Gods Standards only. Then we must realize that God Doeth as He Willeth and none are given the right to Question.

Regards Tony

 

[daler]

Your new world order is pointless then. Evil will continue

Now you say objectively the world is getting better.

.

Ignatian,
. The opportunity to be “good” can only exist if the same opportunity to be evil exists. One cannot be without the other. Otherwise, its like saying you can have a one-sided coin.

. Objectively, let us consider what “is” getting better in the world, such as:

A Medicine: The eradication of polio, smallpox, measles vaccines, antibiotics, penicillin, X-rays, CT Scans, MRIs, micro-surgery, cancer surgery, hip and knee replacements, Modern Dentistry, anesthesia, to name only a very few…

B Transportation: Automobiles (Safety & Non-polluting), Air travel, Space exploration (going to the moon was so 40 years ago), Ambulance and Medi-vac, etc.

C Technology: Computers, Internet, Information, Lasers, Chemistry, nano-technology, Physics, digital photography, Cell phones, Solar, Wind, & other Green Energy, Weather Forecasting, NEWS, etc

D Economics: Electronic currency exchange, access to goods and services, ability to travel worldwide for business or excursions, instant data on world markets, E-Bay, Google, etc

E Agriculture: Two percent farming feeding 98% eating, down from 98% farming to sustain humanity. Satellite Imaging for precise application of fertilizer, etc. My old man was born on the prairie in 1905 plowing with horses, farmed until he was 83, and lived till 2005. He saw a little change in a hundred years, I’d say, most of it good.

F International Trade Agreements, United Nations to at least keep people at the table and talking, hitting the “Pause” button more and more instead of immediate war as an option, Sanctions instead of blockades, International Arbitration, Women’s Rights, freedom of religion catching on, end of slavery (for most part), etc…

. . Is the cup half empty or half full? It is true that the “old world order” is still collapsing and will be for some time, but while it self-destructs, something wonderful is being built organically all over the world. Isaiah talked about it. So did Jesus.

. “The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.” Baha’u’llah

 

[daler]

I think I have said this before, but it bears repeating. We are not a faith of the Book.

.

Steve,
. This is very good to point out, and very true. It is the “Spirit” which is at the center of Christian belief, and other Faiths as well. It is a living thing, something we can sense and feel, when we open ourselves to it. It is called the Spirit of Faith.

. What I think has been attempted to convey is that God sends Messengers to renew the Spirit of Faith in mankind, to give us fresh spiritual water for when we are thirsty, and it is quite apparent than humanity needs a drink…

 

[Servant19]

Response to Sen

Not the only solution, but one half of the solution. On the one hand, we believe that this world can, with the help of God, be reshaped in accordance with God’s will, which is to see His children dealing with one another good children of one family. A world federal system is one aspect of this: many other things are also involved. In his letter to the Central Organization for a Durable Peace (the “tablet to the Hague”) he writes:

I would like to repeat the charge that should you obtain this utopia, this tower of babel, evil would still exist and not be destroyed.

This new world order is not envisioned as a world without sin, for evil (the absence of good) is always potential in free will. Bahais believe that in this world we always have free will, so the potential for sin is always present. The new world order is to be sustained by an awareness of the oneness of humanity, and maintained by a Tribunal that can enforce its verdicts. It’s practical, not utopian. But in the next world, we do not have free will. The world you look for, when sin and evil will be no more, is coming, for you and for everyone, as we all die.

This programme of principles for " the felicity of mankind" is one part of what Baha’u’llah has to offer. The other part is “to know and to worship God.” This is the root of the tree, while justice, fellowship, and peace are among the fruits.

Your new world order is pointless then. Evil will continue to dominate mankind, no matter the change in government you cannot change the human person. Power of such a magnitude be only of one person or a council eventually corrupts as history has shown time and time again. So I see my point only reinforced, evil will forever exist in bahai eschatology, the only hope bahai have is establishing the One world government and trying to be good.

