The Virgin Mary was she always so?

[Randy_Carson]

If we know anything about Jesus it is that He didn’t give a hoot about what was “accepted culturally.”

That is what got Him crucified.

Not in the least.

You cannot honor your mother if she is not in your personal care?

No. We already know this from experience today.

Jesus made known what He felt about much of “Orthodox” culture and He didn’t seem very impressed to say the least.

Christ was a culture shaker, not a culture conformist.

…

Atemi-

Perhaps you have overlooked the following:

24After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax**("http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=17&version=31#fen-NIV-23724b")]?"

25"Yes, he does," he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?”
26"From others," Peter answered. “Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours." (Matthew 17:24-27)

Clearly, Jesus did not go out of his way to offend the Jews on every occasion.

He would not have offended true uterine brothers with His last act from the cross by commending his mother to John, either.

He didn’t have any uterine brothers or sisters to offend.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Eileen_T]

True brothers might have stood by him and their Mother…distant cousins…perhaps not.

You’re right these “brothers” are no brothers at all.

Atemi, imagine what might have happened if you had put this much energy into learning your Catholic faith instead of into rejecting it.

Wow.

Have you noticed that although Atemi only joined about 3 weeks ago he has already posted over 450 times?

I get the feeling he can’t stay away because, whatever the reason is he left the Church, it is niggling away at his conscience.

 

[Eileen_T]

True brothers might have stood by him and their Mother…distant cousins…perhaps not.

You’re right these “brothers” are no brothers at all.

Atemi, imagine what might have happened if you had put this much energy into learning your Catholic faith instead of into rejecting it.

Wow.

Have you noticed that although Atemi only joined about 3 weeks ago he has already posted over 450 times?

I get the feeling he can’t stay away because, whatever the reason is he left the Church, it is niggling away at his conscience.

 

[Eileen_T]

True brothers might have stood by him and their Mother…distant cousins…perhaps not.

You’re right these “brothers” are no brothers at all.

Atemi, imagine what might have happened if you had put this much energy into learning your Catholic faith instead of into rejecting it.

Wow.

Have you noticed that although Atemi only joined about 3 weeks ago he has already posted over 450 times?

I get the feeling he can’t stay away because, whatever the reason is he left the Church, it is niggling away at his conscience.

 

[Eileen_T]

True brothers might have stood by him and their Mother…distant cousins…perhaps not.

You’re right these “brothers” are no brothers at all.

Atemi, imagine what might have happened if you had put this much energy into learning your Catholic faith instead of into rejecting it.

Wow.

Have you noticed that although Atemi only joined about 3 weeks ago he has already posted over 450 times?

I get the feeling he can’t stay away because, whatever the reason is he left the Church, it is niggling away at his conscience.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I hate it when it does that.

 

[kra130]

if none of the writers of the gospel would have used the word cousin then why does Luke use it in 1:36 “And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.” or is this just misinterpreted by every translation i looked at which either said relative or cousin and not sister. i haven’t learned new testament Greek yet but i’m curious what the actual word is. because if it is cousin doesn’t that put to shame everything written here.

Joey your argument doesn’t make much sense to me. when you hear the word brother even in our language you must listen to it in context and make an asumption as to whether or not it is to mean biological brother, a brother in the faith, or a fellow countryman. in the example you gave the answer to what was meant was obvious by the context it was put in. As well jesus biological brothers would have been in capernaum during the cruxificition which is about 100 miles away so unless they ran 100 miles in 12 hours there was no way they could have made it to their mothers side.

I personally would have to agree with Atemi that i would not trust my mother in the hands of a non Christian brother. as the proverbs say bad company corrupts good character. also non believers that intermarry can often time lead the believer away from their faith. look at King Solomon he was the wisest man ever. yet even he was led astray by his foreign wives. which is why Joshua was commanded by God to kill everyone that resided in their promise land. in first corinthians when it talks about being married to a nonbeliever Paul is saying that if you get married and then convert
to Christianity you should stay with your spouse if they are willing.

So therefore Jesus would be dishonoring his mother if he let her stay with his biological brother. who did not believe he was God at the time.

Also in this Aramaic vs to Greek idea doesn’t make sense. although their main languages were aramaic and hebrew they were also fluent in Greek thus it wouldn’t have been hard for them to say cousin in a language that they are familiar with. as well Luke was a gentile he would have been even more familiar with Greek and he was writing to a Greek audience who wouldn’t be able to distiguish the different interpretations of the word brother and cousin. he would be expected to write cousin when the word applied and the word brother like wise. to do other wise would be misleading and lead to people stumbling in their faith which is sin. so then are the apostles sinning in writting the scripture with loosly fitting words when exact is possible. isn’t that just being lazy or ignorant or both.

i really don’t know if any of this makes sense it’s just my train of thought and how i work through arguments. please feel free to rip apart my arguements because “He who listens to a life-giving rebuke will be at home among the wise.” (Proverbs 15:31)

 

[JoeyWarren]

True brothers might have stood by him and their Mother…distant cousins…perhaps not.

You’re right these “brothers” are no brothers at all.

