SPLIT: Did Jesus have brothers? The perpetual virginity debate.

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Scripture clearly shows that the 4 sons listed are not Mary’s children. Let me show you how:

You have a Bible, I suspect, so check it out for yourself. You know that each of the Gospel writers had their own perspectives of the passion events. Only John mentions that Mary, the mother of Jesus was at the cross and of course, none of the other gospel writers acknowledge that John was at the cross either. But now that you can see that John, the son of Zebedee and Salome, was actually the nephew of Mary, its a lot easier to understand why he would be chosen by Jesus to take Mary into his home after Jesus’ death, isn’t it. And the fact that Salome was Jesus’ Aunt also helps to explain why she would be bold enough to ask that James and John be given the honor of sitting at his right and at his left in his Kingdom (Matthew 20: 20-23).

Also is the same women standing close in one passage and further away in the other passage? Which is it?

if you believe that all scripture is true and is consistent with other scripture than you can understand that the same women were standing close to the cross when John encountered them (because he was at the cross when he was given Mary as his mother) but then moved further away in the synoptic accounts which encounter them later as Jesus dies. It is quite possible that Mary, the mother of God was still at the cross while the others moved away as the events transpired.

But lets focus on what scripture is telling us Just from the Gospel of Mark alone. In chapter 6 , he describes James and Joses as the brothers of Jesus and in chapter 15, he describes them as the sons of Mary (but clearly not the Virgin Mary because she would have been described as Jesus’ mother if that was the case).

Now I grant you that the Gospel writers could have picked 3 different women to describe, but that seems very unlikely. Remember, these three women are NOT insignificant players in the Gospel. Mary Magdalene was very devoted to Jesus and was the first to see him after the resurrection. Salome and the other Mary were both Aunts of Jesus and mothers of significant disciples. They were NOT picked at random. They were identified by the Gospel writers because of their significance.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

A large part of the Church’s Tradition, capital T, is MEMORY, not anecdotal such as Washington’s cherry tree which never happened but a continuity of story, names of churches, external documents that bear out the Church’s NT or story. Good example is St Peter’s remains “were under the original and modern Bailica”. Come 1972 or thereabouts they found a 60-ish man’s body directly under the Pope’s altar in St Peter’s. Same goes for a major part of our Marian lore as it bears directly on JESUS which is why she is given hyperdulia, HIS is latria, worship for GOD ALONE. Neither do we take any one brilliant mind alone as proof, the Fathers and some Popes privately had different doctrines from the approved. before they were. The CHURCH did not have to define any core Bible teachiing about the Trinity or Jesus or the Virgin birth infallibly since the Bible is

 

[pablope]

]O

 

[Tomb54]

The ‘bible alone’ editorial content reveals the source of this twist. Interpretation is a human trait. Ink and paper cannot interpret. If scripture interpreted scripture we would have protestant unity. On the contrary, it is suffering entropy.

I see where the problem is with Algo1 and other Protestants. Scripture to Protestant is only the bible. I forgot they have restricted themselves to only part of the scriptures the bible talks about. They have to rely on their own personal interpetation because their man-made church has not been led to all truths

I]And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 21:25

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle 2 Thess 2:15

Jesus told the Apostles (and only his Apostles) that the spirit would lead them to all truths.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. JOHN16:13
These Apostle were the start of his Church and they handed it on to their successors which some Protestant say never happened.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:2

For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 4:1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

So while Algo quoted Irenaeus he should seethat the ECF are talking about all Tradition which is the written as well as that which is held in the Church.

*“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth.” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,3:3 (inter A.D. 180/199).
So while he quotes the Ecfs he misses what they are really talking about and again shows lack of knowledge of the fullness of truth held in the Catholic Church.

 

[po18guy]

I see where the problem is with Algo1 and other Protestants. Scripture to Protestant is only the bible. I forgot they have restricted themselves to only part of the scriptures the bible talks about. They have to rely on their own personal interpetation because their man-made church has not been led to all truths

I]And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 21:25

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle 2 Thess 2:15

Jesus told the Apostles (and only his Apostles) that the spirit would lead them to all truths.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. JOHN16:13
These Apostle were the start of his Church and they handed it on to their successors which some Protestant say never happened.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:2

For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 4:1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

So while Algo quoted Irenaeus he should seethat the ECF are talking about all Tradition which is the written as well as that which is held in the Church.

"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,3:3 (inter A.D. 180/199).
So while he quotes the Ecfs he misses what they are really talking about and again shows lack of knowledge of the fullness of truth held in the Catholic Church.