Now you say objectively the world is getting better. How do you prove objectively that the world is improving or “getting better” or whatever that means? Less death? More people are dying now than ever before. Less sexual sin? We are being exposed to more and more dissolution of the family. Tolerance? We are seeing Islamic radicals constantly killing people while the “Moderates” don’t seem to care, we are seeing western governments continuing to grow secular and slowly placing restrictions on those with traditional beliefs (ie traditional marriage or the right to raise your own children without going to public school). We are still seeing abortion and infanticide being practiced all over the world, abortion in the west, forced abortion in china, infanticide of girls in india. Where do you get this strange notion that the world is getting better? IT isn’t getting better, it is the same as it always has been, good and evil. You however seem content with a creation that will forever adhere to evil, whereas God and Jesus said otherwise.

Ignatian, this short essay summarizes well the twin process of integration and disintegration occurring in the world right now and will help shape the principles at play in your mind, viewed from a Bahai perspective

bahaiacademy.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=82

 

[flameburns623]

Wow: did you burn thru a thousand posts already? I figured the topic was burning out since I wasn’t getting updates.

 

[flameburns623]

Ignatian,
. The opportunity to be “good” can only exist if the same opportunity to be evil exists. One cannot be without the other. Otherwise, its like saying you can have a one-sided coin . . . . .

Take any strip of two-sided ribbon.

Give it a single twist.

Affix both ends with tape, forming a circlet or band.

The ribbon has now but one continuous side.

So shall it be in the Great Day of the Lord: He, by His Omnipotent power will, with but a simple gesture eliminate all evil and create a universe where Divine Good and Good only shall exist.

 

[Servant19]

Take any strip of two-sided ribbon.

Give it a single twist.

Affix both ends with tape, forming a circlet or band.

The ribbon has now but one continuous side.

So shall it be in the Great Day of the Lord: He, by His Omnipotent power will, with but a simple gesture eliminate all evil and create a universe where Divine Good and Good only shall exist.

Hi flame, good to see you back friend

It’s an interesting perspective you present. Do you mind sharing some of the Scripture that you are thinking of when you say this?

It may have many similarities to the Golden Age of the Bahai Dispensation. This is definitely worthy of mutual exploration

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

So the premise that “the farther back in time a revelation occurred, the less accurately it is likely to have been preserved.” is simply not true. Does anyone question whether the writings of Aristotle or Plato are actually their writings?

Yes, the tools of source criticism were developed by scholars first to deal with the classical authors (Homer was most interesting), and only later applied to reconstruct the history of the New Testament and Old Testament.

We have much more evidence for the Catholic Church than we do for these folks.

Yes: the source criticism on the New Testament texts, and the related historical criticism of the events, gives us more and better evidence than, for example, the life and writings of Homer or the death of Socrates. On the other hand, source criticism and historical criticism of the Old Testament gets very murky. However it is not the case that time inevitably causes the historical record to decay: rather that when societies go through major transitions, such as acquiring literacy, conquest, and the like, records are both lost and interpolated by various parties with an interest in changing them. Historical claims are very often used to justify political and social positions, so one always has to suspect the text, and interrogate it. Another thing that makes a difference is how the text is used. There are many many textual variants in Shakespeare, who is hardly a classical author: this is because the use of the text in drama made it prone to adaptation. His sonnets on the other hand are preserved with few variants.

I should emphasise that I am speaking here as a student in these fields, not as a Bahai. Bahai official teaching is in my view more optimistic about the authenticity and integrity of the Bible than is justified by the evidence.

… why do the sands of time not affect the validity of the Quran in the same way as they are purported to effect the Holy Bible?

Despite Shoghi Effendi’s statement that “The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect not to be compared with the Qur’án”, and the claims of Muslim fundamentalists that the Quran has been divinely preserved from change, there are variant texts of the Quran. The best and almost only reliable study in English is Jeffrey’s " Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur’ân: The Old Codices." What he has done in fact is collate the source-critical work of Islamic scholars from the Islamic golden age, for at one time there was a great deal of intellectual freedom in Islamic societies and scholars naturally studied these things.

