The not so virgin Mary

[Stouts989]

If you haven’t read this…you need to. Its a great break down and explanation.

Nope, no stretch. There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 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?”

Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome." (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’!

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

 

[Jesus_123]

+I didn’t notice that this thread was in the “Non-Catholic Religions Forum” . . . until just this evening . . . I was raised as a child in the heart of “Mormon” country here in the United States . . . and did a little more careful researching when I noticed that the individul named dianaiad listed his/her church affiliation as “LDS” which is Mormon . . . a rather important distinction . . .

Though I knew many Mormons as friends in school and our neighborhood . . . their belief system is known to Catholics and Protestants alike essentially as a CULT . . . and it is an immensely large one . . . and their understandings, definitions and usage of the same religious and scriptural words are RADICALLY different . . .

**Definition:
**Cult - A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

thefreedictionary.com/cult

1. • Mormons do not believe in the Trinity . . . God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit
   • Mormon’s do not believe that Jesus is God . . . as well as not believing that He is God Incarnate . . .
   • When Mormon’s use the word “Christian” it does not relate in any way to ***Jesus Christ known as God Incarnate - Second Person of our Triune God . . . *** that Catholics and Protestant Christians mean when they use the same term . . .
   • When they use the word “church” . . . they are not referring to the "Bride-of-Christ/Body-of-Christ (God-Incarnate/God-the-Son)
   With all due respect to dianaiad’s right to believe whatever he/she wants to believe . . . after reading the posts . . .I have **grave doubts **as to whether dianaiad is in the least bit interested in what Catholics or Christians of any branch of the True Faith believe . . .
   
   And the above items are just a few of the many major radical differences between the Mormon cult and Christian Catholic and Protestant beliefs . . . For any of you who have been conversing with “dianaiad” on this thread . . . this individual’s belief system . . . and his/her use of words familiar to Catholics and Protestants . . . these words . . . have radically different meanings based on Mormon doctrinal interpretation . . . below is a portion of an article that contrasts some of these beliefs . . .
   

   The Mormon Jesus – A Theological Debate

   … When answering the charge of whether the Mormons worship a different Jesus than the other Christian denominations, **the former head of the Mormon church, Gordon B. Hinckley, stated that **they did, but remained firm that he and every other member of the religion he represented were Christians.

   Theologians point to this doctrine to show that the Mormons worship a different Jesus.

   • Mormons do not believe in the Trinity.

   • The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are believed to be separate personages.

   • This is the area where the “Mormon Jesus” differs.

   • The Mormons believe that Jesus is a being with his own body, rather than believing that Jesus is God come to Earth in Human form.

   The Mormon View of Jesus and Its Effect on Other Religions

   … Roman Catholics, for example, do not recognize an LDS baptism as valid.

   Resources: “A Mormon Moment.” Kenneth L. Woodward. Newsweek. September 10, 2001.

   mormonism.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_different_mormon_jesus#ixzz0HPjjolWf&A

   "Beloved, believe not every spirit,
   but try the spirits whether they are of God:
   because many false prophets
   are gone out into the world."
   John 4:1
   :bible1:
   
   The Mormon’s concept of God and interpretation of Sacred Scripture is radically different from the Catholic/Protestant Christian’s God and Scripture interpretation . . . even their use of the word Christian has a radically different base and meaning than Catholic/Protestant Christian meaning . . .
   
   Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. …
   Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart,
   and with thy whole soul,
   and with thy whole strength."
   Deuteronomy 6:4-5
   :bible1:
   
   *Careful folks . . . *
   
   God bless . . .
   
   PRAYER TO
   **SAINT MICHAEL
   THE ARCHANGEL **
   
   St. Michael the Archangel,
   defend us in battle.
   Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
   May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
   and do thou,
   O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
   by the power of God,
   thrust into hell Satan,
   and all the evil spirits,
   who prowl about the world
   seeking the ruin of souls.
   Amen.
   
   
   . . . all for Jesus+
   . . . Precious Blood Of Jesus
   . . . in all Its Ancient Power
   . . . cover all who have been in contact
   with this CAF thread+
   ​

 

[Canto]

How am I ignoring it?

What I meant was that if Tradtion says ABC and a person believes XYZ can they ignore Tradition?