It is absolutely no wonder why the protestant world is in confusion and disarray. Partial revelation, an incomplete canon of scripture, no central authority. Nothing, except each individual to determine his or her own truth via private interpretation. If one denomination’s preaching is a little hard-edged, jump to another one.

If we listen to all of scripture, it tells us in many places, Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 4:20, 1 Corinthians 11:34 (and others), that it is incomplete. As well, the “bible alone” world has developed its own language and terminology, which does not match with Catholic/Orthodox terms. Many bible factions obsess over justification and salvation, when all we need concern ourselves with is conversion of heart and the Sacraments. They think that their path is simple and ours complicated, when the reverse is actually true. But, one by one, the Holy Spirit is reconstituting the Church and calling souls to unity. My struggle is to remain charitable through the process.

 

[Algo1]

I see where the problem is with Algo1 and other Protestants. Scripture to Protestant is only the bible. I forgot they have restricted themselves to only part of the scriptures the bible talks about. They have to rely on their own personal interpetation because their man-made church has not been led to all truths

I]And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 21:25

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle 2 Thess 2:15

Jesus told the Apostles (and only his Apostles) that the spirit would lead them to all truths.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. JOHN16:13
These Apostle were the start of his Church and they handed it on to their successors which some Protestant say never happened.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:2

For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 4:1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

So while Algo quoted Irenaeus he should seethat the ECF are talking about all Tradition which is the written as well as that which is held in the Church.

"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,3:3 (inter A.D. 180/199).
So while he quotes the Ecfs he misses what they are really talking about and again shows lack of knowledge of the fullness of truth held in the Catholic Church.

Tomb54,
Whenever Irenaeus declares that “[the] apostolic testimony or tradition” is handed down orally he is referring to the contents of what Irenaeus called ‘the rule of faith’… Irenaeus tells us what this ‘rule of faith’ contains. It is not the unwritten or oral traditions such as Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Papal Primacy, Purgatory or Indulgences. He presents his readers with the very content of this ‘rule’.

"has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory"

All of this from Scripture and contained in the creed.
Please re-read the context of your quotes in the link below.

Source

 

[Algo1]

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle 2 Thess 2:15

So while he quotes the Ecfs he misses what they are really talking about and again shows lack of knowledge of the fullness of truth held in the Catholic Church.

**In Galatians 1:14, Paul makes reference to ‘the traditions of my fathers’ and in Colossians 2:8, ‘the tradition of men’. Charles Hodge notes that Galatians 1:14 and Colossians 2:8 are references ‘to what is human and untrustworthy…and frequently in the gospels of the elders.’

Only in the remaining three instances (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6), where the noun (paradosis) appears, do we find binding Christian tradition in the New Testament. In each of these, the apostle makes reference to authoritative apostolic tradition which he had ‘delivered’ (1 Cor. 11:2), ‘taught’ (2 Thess. 2:15), or ‘commanded’ (2 Thess. 3:6).

In all three cases, the tradition(s) to which he referred could be objectively identified by his readers.

These traditions were not something awaiting the future development of a living voice because, firstly, they had already been ‘delivered’ to the Corinthians who were ‘keeping’ them (1 Cor. 11:2), and secondly, they had already been ‘taught’ to the Thessalonians who were commanded to ‘stand fast’ in them and ‘hold them’ (2 Thess. 2:15). Thirdly, they were commanded to ‘walk’ according to them, clearly indicating that the Thessalonians were already acquainted with them (2 Thess. 3:6).

This being the case, not one of these texts supports the modern Roman view that ‘tradition’ in the New Testament can refer to a future unfolding of doctrinal development, or unidentified dogma awaiting future definition.

Why? Because the Church was already in possession of these traditions. They were already ‘keeping’ them, ‘holding’ them, and ‘walking’ in them.

The verbs used to describe the relationship of these traditions to Christian observance make no sense unless they had already been identified and defined. Every reference to ‘tradition’ in these passages has to do with doctrinal or moral rules already delivered.

David T. King p.112
**

 

[Cat_Herder]

In all three cases, the tradition(s) to which he referred could be objectively identified by his readers.

Identify them.

These traditions were not something awaiting the future development of a living voice because, firstly, they had already been ‘delivered’ to the Corinthians who were ‘keeping’ them (1 Cor. 11:2), and secondly, they had already been ‘taught’ to the Thessalonians who were commanded to ‘stand fast’ in them and ‘hold them’ (2 Thess. 2:15). Thirdly, they were commanded to ‘walk’ according to them, clearly indicating that the Thessalonians were already acquainted with them (2 Thess. 3:6).