Having said that, the Quran variants are enough to show that the text has not been divinely preserved from change, but are not substantially significant as regards the question, “what is the Quran.” The biggest variants show us how the surahs developed in the lifetime of Muhammad: they show that verses were added by Muhammad (with a high probability) as questions were asked or new circumstances arose. So people who had memorised a surah at an earlier time might have a different version. It is historically interesting, but adds up to only a tiny “ahem” to the claim that the Quran is wholly authentic.

Just as a scientific approach to the New Testament and Old Testament shows that the confidence of the faithful that these texts are authentic and unchanged is somewhat optimistic, a scientific approach to the history of the early church shows that too much reliance has in the past been placed on some early church documents. Eusebius is an example, and the Donation of Constantine (the unmasking of the latter is a good early example of the way scholarship on the Greek and Latin classics fed into a critical approach to Christian texts). While these findings show that the institutional continuity of the Church in the early centuries was an apologetic construct, after the fact, this does not mean that there was no continuity (and variety) in the transmission of early Christian society from generation to generation.

The Church today has embraced a scientific approach to its own history, so far as the theologians and hierarchy are concerned, but they do not necessarily tell the faithful what they have discovered, unless they are asked. Their taks is not to proclaim the latest scientific findings, but to proclaim the gospel and serve the faithful. The inclusion of scientific church history and Biblical criticism in the training in seminaries has however changed attitudes among Catholic apologists, scholars and leaders, and ultimately the faithful, as regards the superiority of Christianity vis a vis other religions, and of the Catholic Church vis a vis other churches. This is a positive outcome. Protestant - Catholic rapprochement would hardly have been possible without source criticism weakening Protestant’s confidence in the literal forms of scripture, and historical criticism weakening the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to institutional continuity with the Apostles. As always, we oppose one another in pride, and find one another in humility. It works in marriage too

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

…Where do you get this strange notion that the world is getting better? IT isn’t getting better, it is the same as it always has been, good and evil.

I pointed you towards some historical studies that prove the point. These researchers take a measurable indicator such as the proportion of adults who die a violent death, and use it as a proxy measure for something like peaceableness. The indicator is something that can be measured over the long term. For example, they can go through existing records of exhumations from 13th century England, and see what percentage have been attributed to violence, then give that figure a weight according to the population of England as a proportion of world population in the 13th century, and so on, region by region.

The angels of our better nature are gradually winning, and things have become radically better since the end of the Cold War. It is important to spread the awareness of this, as the idea that world is going to hell in a handcart is so disempowering.

Believers have even more reason for optimism: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

 

[frazelle09]

i would also like to humbly add a point to one of the previous ideas about the existence and continuation of sin in the world. Bahá’u’lláh states that God’s purpose for man is for man to know and to love Him. He also states that religion’s purpose is the creation of an ever-advancing civilization. Since man must needs be born into a physical world and traverse it until his physical death, his purpose in the world is to know and love God and to help in furthering an ever-advancing civilization. Man is born with certain capacities, Bahá’u’lláh refers to man as a “…mine rich in gems of inestimable value.” and as he passes through this physical life each man needs discover with what gems he has been blessed and must needs draw them forth and polish them. This process requires what Bahá’ís call “tests and difficulties”. Each individual’s path towards knowing a loving God requires knowledge and effort, sacrifice of the “lower self” in order to acquire heavenly attributes and qualities. So the concept of sin would be, at least in one case, the misuse of our heavenly gems for an unworthy purpose. So, in a sense, “sin” can never disappear from the earth in the sense that each of use is always striving towards a more perfect Christ-like (in Christian terms) life. We don’t always make the correct decisions, but even in these cases they can be used as a point for reflection and for a change of course.

Uf. i hope this helps. i think we understand the concept of sin differently. It’s not something which is “outside” but the incorrect or unworthy use of our God-given capacities.

Have a great afternoon!

 

[Jcc1960]

Just as a scientific approach to the New Testament and Old Testament shows that the confidence of the faithful that these texts are authentic and unchanged is somewhat optimistic, a scientific approach to the history of the early church shows that too much reliance has in the past been placed on some early church documents. Eusebius is an example, and the Donation of Constantine (the unmasking of the latter is a good early example of the way scholarship on the Greek and Latin classics fed into a critical approach to Christian texts). While these findings show that the institutional continuity of the Church in the early centuries was an apologetic construct, after the fact, this does not mean that there was no continuity (and variety) in the transmission of early Christian society from generation to generation.