Oh, thank you for posting this. I can’t imagine a more perfect example of the disparate points of view we have going on here.

He recieved oral statments not just written statements. It seems to me like he is recording Tradtion, written and oral, with no claim that he is including everything.

I look at the above posts and see scripture. That is, something God wanted written down for the edification of His followers. The revelation/inspiration and the writing made Luke a prophet by definition.

Did Jesus ever tell his disciples to write scripture?

I do not see “Tradition.” I don’t see “oral tradition.” I see a deliberate gathering of data and a specific intent…inspiration, revelation…scripture.

See 2nd point above above?
How do you know the Gospel of Luke is inspired?
Marcion in his canon, no doubt he would claim guided by the Holy Spirit, removed chunks of Luke’s gosepl not considering them part of the canon.

3…having diligently followed all things from the beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the truth of those words in which you have been catechised.

Luke followed the events from the begining diligently
Wrote them in an orderly account
So that Theophilus could see that the catechesis he is receiving is true

Now it seems to me that y’all are putting your early Saints and leaders into the same category; giving them the same respect that you do scripture; making Tradition your Doctrine and Covenants, in effect. (The Doctrine and Covenants is the book the Mormons accept as on going scripture for today; turn this idea around, and you would call it OUR 'Tradition." )

The early saints were transmitting the Tradtion, standing fast and handing it down wether by word or epistle.

What did Christians do in 1 and a 1/2 milleniums before the invention of the printing press?

The difference being that we openly admit that it is equal to older scripture in effect upon our lives. It seems to me, during this conversation, that y’all are saying the same thing about Tradition, but backing off from saying that it is equal to scripture.

Oral Tradition is equal to written Tradition (the Bible)
St Paul tells us to hold onto both.

So, what’s the official stand on Tradition? IS it equivalent to scripture? ARE those writers put on the same level as the prophets and apostles of old? Is what they write, in other words, scripture?

See above
Tradition, written or spoken, is the word of God
The Church fathers’ writings consistently show the oral Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and as it is not contradicted by scripture we as Catholics give the belief a big It’s the word of God that says Mary is a perpetual virgin.

 

[PaulDupre]

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

I read through the article listed above written to explain way reform theology teaches that Mary was no longer a virgin after she had Jesus and bore other children along with the Catholic argument on why Mary remained a virgin.

What the article fails to mention is Matthew 1:24-25. This is (along with the verses mentioned in the article) why reform theology teaches that Mary didn’t remain as a virgin once Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:24-25 (with emphasis).

[NASB]
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
God
25 but **kept her a virgin until **she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

[KJV]
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[NIV]
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

choose your favorite translation…they all say the same thing…

Blessings!

“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23).

So are you saying Michal had children after her death?

God love you,
Paul

 

[The_Question]

If you believe that the sentence “And you are as gracious as ever, sweetie” is an insult, then it can only because you realize that ‘gracious’ was not an accurate term for the words you used. You would be feeling complimented, not attacked, if you weren’t quite aware of your own discourtesy.

At the risk of being a brick wall again, I’m going to try one more time with this.

Only those who believe that having lawful marital relations is somehow shameful believe that engaging in them would diminish Mary or her role as the Mother of Christ in any way.Only those who believe that even marital sexual intercourse is a sin would believe that celibacy was a holier state. It is a fundamental difference in basic world view.

I believe that if engaging in lawful marital relations is diminishing to Mary, then they are to the rest of us, as well; we should all just stop ‘multiplying and replenishing the earth’ and leaving mother and father and becoming one flesh’ so that whom “God put together, let no man put assunder” and start making great furniture and singing “Tis a gift to be simple” at our meetings instead. We should all join convents and monasteries.

…and I’m not being flip here. I’m being serious. Dead serious.

Because I believe this, then quite obviously*** I*** am not dishonoring Mary by believing that there would have been nothing at all wrong with her being a wife, in full, to Joseph and in having other children. It does not dishonor her. It does not mean I think less of her.

YOU might be so dishonoring her if you think she did, but that’s because you believe that marriage is very much less than celibacy in serving God. Again, it is a fundamental difference in world view.