This being the case, not one of these texts supports the modern Roman view that ‘tradition’ in the New Testament can refer to a future unfolding of doctrinal development, or unidentified dogma awaiting future definition.

Genesis says “6 days.” If that is not open to future clarification how do you deal with that pesky thing called science which comes along later and says “not 6 days?” (I do not want to talk about the merits of evolution–I am asking to what or whom you would turn.)

 

[BrianH]

It is absolutely no wonder why the protestant world is in confusion and disarray. Partial revelation, an incomplete canon of scripture, no central authority. Nothing, except each individual to determine his or her own truth via private interpretation. If one denomination’s preaching is a little hard-edged, jump to another one.

If we listen to all of scripture, it tells us in many places, Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 4:20, 1 Corinthians 11:34 (and others), that it is incomplete. As well, the “bible alone” world has developed its own language and terminology, which does not match with Catholic/Orthodox terms. Many bible factions obsess over justification and salvation, when all we need concern ourselves with is conversion of heart and the Sacraments. They think that their path is simple and ours complicated, when the reverse is actually true. But, one by one, the Holy Spirit is reconstituting the Church and calling souls to unity. My struggle is to remain charitable through the process.

You have to stick with the facts when you make statements po18guy. I get you are intense and being charitable is an issue. But I think what we are seeing is that more Catholics leave than Protestants. If I am wrong I want the facts otherwise. Because it is not an opinion.
We are not the ones jumping ship. No that has absolutely nothing to do with who is right. I am not saying it does.
ncronline.org/news/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants
digitaljournal.com/article/313087

 

[Cat_Herder]

You have to stick with the facts when you make statements po18guy. I get you are intense and being charitable is an issue. But I think what we are seeing is that more Catholics leave than Protestants. If I am wrong I want the facts otherwise. Because it is not an opinion.
We are not the ones jumping ship.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=7618

All of those lines are people who were raised Methodist. Look at the blue line. Those are ex-Methodists who are now Catholic.

From USA Today:
The Roman Catholic Church (No. 1) and the Southern Baptist Convention (No. 2) are still significantly larger than all other North American denominations, but Catholics posted minimal growth of less than 1 %, and Southern Baptist membership fell for a third straight year, according to the 2011 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches.
The figures in the 2011 yearbook, compiled by churches in 2009 and reported to the council in 2010, show that mainline Protestant churches continue the decline in memberships that began in the 1970s. The newest numbers show that the membership drop in mainline churches led to a 1% decrease in total U.S. church membership, to 145.8 million.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) led with the greatest membership drop of the 25 largest denominations, down 2.6%.
Other denominations reporting declines include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church as well as the more conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

 

[Algo1]

Identify them.

Paul has written a total of 13 letters.
Each of these letters provide his readers with instructions that are God-breathed.
In 3 of these letters Paul uses the term tradition to describe the passing on of doctrine.
All that we can know of this doctrine that was “traditioned” is recorded in the 13 letters.
Now unless you can provide me with anything that Paul (or Jesus for that matter) spoke to anyone that has not been recorded in Scripture, then all that we have from Paul are his writings.

Genesis says “6 days.” If that is not open to future clarification how do you deal with that pesky thing called science which comes along later and says “not 6 days?” (I do not want to talk about the merits of evolution–I am asking to what or whom you would turn.)

Do scientific advances leave the resurrection open to future clarification?
Or how about Transubstantiation?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Paul has written a total of 13 letters.

Incorrect.

St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is missing. Our “1 Corinthians” is actually Paul’s second letter to that community. I call it “0 Corinthians” (It is referred to in 1 Cor 5:9).

2 Corinthians 2:3-4 refers to another letter to the community at Corinth that is missing (4 Corinthians?).

And there is a possible third missing letter, written by St. Paul from Laodicea, referred to in Colossians 4:16. This is either a letter that is lost, or scholars think it could possibly be the Letter to the Ephesians.

Each of these letters provide his readers with instructions that are God-breathed.
In 3 of these letters Paul uses the term tradition to describe the passing on of doctrine.
All that we can know of this doctrine that was “traditioned” is recorded in the 13 letters.
Now unless you can provide me with anything that Paul (or Jesus for that matter) spoke to anyone that has not been recorded in Scripture, then all that we have from Paul are his writings.