Atemi, imagine what might have happened if you had put this much energy into learning your Catholic faith instead of into rejecting it.

---

Wow.

Yes why Atemi, did you not put this much energy when you were Catholic? The information has always been there.

 

[AndyF]

…say “John was faithful until he died”

Could you give an example, I don’t follow you. Could you rephrase it to your liking?

Jesus had brothers and sisters

If I remember correctly at that time the terms brother and sisters could have meant cousins as well.

she never sinned.

This is De Fide dogma. But I admit I have a hard time seeing a little girl not doing what little girls do, ie: sticking tongue out,pulling pigtails,pouting,etc. Even then I think these things would be venial in severity and it still does not take away anything in my accepting Mary the way we are told to accept her. I think if in her adult age she were not perfect then it would be a serious issue.

Secondly, what visual impact would her behaviour have caused if she were indeed a perfect child? Would simply an admission over communal chat that “Gosh, did you note Mary was a perfect child?” by the community remain simply a disinterested curiosity? Also, wouldn’t satan be wise to this as well if he were on the lookout for the Mother of the Redeemer? His demons returning to him to report that she doesn’t ever fall for temptation.

Yes, I’ve had some thoughts on this as well, but I know she exists and willing to intercede and she has assisted me in miraculous ways. What else matters?

AndyF

 

[guanophore]

So i’ve read through the Bible and i know what it says. but my question is what proof does the Catholic church have that proves that Mary was a virgin all her life?

Out of your own mouth you have confirmed, kra, that scripture by itself will NOT answer all you questions about Christianity. This is a good step, but not quite far enough.

also there are verse in the Bible which say that Jesus had brothers and sisters. here are some verse that dispute the catholic claim: Matt 12:46, mark 3:31, Luke 8:19, and Matt 13:55.

There is a good tract on this in the CAF library I recommend you search brothers of Jesus.

so please give me proof of why the catholic church believes she never had children or sinned. also no quoting Saints and Popes because their opinions mean nothing to me, because they are just that, opinions. i want the proof to come from the Bible which is the infallable word of God.

There are several errors in your premises, kra. One is that matters of faith cannot be “proven”. We have evidences, of course, but we choose to believe the teachings of Christ by faith, and not because they can be “proven” per se. Secondly, you show your resistance to receiving the full deposit of Divine Revelation by your lack of openness to the early church fathers, who were much closer to the events and people of the New Testament than we are now. Thirdly, you suffer from the error of “sola scriptura”, wherein you seem to think that your bible is the sole source of reliable authority in matters of faith and morals. Nowhere in that Bible does it claim to be this, and in fact, it states otherwise. Therefore, you will not be able to receive the full teaching of the Christian faith, because you have cut yourself off from essential sources.

There is also an excellent tract in the libary on the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Tom]

So i’ve read through the Bible and i know what it says. but my question is what proof does the Catholic church have that proves that Mary was a virgin all her life?

Kra did post #61 answer your original question?

 

[guanophore]

Another Question for everyone. if the wages of sin is death and Mary never committed a sin then wouldn’t she live forever? Also when in Luke 18:18,19 it says "And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” if Mary was perfect and without sin wouldn’t she also be considered good? so then is Jesus equilating Mary with God or saying that Mary was not good, perfect, sinless.

Mary was created like Eve before the fall. And yes, because she did not sin, she is alive forevermore. She is a model of what we will all become, if we remain in Christ. You are correct, no one is good except God alone. And if you read the passages in Luke, you can see that Mary understood her need for a savior. She knows she is not God, but the handmaid of the Lord. God filled her with His grace, which is what produced goodness, as it does in all of us.

i would answer is not all scripture God breathed (2 tim 3:16) and God knowing the future would be able to see the contraversy to come could easily have inspired the writers to spell out exactly what was meant by brother and sister.

No, kra, the Bible was never intended to be the sole authority on divine teachings. It was not intended to spell out exactly what was meant by all it contains. Yes, it is God Breathed, but is still requires correct interpretation, and it does not contain the full deposit of divine revelation.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Kra did post #61 answer your original question?

I don’t know about the rest of you but I would like to see Atemi’s reply to post #61.

It looks like he ignored it.

 

[VociMike]

It just occurred to me that the Protestant explanation of why Mary went to live with John rather than her own children for the rest of her days makes even less sense than I previously thought!

It makes less sense because I was leaving the religious component out of the mix. So now here is what a Protestant must believe in order to believe that Mary had other children (in particular, sons). They must believe that those sons, Jewish believers, disbelievers in Christ, allowed Mary to go and live in the house of an unrelated man. But not just any unrelated man! Not a believing Jew, or even a Greek, or even a Roman. No, one of the chief followers of the new religious cult which so offended the Jews that they had the leader, their own brother, executed for it! They let their “crazy” brother (they were disbelievers, remember), while he is dying on the cross for his offense against the Jews, send their own mother off to live with one of his chief cult followers, one of the main enemies of the Jews and therefore one of their own main enemies! And they never stopped her, for she lived with John for the rest of her days!

I don’t know how I didn’t catch this part of the fairy-tale before. It makes the whole made-up story, already unbelievable, a hundred times less believable still!