It also means, I believe, that I think better of the role of women and mothers than the early Catholics did, who came up with this Tradition that you follow, and for which nobody has given me a basis.

I think that’s clear,
and it’s enough.

Yes. She would glorify God by being what God created her to be–a fruitful, intimate wife and a mother. And of course Scripture states nothing different. It’s obvious to the Christian world, just not to RC’s.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Diana,

Clearly, you STILL don’t get it. We keep TELLING YOU it has NOTHING to do with sex, yet you insist on it. It also continues to show ignorance and the fact that you are not listening.

Insist all you want, go around “just sayin’” all you want, it does not make it true. And you know darn well you were trying to insult me. Others have noticed it, I’m just the one calling you out on it.

 

[Canto]

Yes. She would glorify God by being what God created her to be–a fruitful, intimate wife and a mother. And of course Scripture states nothing different. It’s obvious to the Christian world, just not to RC’s.

The Bible does not say Mary and Joseph had sex
Oral tradition say they did not have sex
The fathers say they did not have sex

Now lets look at the ‘reformers’
Did they believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity
Yes No

Martin Luther

John Wesley

John Calvin

Huldreich Zwingli

 

[The_Question]

The Bible does not say Mary and Joseph had sex
Oral tradition say they did not have sex
The fathers say they did not have sex

Now lets look at the ‘reformers’
Did they believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity
Yes No

Martin Luther

John Wesley

John Calvin

Huldreich Zwingli

I predict that in the future the RCC will have a new and special devotion to Mary’s husband, Joseph, for his amazing self control in abstaining from sex his entire marriage. I’m thinking Paul or the fathers would have used Joseph as an example of how to maintain sexual self control. what a great example. On the other hand, he and Mary could have engaged in all kinds of sexual lovemaking as long as they didn’t have intercourse. Thus she would still be a virgin. Am I correct in this? Or would you like to say that she didn’t ‘make out’ with Joseph in any way?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Gee, How did we miss that?

We didn’t. They are not the children of Mary the Mother of Jesus. They are relations more distant than half-brother or half sister. Some believe the reference is to twins. Others believe it may refer to children of Joseph from a prior marriage, as a pious belief is that Joseph married Mary in his older years after raising a family of his own with a wife who predeceased him. That’s the premise in the Protoevangelium of James. I tend to think the reference to the “brothers” of Jesus refers to his cousins and/or other distant relations. Nowhere in the bible does it refer to “Mary’s other children.” If she did have other children, where were they when Jesus was handing Mary over to the care of John? That act would have been perceived as an insult to any other children of Mary. So… where are these absent “brothers.”

Peace,
Robert

 

[GodIsGracious]

Jesus_123,

I just noticed this. Yes, I realize that dianaiad is a Mormon. Like any other Mormon I have seen on this board, she has taken nearly every single thing that has been said and twisted it to her distorted world view. Clearly she is not inspired by God or the Holy Spirit. I have yet to find a Mormon who is.

You are absolutely correct that she is NOT interested in what Catholics believe but here to spread doubt and her garbage of a religious belief system. I know that may sound “un-PC” and like I’m not “open to dialog,” but Mormonism is one pseudo “religion” that I really wish would go away. It has taken away more souls than can be counted and has made such an abomination of the bible with their continued distortion of scripture that’s really very sad.

Personally, I don’t trust a religious group whose members follow a “prophet” that came after Jesus Christ. He is Perfect. He is the ONLY one we should follow. He warned us of false prophets. And unfortunately some of those false prophets have managed to take souls away. We can only pray for God’s infinite and perfect Mercy on them.

+I didn’t notice that this thread was in the “Non-Catholic Religions Forum” . . . until just this evening . . . I was raised as a child in the heart of “Mormon” country here in the United States . . . and did a little more careful researching when I noticed that the individul named dianaiad listed his/her church affiliation as “LDS” which is Mormon . . . a rather important distinction . . .

Though I knew many Mormons as friends in school and our neighborhood . . . their belief system is known to Catholics and Protestants alike essentially as a CULT . . . and it is an immensely large one . . . and their understandings, definitions and usage of the same religious and scriptural words are RADICALLY different . . .

