M
MariaG
Guest
That is okay. I don’t really mind. I do know that there are many “lurkers” out there and would not choose to let them not read a rebuttal to the scripture that they say talks of Mary’s other children.
God Bless
- Status
God Bless
I
Ignatius
Guest
Actually, Hit-n-run posters like that provide an excellent opportunity to expose them as unable to backup their false claims. We get to present the Truth and they have nothing to present.
One thing I would like them to answer is how they think that they can know better than those who were actually there at the time, everyone within living memory of Jesus and the Apostles, and clear up to and including the Protestant reformers.
That’s the question I have for them.
C
crazzeto
Guest
I dont’ think the protistant reformers say this coming with Sola Scriptura. I think maybe they geniounly thought that maybe the holy spirit would come to just anyone reading the bible. Maybe they thought it was all so obvious no one would ever misinterpet things like this.
Whatever the case, they were wrong. The only spirit was never promised to just anyone reading the bible. And when you have all sorts of people, reading the bible, with all sorts of personal experience, and all sorts of different levels of education… You’re bound to have so many wildly different interpetations.
Edit
Or maybe they made “read the bible and decide for your self” claims thinking people would continue to be generally illiterate (as they were durring the refermation). Who knows.
M
MariaG
Guest
Reformers like Lutheran hold that scripture is the final INFALLIBLE authority, but that not everything needs to be contained within the bible to be true which is why he had no problem with Mary being ever Virgin.
It is you more fundamentalist branches, not the sacramental protestants, who say it all must be in the bible to be true, or variations like if it is not in the bible, it is not essential to salvation and therefore they don’t have to follow it.
God Bless,
Maria
M
mm3861
Guest
You won’t find any of that in the Bible. It comes from the Traditions of the Catholic Church which acording to Catholic teaching is held in equal esteem with scripture.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Go back and reread the thread, it’s all in the bible. No, not stated explicitly in those terms, you actually need to understand your history so you can read in proper context. But it’s all in there, in a single passage in fact. John 19:25-27 which I already quoted.
In those days, the childeren actually took care of their parents. Jesus couldn’t have said what he said with out offending his only surviving siblings, so he must not have had any surviving siblings. Further the only idenitifed “siblings of Christ”, are in identified in Mark 15 as bing the sons of another Mary who is standing at a distance from the Cross, while Mary mother of God is standing at the foot of the cross.
It’s all right there, you just have to not be reading a single passage of the bible in isolation, you must always read any passage in the bible in context with the other passages, and with an understanding of historical context.
R
rocketrob
Guest
It IS possible that the Truth has begun to ‘ROCK’ Chergirl’s world (pun intended).That is okay. I don’t really mind. I do know that there are many “lurkers” out there and would not choose to let them not read a rebuttal to the scripture that they say talks of Mary’s other children.
God Bless
She’s new to the forums…she may really be interested in the Catholic viewpoint.
rocketrob
C
crazzeto
Guest
Well it seems that the OP is still around, I PMed one of my responses to her and I got a blank response (but none the less a response). I hope her heart is sincer and desires to learn.
J
JanetF
Guest
Brother could mean 1/2 brothers or cousins. Remember the Bible has been translated to English from another language. Sometimes there are not exact words equals.
Also, I read an article a while ago that talked about the possibility/probability that Joseph had been married before, as he was older than Mary, so any children he had with his deceased wife, would be Jesus’ 1/2-brothers.
Vows of celibacy were not uncommon among Jews during those times. Actually some people take them now as well.
Also, I read an article a while ago that talked about the possibility/probability that Joseph had been married before, as he was older than Mary, so any children he had with his deceased wife, would be Jesus’ 1/2-brothers.
Vows of celibacy were not uncommon among Jews during those times. Actually some people take them now as well.
C
crazzeto
Guest
The bible specifically names Jesus’s “brothers” in this case (Mark 15) and makes it clear, they are the childeren of a different Mary. Who in the chapter is stading from a distance of the cross, while Mary mother of God is standing at it’s foot.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”
The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before New Testament Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.
These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.
When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.
Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
This proves nothing once you understand who these “brothers” really are.Here…father… mother… brothers… sisters…ne household.
Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary
Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:
1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.
"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)
2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.
“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)
3. There are two apostles named James.
“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)
4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.
“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)
5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**
“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)
6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.
7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.
“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)
8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.
“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)
**9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.
**
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Cher-
You need to understand the language patterns of the people involved here.
Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”
The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)
In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.
You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use* adelphos* in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.
Just because your English translation says “brother” or “sister”, it does not mean that these were uterine siblings of Jesus or other children of Mary.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
M
mm3861
Guest
Obviously the scriptures weren’t written as events occurred but at a later time. But it seems to me that whenever this whole idea of “Sacred Tradition” is about as reliable as the old tin can and string telephone game.Because not all of the Word of God was written down.
And that fact IS in the Bible.
M
MariaG
Guest
Yet your personal belief contradicts scripture in many different ways. Here are just a few.
John 21:25 not everything Jesus said recorded in scripture
John 16:13 guided by Holy Spirit into all truth
1Tim3:15 church called the “pillar and foundation of truth”
C
crazzeto
Guest
More over, the bible it’s self is very much a product of Sacrade Tradition! MM said it him self, he admits the bible wasn’t written for many years after the death of christ. Well how was all that information kept all this time? That same game of tin can, in fact not all the gosples were written by Christs actual apostles!
If you “believe the bible”, then you ought to “beleive Sacrade Tradition”. If you don’t, you’re in super serious trouble, because the bible relies entirly upon Sacrade Tradition.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Does the Holy Spirit play “Telephone”?
Or does He lead the Church into all truth as Jesus promised?
Can you hear me now?
I
Ignatius
Guest
mm3851:
The Gospel of Jesus Christ was passed on by Sacred Tradition until the Gospels began to be written down around A.D. 60 or later. The New Testament is part of Sacred Tradition.
R
rocketrob
Guest
MariaG,It is also interesting to note that those who lived closer to the time of Christ, from around 120 - 350, all talk about the perpetual virginity of Mary. Even the reformers accepted that Mary was ever Virgin and it is only a recent invention in the history of Christianiy to suggest otherwise.
Here is another nice little tract on the subject from Catholic Answers.
Mary: Ever Virgin
One can admit that Mary is Ever-Virgin and remain Protestant. Acknowledging the fact that over 1600 years of Christianity, protestant and Catholic alike, believe that Mary was ever virgin does not lead to a slippery slope straight to Catholicism
You brought up some very important information in this post, that I think is often ‘news’ to many protestants…that the original reformers did not question the perpetual virginity of Mary. You final statement might gloss over the importance of this question, however.
As a convert to Catholicism later in life, I think that this particular issue or question comes up repeatedly, and early on in any apologetic discussion, because at first blush, Scripture would seem to contradict the Magisterial (teaching) authority of the Catholic Church. If Mary did not remain ever virgin, it would seem that so many Catholic positions (Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium of the Church, etc) would start to ‘crumble away.’
On the other hand, if Mary DID remain ever virgin, then it would have to be admitted that the Catholic Church’s position in this instance was correct, that the idea of Sacred Tradition might have some validity, and that the Magisterial office of the Church might be right in asserting that it has the unique authority in providing the authentic interpretation of Scripture. In this case, many protestant positions start to ‘crumble.’
As another Catholic Answers tract on Marian Doctrines states: “Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false.”
Granted, this is more true for the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The tract I referred to is here: catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
rocketrob
- Status