The Church today has embraced a scientific approach to its own history, so far as the theologians and hierarchy are concerned, but they do not necessarily tell the faithful what they have discovered, unless they are asked. Their taks is not to proclaim the latest scientific findings, but to proclaim the gospel and serve the faithful. The inclusion of scientific church history and Biblical criticism in the training in seminaries has however changed attitudes among Catholic apologists, scholars and leaders, and ultimately the faithful, as regards the superiority of Christianity vis a vis other religions, and of the Catholic Church vis a vis other churches. This is a positive outcome. Protestant - Catholic rapprochement would hardly have been possible without source criticism weakening Protestant’s confidence in the literal forms of scripture, and historical criticism weakening the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to institutional continuity with the Apostles. As always, we oppose one another in pride, and find one another in humility. It works in marriage too

Thank you for this, it is a well balanced assessment based on actual knowledge, which is always useful.

I recognize that the Catholic Church has to a great extent embraced scientific methods, out of a sincere belief that there is only one Truth, or as PRMerger likes to say, “all truth is Catholic truth”. Of course one must recognize that new discoveries may be incomplete and unreliable until amply proved, so that may be considered as good justification for a generally “conservative” approach.

I was raised a Catholic, and I am aware that there are some cases of beliefs which are allowed to be held by the faithful who would think that they are official doctrines, but they are not. I am thinking in particular about whether Jesus had brothers and sisters who were children of Mary and Joseph. Specifically, James, Joses, Simon and Judah. The eldest being James the Just, who led the Christians in Jerusalem after Christ’s ascension, until he was stoned to death in 62 AD. Afterward, Simon apparently was looked upon as a leader.

I was told by a priest that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not an authentic church doctrine, but is something that Catholics “wish to believe.” I can certainly see Mary as being considered perpetually a virgin in a spiritual sense, but I have a problem with denying the real family relationship of four brothers mentioned in the Gospels.

For the record, Baha’is share the belief that there is only one Truth, it is not subjective. If some things are proven scientifically with great certainly which appear to conflict with scripture or doctrine, the interpretation of the scripture or doctrine needs to change.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, the tools of source criticism were developed by scholars first to deal with the classical authors (Homer was most interesting), and only later applied to reconstruct the history of the New Testament and Old Testament.

Yes: the source criticism on the New Testament texts, and the related historical criticism of the events, gives us more and better evidence than, for example, the life and writings of Homer or the death of Socrates. On the other hand, source criticism and historical criticism of the Old Testament gets very murky. However it is not the case that time inevitably causes the historical record to decay: rather that when societies go through major transitions, such as acquiring literacy, conquest, and the like, records are both lost and interpolated by various parties with an interest in changing them. Historical claims are very often used to justify political and social positions, so one always has to suspect the text, and interrogate it. Another thing that makes a difference is how the text is used. There are many many textual variants in Shakespeare, who is hardly a classical author: this is because the use of the text in drama made it prone to adaptation. His sonnets on the other hand are preserved with few variants.

I should emphasise that I am speaking here as a student in these fields, not as a Bahai. Bahai official teaching is in my view more optimistic about the authenticity and integrity of the Bible than is justified by the evidence.

Despite Shoghi Effendi’s statement that “The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect not to be compared with the Qur’án”, and the claims of Muslim fundamentalists that the Quran has been divinely preserved from change, there are variant texts of the Quran. The best and almost only reliable study in English is Jeffrey’s " Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur’ân: The Old Codices." What he has done in fact is collate the source-critical work of Islamic scholars from the Islamic golden age, for at one time there was a great deal of intellectual freedom in Islamic societies and scholars naturally studied these things.

Having said that, the Quran variants are enough to show that the text has not been divinely preserved from change, but are not substantially significant as regards the question, “what is the Quran.” The biggest variants show us how the surahs developed in the lifetime of Muhammad: they show that verses were added by Muhammad (with a high probability) as questions were asked or new circumstances arose. So people who had memorised a surah at an earlier time might have a different version. It is historically interesting, but adds up to only a tiny “ahem” to the claim that the Quran is wholly authentic.