1. 
   *]Mormons do not believe in the Trinity . . . God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit
   *]Mormon’s do not believe that Jesus is God . . . as well as not believing that He is God Incarnate . . .
   *]When Mormon’s use the word “Christian” it does not relate in any way to ***Jesus Christ known as God Incarnate - Second Person of our Triune God . . . *** that Catholics and Protestant Christians mean when they use the same term . . .
   *]When they use the word “church” . . . they are not referring to the "Bride-of-Christ/Body-of-Christ (God-Incarnate/God-the-Son)
   
   With all due respect to dianaiad’s right to believe whatever he/she wants to believe . . . after reading the posts . . .I have **grave doubts **as to whether dianaiad is in the least bit interested in what Catholics or Christians of any branch of the True Faith believe . . .
   
   And the above items are just a few of the many major radical differences between the Mormon cult and Christian Catholic and Protestant beliefs . . . For any of you who have been conversing with “dianaiad” on this thread . . . this individual’s belief system . . . and his/her use of words familiar to Catholics and Protestants . . . these words . . . have radically different meanings based on Mormon doctrinal interpretation . . . below is a portion of an article that contrasts some of these beliefs . . .
   
   "Beloved, believe not every spirit,
   but try the spirits whether they are of God:
   because many false prophets
   are gone out into the world."
   John 4:1
   :bible1:
   
   The Mormon’s concept of God and interpretation of Sacred Scripture is radically different from the Catholic/Protestant Christian’s God and Scripture interpretation . . . even their use of the word Christian has a radically different base and meaning than Catholic/Protestant Christian meaning . . .
   
   Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. …
   Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart,
   and with thy whole soul,
   and with thy whole strength."
   Deuteronomy 6:4-5
   :bible1:
   
   *Careful folks . . . *
   
   God bless . . .
   
   PRAYER TO
   **SAINT MICHAEL
   THE ARCHANGEL **
   
   St. Michael the Archangel,
   defend us in battle.
   Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
   May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
   and do thou,
   O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
   by the power of God,
   thrust into hell Satan,
   and all the evil spirits,
   who prowl about the world
   seeking the ruin of souls.
   Amen.
   
   
   . . . all for Jesus+
   . . . Precious Blood Of Jesus
   . . . in all Its Ancient Power
   . . . cover all who have been in contact
   with this CAF thread+
   ​

 

[Canto]

I predict that in the future the RCC will have a new and special devotion to Mary’s husband, Joseph, for his amazing self control in abstaining from sex his entire marriage. I’m thinking Paul or the fathers would have used Joseph as an example of how to maintain sexual self control. what a great example. On the other hand, he and Mary could have engaged in all kinds of sexual lovemaking as long as they didn’t have intercourse. Thus she would still be a virgin. Am I correct in this? Or would you like to say that she didn’t ‘make out’ with Joseph in any way?

Traditon is wrong
Church is wrong
Reformers are wrong
And little ole you 2 milleniums later is right


A woman choosing not to have sex… SHOCK HORROR!
A man respecting this choice… SHOCK HORROR!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Well, you are correct, of course. The problem is that this position isn’t what people think about when they say that the bible is inerrant. They are referring to modern translations as well.

I was not.

dianaiad:

But there have been changes, and the Johanine comma is a case in point. It’s still there in many translations, even though no scholar–especially no Catholic scholar–claims any veracity for it. It’s still there because it has been there. Never mind that it was a scribal error–or even that it was a deliberate addition by an overzealous monk with no authorization to plunk that extra Trinitarian support in there. It’s been there a long time so Tradition says 'leave it there."

NO. “Tradition” does not say leave the extra language there. You have the wrong conception of Catholic Tradition. Tradition in this sense refers to the entire deposit of faith left to us by the Apostles. Did you bother to read the article I linked to in my earlier response. You are confusing the concept of a custom or practice that has passed down within the church (like the rosary or a beloved hymm) and the Deposit of Faith that is guarded by the Church from generation to generation. The doctrine of the Trinity is Tradition. The johannine comma is a pious tradition, but it is not “Tradition” in the sense that the Church now proclaims it to be part of inspired Scripture. You yourself note that Catholic scholars are quick to point out its questionable origins.

dianaiad:

But it’s wrong. It’s a goof.

