The following scriptural reference seems to contradict the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. How do you respond to that?
That doesn’t resolve the apparent contradiction.
Thats not very helpful. Dont be arrogant. Jesus said teach the world, he did not say to complain that they ask to many questions. If it is asked 5 billion times you answer it 5 billion times. Do you have the answer or not?
I think frncersmother was just trying to convey that a search of the forum would find an answer.
Irrefutable!I think it does matter, I mean otherwise our whole way we address Our Lady would have to change. Would it change theology? Not much. Would it change discipline. HUGELY.
Hehe…Well, the discipline is “fluff” that can change easily as circumstances permit or require. I was talking more about the theology which as you say, wouldn’t really change either way.
Yet most heresies are based on subjective interpretations of Scripture!
“Seems” is not “does.” As well, going simply by one’s personal opinion of text alone (and only 91% of it at that) is designed to be misleading. Thousands of disagreeing denominations the proof. Interpretation is everything. And, why are so many bible Christians obsessed with sex?
No kidding! The evil one has duped the well-meaning (and some not so well meaning) into attacking her for almost 2,000 years now.
Well said.
He did not " know her " before and he did not " know her " later. That is what the Catholic Church teaches, as you pointed out. Since Mary was selected by God to be the Mother of his Son, doesn’t seem appropriate to you that she remain a perpetual virgin?
I use to think like you Counterpoint when I was a Protestant. When I was at college on a secular State university, I took a course called Christianity, it was taught by a liberal Protestant theologian and explored the 3 branches (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) from each of their respective view points. One day the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity came up which is something both Catholic and Orthodox believe. This professor then stated and I never forgot that in all his research into the earliest writings of Christians that all of the earliest testimony of others stated that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that all of the earliest writen testimonies were consistent. You may want to quote one scripture verse to try and prove your point but you are eventually going to have to put your limited view point of scripture in total context with other verses and eyewitness testimony. Just because the verse says Joseph didn’t know her doesn’t mean that he “knew” her after Jesus birth. We can see this in the OT concerning David’s first wife who later left him, then came back. The OT said she didn’t have children until her death. That doesn’t mean she had any children after her death either, she couldn’t she was dead.
A text without a context is a pretext. The Knox translation says it much more clearly, since Matthew was illustrating that Christ was the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14:
When men oppose Jesus and take things to the bible (ego) instead of to the Church (God-given authority), error is guaranteed.
This is just sophistry. The statement “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son” not only suggests that Joseph had marital relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus but also that she had at least one more son (hence the qualifier “firstborn”).
Nonsense. The verse means exactly what it says. Christ shall deliver up the kingdom to God and then subject himself to the Father.