How do you know that everything Paul taught is recorded in the 13 letters? They don’t say that.

Do scientific advances leave the resurrection open to future clarification?
Or how about Transubstantiation?

Science is not qualified to study either, because in both cases you are dealing with body of the glorified and risen Christ, Who is not subject to the physical laws. You can’t put God in a test tube. The whole point of the Resurrection is that the physical laws, in particular death, were overcome.

On the other hand, the earth and the rest of the material universe is still subject to the physical laws. So when the Bible says “6 days” and the Big Bang says “billions of years,” who do you turn to for an authoritative reconciliation?

Paul has written a total of 13 letters.
Each of these letters provide his readers with instructions that are God-breathed.
In 3 of these letters Paul uses the term tradition to describe the passing on of doctrine.
All that we can know of this doctrine that was “traditioned” is recorded in the 13 letters.

Why? Paul didn’t say that. Instead he gave Titus (among others) authority to teach and instructed him to appoint elders to go on teaching.
[BIBLEDRB]Titus 1:5[/BIBLEDRB]
Why do you magically strip everyone after Titus and before Luther of their authority to teach? That’s 1,500 years of Christian teaching that you hold to be corrupt.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

Why would God allow such a corruption of the truth if it is His Will for everyone who lived during that time to come to knowledge of the truth and be saved?

 

[Slinger]

I just have a simple question as a non-catholic person:

What difference does it make if Mary remained a virgin or not? I can see why it makes HUGE difference prior to the birth of Jesus but why does it matter for after?

 

[adrift]

A reading of Matthew 1:25 with no pre-conceived notions plainly tells me that after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary were like a normal, married couple. No theologians needed to muddy the waters. No traditions to uphold. Just a plain understanding of what Matthew said. For the other arguments in support of perpetual virginity – the Scriptural support is weak or non-existent. Luther and the others have spoken for themselves – maybe. Remember, the Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures to prove what they were being taught.

and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS

I am afraid that your own preconceived notions have led you to a wrong conclusion.

Look up the word until. It means up to a certain time. It does not mean anything after that time. If you try to imply that the condition changed to the opposite you run into a load of problem.
Michal the daughter of Saul had no children untill the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23).
And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre until this present day.(Deuteronomy 34:6)
Jesus is with us until the end of the age (Matt 28:20)
When the true definition is used the problem disappears. In each case, it is referring to a period of time up to and nothing is implied afterwards.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I just have a simple question as a non-catholic person:

What difference does it make if Mary remained a virgin or not? I can see why it makes HUGE difference prior to the birth of Jesus but why does it matter for after?

It’s one of the Messianic prophecies that Jesus had to fulfill to be the Messiah.

 

[Algo1]

Interpretation is a human trait.
Ink and paper cannot interpret.
If scripture interpreted scripture we would have protestant unity.
On the contrary, it is suffering entropy.

You seem to be in direct conflict with numerous ECFs:

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379):
You could find many passages of this sort in the writings of the evangelists and the Apostle. Now, then, if a command be given and the manner of carrying it out is not added, let us obey the Lord who says: ‘Search the Scriptures.’ Let us follow the example of the Apostles who questioned the Lord Himself as to the interpretation of His words, and learn the true and salutary course from His words in another place.
FC, Vol. 9, Saint Basil: Ascetical Works, Concerning Baptism, Book II, Q&R 4 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1950), p. 399.

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379): Whatsoever seems to be spoken ambiguously or obscurely in some places of holy Scripture, is cleared up by what is plain and evident in other places.
William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 491.

Greek Text
Τὰ ἀμφίβολα καὶ ἐπικεκαλυμμένως εἰρῆσθαι δοκοῦντα ἔν τισι τόποις τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις ὁμολογουμέων σαφηνίζεται.
In Regulas Brevius Tractatas, Interrogatio CCLXVII, PG 31:1264.

Archelaus (a. 277):
Moreover, it is in perfect harmony with these sayings that ** Paul speaks, when he interprets to the following intent certain things written in the law:** “Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it altogether for our sakes?” But why should we waste further time upon this subject?
ANF: Vol. VI, The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes, §21.

**Ambrose (c. 339-97):
Speaking of the Apostle Paul: What better expounder of the Scriptures do we indeed look for than that teacher of the Gentiles, that chosen vessel — chosen from the number of the persecutors? ** He who had been the persecutor of Christ confesses Him. He had read Solomon more, in any case, than Arius hath, and he was well learned in the Law, and so, because he had read, he said not that Christ was created, but that He was begotten. For he had read, “He spake, and they were made: He commanded, and they were created.” Was Christ, I ask, made at a word? Was He created at a command?
NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Duties of the Clergy, Book I, Chapter 16, §105.