And we have been told it is an addition. It’s not being passed off as part of the original inspired scripture out of some misguided sense of Tradition. It is usually excluded, or included with an explanatory footnote raising the point of its origin.

dianaiad:

As in the rest of Tradition, the only support for its presence seems to be–well, that’s how it’s always been done.

No. The support for Tradition is… That’s what the Twelve Apostles handed on from Jesus Christ himself, and it’s what the Catholic Church as pondered and contemplated continuously from that time to this. It’s not a recipe that is followed without question. It’s a set of doctrines and moral precepts that has been constantly contemplated, taught, lived and developed by the Church Christ founded from that time to this.

dianaiad:

My mother taught me how to make bread when I was ten…

I heard a similar story about baking a ham by first cutting off the ends, where it was only learned later that dear old granny did that because her oven pan was too small. It proves a point about accepting tradition without question simply because “that’s the way mom did it” (or mother church). BUT do you really believe that the best answer the Catholic Church gives for its teaching on doctrine and morals is simply… that’s what I was taught? Do you not see the volume of documentation at the vatican website, the historical evidence of debates throughout the ages by Catholic theologians studying out the rationale and reasoning behind doctrines (like the assumption or perpetal virginity of Mary) that are puzzling and sometimes troubling to comprehend? Do you think great doctors of the Church like Tomas Aquinas could have been raised to the altar as saints by a Church that is dumb enough that it does not constantly contemplate the mysteries of the faith? Truly, I think you are coming from a place of ignorance and superstition when it comes to your presuppositions about the Catholic Church. I don’t mean that as an insult. I mean I think you need to reconsider some of your primary assumptions about the Church before you makes statements about Tradition like this.

Peace,
Robert

 

[dianaiad]

What I meant was that if Tradtion says ABC and a person believes XYZ can they ignore Tradition?

Sure, if they aren’t a part of the particular belief system that holds to that Tradition.

He recieved oral statments not just written statements. It seems to me like he is recording Tradtion, written and oral, with no claim that he is including everything.

The important one was that he knew it of himself.

Did Jesus ever tell his disciples to write scripture?

Interesting question, actually. I would say that He did, given that He appointed them and told them to go out and teach. Of course, “write scripture” is a little off…He told them to teach, and that whatever they bound here would be bound in heaven…that sort of thing.

The problem here is the definition of scripture. What they were told to do is communicate, teach and write–and what they communicated, taught and wrote was scripture because of the source.

See 2nd point above above?
How do you know the Gospel of Luke is inspired?
Marcion in his canon, no doubt he would claim guided by the Holy Spirit, removed chunks of Luke’s gosepl not considering them part of the canon.

3…having diligently followed all things from the beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the truth of those words in which you have been catechised.

Luke followed the events from the begining diligently
Wrote them in an orderly account
So that Theophilus could see that the catechesis he is receiving is true

The early saints were transmitting the Tradtion, standing fast and handing it down wether by word or epistle.

What did Christians do in 1 and a 1/2 milleniums before the invention of the printing press?

Oral Tradition is equal to written Tradition (the Bible)

Is it? Ok, then…

I have no quarrel with it, at least in terms of using it to explain why you believe as you do. But are you certain that the church fathers put the same weight on ‘tradition’ that they do on canonical scripture?

St Paul tells us to hold onto both.

See above
Tradition, written or spoken, is the word of God
The Church fathers’ writings consistently show the oral Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and as it is not contradicted by scripture we as Catholics give the belief a big It’s the word of God that says Mary is a perpetual virgin.

So for you the canon is, for all intents and purposes, open.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

No. I’m saying that her role as the Mother of God would not have been diminished if she had other children. That’s a slightly different claim.

I agree that her role as a woman would not have diminished had she had other children. But her role was much greater than just a woman. She is the New Eve. She is the Ark of the New Covenant. She is the type for Holy Mother Church. Of all persons with a human nature, her place in salvation history is second only to Christ. Why can you not see that this distinction is in fact a different calling from that of bearing children with Joseph.

****Mary’s role has always been understood

by whom?Christian theologians from the early days of the Church. Look it up for yourself, please.

No…and imagining what it might have been like had there been other children does not mean that it would have been ‘like that.’