Just as a scientific approach to the New Testament and Old Testament shows that the confidence of the faithful that these texts are authentic and unchanged is somewhat optimistic, a scientific approach to the history of the early church shows that too much reliance has in the past been placed on some early church documents. Eusebius is an example, and the Donation of Constantine (the unmasking of the latter is a good early example of the way scholarship on the Greek and Latin classics fed into a critical approach to Christian texts). While these findings show that the institutional continuity of the Church in the early centuries was an apologetic construct, after the fact, this does not mean that there was no continuity (and variety) in the transmission of early Christian society from generation to generation.

The Church today has embraced a scientific approach to its own history, so far as the theologians and hierarchy are concerned, but they do not necessarily tell the faithful what they have discovered, unless they are asked. Their taks is not to proclaim the latest scientific findings, but to proclaim the gospel and serve the faithful. The inclusion of scientific church history and Biblical criticism in the training in seminaries has however changed attitudes among Catholic apologists, scholars and leaders, and ultimately the faithful, as regards the superiority of Christianity vis a vis other religions, and of the Catholic Church vis a vis other churches. This is a positive outcome. Protestant - Catholic rapprochement would hardly have been possible without source criticism weakening Protestant’s confidence in the literal forms of scripture, and historical criticism weakening the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to institutional continuity with the Apostles. As always, we oppose one another in pride, and find one another in humility. It works in marriage too

Thanks Sen. Well done. I would disagree with only a small portion of your comments but I don’t want to get off topic. Very fair and well thought out assessment.

 

[PRmerger]

I was raised a Catholic, and I am aware that there are some cases of beliefs which are allowed to be held by the faithful who would think that they are official doctrines, but they are not. I am thinking in particular about whether Jesus had brothers and sisters who were children of Mary and Joseph. Specifically, James, Joses, Simon and Judah. The eldest being James the Just, who led the Christians in Jerusalem after Christ’s ascension, until he was stoned to death in 62 AD. Afterward, Simon apparently was looked upon as a leader.

I was told by a priest that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not an authentic church doctrine, but is something that Catholics “wish to believe.”

This is incorrect, Jcc.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm#499

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks Sen. Well done. I would disagree with only a small portion of your comments but I don’t want to get off topic. Very fair and well thought out assessment.

I echo Steve’s sentiments. Well done, Sen!

 

[SteveVH]

I was raised a Catholic, and I am aware that there are some cases of beliefs which are allowed to be held by the faithful who would think that they are official doctrines, but they are not. I am thinking in particular about whether Jesus had brothers and sisters who were children of Mary and Joseph. Specifically, James, Joses, Simon and Judah. The eldest being James the Just, who led the Christians in Jerusalem after Christ’s ascension, until he was stoned to death in 62 AD. Afterward, Simon apparently was looked upon as a leader.

A belief in brothers and sisters of the Lord by blood would be in contradiction in the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Perpetual virginity of Mary is one of the “Four Marian Dogmas”.

I was told by a priest that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not an authentic church doctrine, but is something that Catholics “wish to believe.” I can certainly see Mary as being considered perpetually a virgin in a spiritual sense, but I have a problem with denying the real family relationship of four brothers mentioned in the Gospels.

Your priest needs to brush up on his Catholicism.

As far as the four brothers mentioned in the Gospels, each and every one of them can be proven to have mothers who were not Mary the mother of Jesus. This is a common topic on this forum and should not be re-hashed here, but suffice it to say it is a bogus claim.

For the record, Baha’is share the belief that there is only one Truth, it is not subjective. If some things are proven scientifically with great certainly which appear to conflict with scripture or doctrine, the interpretation of the scripture or doctrine needs to change.

 

[Jcc1960]

This is incorrect, Jcc.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm#499

Thank you, I stand corrected.

However I was told by a catholic priest that it was not part of the Church Cannon, and he pulled out a big book and showed me where it was stated that it was not, I don’t recall the name of the book unfortunately, this was about 25 years ago. Could it be that there is a difference between Church Cannon and Catechism?