Imagine, by way of analogy, a Muslim woman being sent by her oldest son, executed for preaching Judaism to Muslims, to live in the house of an unrelated Jewish man, while all the woman’s other Muslim sons and extended family just stand around and do nothing. Hah!

 

[JoeyWarren]

It just occurred to me that the Protestant explanation of why Mary went to live with John rather than her own children for the rest of her days makes even less sense than I previously thought!

It makes less sense because I was leaving the religious component out of the mix. So now here is what a Protestant must believe in order to believe that Mary had other children (in particular, sons). They must believe that those sons, Jewish believers, disbelievers in Christ, allowed Mary to go and live in the house of an unrelated man. But not just any unrelated man! Not a believing Jew, or even a Greek, or even a Roman. No, one of the chief followers of the new religious cult which so offended the Jews that they had the leader, their own brother, executed for it! They let their “crazy” brother (they were disbelievers, remember), while he is dying on the cross for his offense against the Jews, send their own mother off to live with one of his chief cult followers, one of the main enemies of the Jews and therefore one of their own main enemies! And they never stopped her, for she lived with John for the rest of her days!

I don’t know how I didn’t catch this part of the fairy-tale before. It makes the whole made-up story, already unbelievable, a hundred times less believable still!

Imagine, by way of analogy, a Muslim woman being sent by her oldest son, executed for preaching Judaism to Muslims, to live in the house of an unrelated Jewish man, while all the woman’s other Muslim sons and extended family just stand around and do nothing. Hah!

Bravo, Bravo. Bravo:extrahappy: :tiphat: :dancing:

 

[JButky]

I don’t know about the rest of you but I would like to see Atemi’s reply to post #61.

Unfortunately it appears that post #61 has some errors in it. I’m surprised that no one yet has commented on the errors…(in one of the assumptions)

There is a brilliant article in the latest “Homiletic and Pastoral review” that puts this matter to rest right from Scripture itself and you don’t have to go any farther than the annunciation narrative…

I highly recommend apologists to get themselves a copy and commit it to memory…

Joe B

 

[JoeyWarren]

“Homiletic and Pastoral review”?

 

[Tom]

Unfortunately it appears that post #61 has some errors in it. I’m surprised that no one yet has commented on the errors…(in one of the assumptions)

There is a brilliant article in the latest “Homiletic and Pastoral review” that puts this matter to rest right from Scripture itself and you don’t have to go any farther than the annunciation narrative…

I highly recommend apologists to get themselves a copy and commit it to memory…

Joe B

Since I wrote post #61, please share my errors. Which assumption? (I’m not defending it just simply would like to learn). Do you have a link to the specific article in the “Homiletic and Pastoral review”?
The page I found is :catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/index2.html

 

[JButky]

“Homiletic and Pastoral review”?

ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/index.htm

The article on two terrible translations by Mary Giovanoni is the one to read. It explains the Jewish Marriage ceremony according to Talmudic Law and why Mary answered the way she did as a married woman (as well as Joseph’s response to the Angel’s revelation to him.) It is much clearer when you understand the Kiddushin and Nisuin. Bethrothed is not an accurate word in our understanding of it. The bethrothal as we know it was before that in the Ketubah. They determined by written contract the terms of the marriage, and the Kiddushin before witnesses was the ratification of the written contract LEGALLY MARRIED IN THE FULLEST SENSE AT THAT POINT. Mary would have declared her consecrated virginity during the Ketubah and that would have been a part of their kiddushin and legal marriage. Unlike today, up to about a year later, the husband would take his legal wife into his home (the Nisuin.)

As a legally married woman at the Annunciation, Mary did not understand how she could become pregnant even though legally married with a husband in a contract where her virginity was stipulated (and why Joseph agreed to protect that as part of the legal marriage contract). THAT is why she asks the angel the question. She was not planning EVER to have children and to remain a virgin even in marriage. (A married woman declaring that she “Knows not a man.”) Once the Angel explains it to her she extends her fiat of her free will. (No wonder she was scared initially)

The pregnancy is also why Joseph wants to “divorce her quietly.” This was allowed under the contract of marriage if it were discovered that the contract was terminated by Mary’s becoming pregnant. A virtuous man, Joseph would not allow her to be condemned for adultery and would divorce her quietly until the angel revealed that he should have no fear to complete the Nisuin or taking Mary into his home…

Simply as a consequence of Jewish Law of Marriage, is it easy to determine that Mary would remain a virgin her whole life.

And I highly recommend reading that article! It is explained in much more detail and clarity than I have just offered…

Joe B

 

[JButky]

Since I wrote post #61, please share my errors. Which assumption? (I’m not defending it just simply would like to learn).

So, you’re Mary, have any questions? Which of the eight items above would a woman who is soon to be married and planning on having sex with her husband ask?

This one in particular is the most common misconception. (no pun intended… )

Mary was not soon to be married, but fully, legally married already. I don’t really have any other objections but some shrewd anti-Catholic might discount your whole reason because it stems from a false assumption (no pun intended again… )

Add this info to what you have and the argument is not debatable as far as I’m concerned.

Joe B