I was pointing out the inconsistencies of your position with respect to Mary’s role in salvation history and the existence of children by Joseph.

dianaiad:

But you did not show me where Mary decided to be celibate, or where she was commanded to be so, or where it was decided for her…and it is she we are talking about here, isn’t it?

You did not ask for that, and I never said that the bible expressly shows that she made a vow of celibacy. But neither of us are sola scripturist now, are we.

dianaiad:

By the way, as to whether Jesus was married or not…I dunno. I’m leaning toward the…probably not, but certainly wouldn’t get all bent out of shape if He were.

Now you’re making my brain hurt.

dianaiad:

But that’s the thing. If they didn’t have an issue with sexuality in general, then the idea of Mary being fully a wife to Joseph wouldn’t be seen as a defilement, even for her special case.

She was already “fully a wife” to Joseph despite her celibacy. It is you who is imposing your own expectations upon the Holy Family without acknowledging the difference between your experience and Mary’s

dianaiad:

During the time of Christ’s presence there? Sure. But after His birth…it was hers. To consider that using it for the purpose that God created it, to multiply and replenish the earth, to join with her husband and be ‘one flesh’ with him in the sight of God…

When exactly do any of us stop belonging to God in even the slightest way? And again, Mary acknowledged and affirmed her role as the “handmaid of the Lord.” She knew from beginning to end that she was totally given over to the role that God had provided for her.

dianaiad:

How is that a defilement of any woman?

Marital relations - in general - are not a defilement. Marital relations with the Woman chosen by God to bear God Incarnate is a different matter. Mary’s womb carried the God-Man. It was set aside and sanctified for that purpose just as the Ark of the Covenant was set aside and not to be touched by anyone save the High Priest. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE that you simply refuse to acknowlege. I’m not saying you have to agree with me on the conclusion, but at least stop pretending that Mary was just an average pregnant teenage jew.

dianaiad:

So for me to believe that she may have (and that’s “may have,’ not 'definitely did” live with Joseph fully as his wife and bear him children is not lessening my respect for Mary. Not even a little bit. I see no desecration in the idea. In fact, I see in that idea further evidence of her obedience to the laws of God.

I understand where you are coming from. I’m simply providing my perspective and trying to explain to you what Catholics see it very differently. I never doubted that your belief on this matter was sincere, I simply contend that it is wrong.

dianaiad:

We are both having problems wrapping our minds around the world view of the other in this one.

I’m doing the best that I can. I’m tired now, so I’m going to bed.

Peace,
Robert

 

[dianaiad]

+I didn’t notice that this thread was in the “Non-Catholic Religions Forum” . . . until just this evening . . . I was raised as a child in the heart of “Mormon” country here in the United States . . . and did a little more careful researching when I noticed that the individul named dianaiad listed his/her church affiliation as “LDS” which is Mormon . . . a rather important distinction . . .

I’m a ‘she,’ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the largest group of Mormons, but some considerable amount. There are 13,000,000 LDS, and the next largest “Mormon” group numbers in the 10,000 range, I believe. So I don’t see your ‘distinction,’ important or not. Believe me, sir, everybody here is aware of my religious affiliation. I don’t hide it.
My dear sir:

This IS “non-Catholic religions.” Which means that it was a sub forum set aside specifically to discuss non-Catholic religions. Or for non-Catholics to discuss many beliefs, even Catholic ones. I imagine that it was formed in part, at least, to keep non-Catholics from discussing Catholicism on strictly Catholic forums, so that the Catholics could fellowship in peace.

Of course, in return for the courtesy of staying in our little ghetto it would be nice if folks like you would do us the courtesy of figuring that we know where we are, and understand that the biggest reason most of us non-Catholics ARE in here is because folks like you go all CARM on us with the fuzzy pamphlet/red ink style of posting.

Oh, and do lose the caps and emphasis; it must take ages to format, and quite frankly, it doesn’t leave the impression I think you would prefer.

 

[Jesus_123]

**+The Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church also firmly believes . . . **

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ,
let him be Anathema Maranatha."