Ambrose (c. 339-97):
In most places Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser.
See William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, 3 Volumes (London: John Henry Jackson, publisher, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 262, Chemnitz , Vol. 1, p. 167, and Whitaker, pp. 398, 492, who all render plerisque as “most.” In plerisque ita se ipse suis exponat sermonibus, ut is qui tractat, nihil inveniat quod adjiciat suum; ac si velit aliquid dicere, grammatici magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere. Epistola XXXVII.1, PL 16:1084. The translation found in FC, Vol. 26, Saint Ambrose: Letters 54. Ambrose to Simplicianus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954), p. 286, has mistranslated this word plerisque to read “in some instances” rather than the correct translation of “most places.”

 

[YADA]

I guess it’s because I am not emotionally invested in the particular tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary, nor do I need to defend it against all assaults. I am free to take an unbiased look at the Scriptures and form an objective opinion without having my mind pre-conditioned to have to superimpose that pre-conceived notion upon Scripture.

Thus you are your own Pope … Pope Pure and Simple, Free to Interpret and declare that your personal interpretation of Scriptures is far superior to that of any other Christian be they ancient or contemporary … because only you are free of bias and pre-consitioned thought … in fact the first time you ever read the scriptures you have never even spoke with a Christian of any particular Tradition - you read the Scriptures in a Vacuum and that is how you are so certain that your notions are pure …

A reading of Matthew 1:25 with no pre-conceived notions plainly tells me that after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary were like a normal, married couple. No theologians needed to muddy the waters. No traditions to uphold. Just a plain understanding of what Matthew said.

Your personal 20th/21st century understanding of the words of scipture and your 20th/21st Century cultural upbringing without any muddying of the waters with traditions or theologians [because again - you had never even met a Chrisian of any persuasion before reading these same writings] allows you a far superior understanding of a singular never to be repeated event - the uniting of God with a human female - theunion of which resulted in a Virgin giving birth to a God-Man; Whose advent brings Salvation to the entire World - and how that once in a life time event would have no lasting impact on the virgin - or the man who was given as there protector … as opposed to 2000 years of Christian thought and understanding …

For the other arguments in support of perpetual virginity – the Scriptural support is weak or non-existent.

Again - per your superior interpretation over all others …

Luther and the others have spoken for themselves – maybe.

Maybe if you could have found a quotation supporting your position you would have presented it but it is a fact that your understanding of these passages is vastly different and in opposition to the Christian understanding [both Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox] before the era of the “Enlightenment” - which you refuse to acknowledge or which fails to give you any pause …

But then you are your own “Pope” and we should blindly believe what you spoken from Your “not emotionally invested in any particular tradition” -

Your “unbiased look at the Scriptures”

Your “objective opinion without having your mind pre-conditioned” …

Nor your not having any interpretation “superimposed” on the Scriptures -

Nor any “pre-conceived notion of the Scripture”

Remember, the Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures to prove what they were being taught.

Being commended for searching the Scriptures is not the same as using confusion and personal beliefs to being division and confusion and heresy …

Jesus is the same Jesus - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow …

Jesus is not the author or confusion.

Jesus is not the author of division and strife …

 

[Slinger]

It’s one of the Messianic prophecies that Jesus had to fulfill to be the Messiah.

Maybe I am reading this wrong but, to me, the article only points out why Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. My question is not about what Catholics believe (I understand that) but why it would matter whether one believed it or not. Hopefully that makes sense. Prophecy is great but if it has no circumstance that makes it meaningful then it does not seem important to me. Maybe this question would be better…What is something meaningful that happened as a result of Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ?

 

[kepha1]

Maybe I am reading this wrong but, to me, the article only points out why Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. My question is not about what Catholics believe (I understand that) but why it would matter whether one believed it or not. Hopefully that makes sense. Prophecy is great but if it has no circumstance that makes it meaningful then it does not seem important to me. Maybe this question would be better…What is something meaningful that happened as a result of Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ?

She is the mother of humanity.

POPE JOHN PAUL II

GENERAL AUDIENCE

Wednesday, 24 September 1997

 

[Slinger]

She is the mother of humanity.

I don’t understand. I’m not sure how this answers my question.