1 Corinthians 16:22
:bible1:

An Anathema in the New Testament is a charge laid against a person to be delivered up for the immediate but temporary judgment of God in order to prevent the spread of false doctrine. The ultimate goal is meant to restore one to fellowship and to cease their error and to end false teaching and bad doctrine. - Wickipedia

Maranatha … is an Aramaic phrase occurring once only in the New Testament … As understood here (“O Lord, come!”), it is a prayer for the early return of Christ. … The former interpretation is supported by what appears to be a Greek equivalent of this acclamation in Rev 22:20 “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!”" - Wickipedia

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Blessed Virgin Mary
. . . pray for us+
. . . St. Michael the Archangel
. . . pray for us+
. . . all the Saints in Heaven Above
. . . pray for us+
. . . all the Heavenly Host of Angels
. . . pray for us+
​

 

[Canto]

Sure, if they aren’t a part of the particular belief system that holds to that Tradition.

Sorry but this statement is confusing.
Tradition says that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so do we believe this Tradition or not?

The important one was that he knew it of himself.

Was Luke there from the begining or did his miss some things that he was orally told about.
He wrote his gospel from the begining of events, John the Baptist and the conception of the human Jesus.

Interesting question, actually. I would say that He did, given that He appointed them and told them to go out and teach. Of course, “write scripture” is a little off…He told them to teach, and that whatever they bound here would be bound in heaven…that sort of thing.

The problem here is the definition of scripture. What they were told to do is communicate, teach and write–and what they communicated, taught and wrote was scripture because of the source.

Are there any verses that show he wanted them to write?
Preach usually seems to be oral as does teach though I suppose you could give someone a text book, but again printing press was 1500 years later.

Is it? Ok, then…

I have no quarrel with it, at least in terms of using it to explain why you believe as you do. But are you certain that the church fathers put the same weight on ‘tradition’ that they do on canonical scripture?

Written Tradition (the Bible) and oral Tradition are part of the same deposit of faith, they constitiute the word of God. One is never put above or below the other.

So for you the canon is, for all intents and purposes, open.

The Church gave us the canon and as far as I know it’s closed.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes. She would glorify God by being what God created her to be–a fruitful, intimate wife and a mother. And of course Scripture states nothing different. It’s obvious to the Christian world, just not to RC’s.

Man, I’m about to be an equal opportunity curmudgeon…and while I hate to make everybody mad at me…especially someone who agrees with me on something…

you weren’t making a claim that Catholics are not Christian, were you?

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry but this statement is confusing.
Tradition says that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so do we believe this Tradition or not?

YOU do. I don’t. Or rather, I don’t hold to Tradition as if it were scripture as you do. I need to see the basis upon which that Tradition is based.

Was Luke there from the begining or did his miss some things that he was orally told about.
He wrote his gospel from the begining of events, John the Baptist and the conception of the human Jesus.

His claim was of ‘perfect understanding from the beginning.’ He mentioned specifically that he had eyewitness accounts that he was using, and specifically mentioned the writers of other gospels. In other words, he cited his sources.

Are there any verses that show he wanted them to write?
Preach usually seems to be oral as does teach though I suppose you could give someone a text book, but again printing press was 1500 years later.

That is an odd comment coming from someone whose faith is based upon information found in scrolls and books lovingly copied and written by hand for literally millenia.

The prophets and apostles were not told “go write scripture.” They were told to go teach; part of that teaching (the part we actually have access to) was written down. The teachings that they wrote down became scripture BECAUSE it was written by prophets recounting revelation and teachings from God. You know, “scripture” from the Latin ‘scriptura’ and the old french “scribere” meaning ‘to write.’

Written Tradition (the Bible) and oral Tradition are part of the same deposit of faith, they constitiute the word of God. One is never put above or below the other.

Ok, so you claim continuing revelation. THAT I can actually accept, if not agree with completely. The problem is that the men who wrote down that oral tradition didn’t claim revelation for themselves, did they?

The Church gave us the canon and as far as I know it’s closed.

Not if you accept oral tradition as equal with canonical scripture. By ‘closed canon’ I guess I mean that “God isn’t talking to us through His representatives (prophets) any more”

 

[dianaiad]

+The Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church also firmly believes . . .

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ,
let him be Anathema Maranatha."

1 Corinthians 16:22
:bible1:

My goodness.

:ehh:

mentioning consignment to damnation and a formal turning over to Satan is a little harsh, don’t you think?