Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin"

  • Thread starter Thread starter roseproject
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cathoholic said:
WHO are you talking about here??

(Jesus had a “celibate priesthood”)
Click to expand...
Well, an old friar teacher used to chide someone who was behind in their understanding of the material being taught (in this case knowledge of previous posts) by saying, “Be a banana and stick to the bunch!”.

A few posts above by Hope has link to the article, and where the author claims that Protestants against perpetual virginity do not believe in necesity of a priest to be unmarried, implying a prejudice against any chastity vow by Mary or Joseph.

Ironic because most Protestants against ever virgin teaching cite that early fathers belief in unmarried priests (ascetism) prejudiced them for belief in Mary having a similar vow .
 
Last edited:
What article? Who was the author. You know I have heard the same reasoning that Jesus was married. Paul said he was unmarried. He does not say my wife died and I did not marry again. The word that is important is “most” it does not mean all. Paul most likely was never married. I would like to see an instance that is verifiable that “unmarried” meant widower. This it the same nonsense as the Jesus seminar.

Ironic because most Protestants against ever virgin teaching cite that early fathers belief in unmarried priests (ascetism) prejudiced them for belief in Mary having a similar vow.

ascetism has nothing to do with unmarried priests. Priest do not marry out of mortification which is what ascetism is but to dedicate themselves to God. If you want to call it ascetism than you will have to say that Paul was an ascetic

8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
 
Joseph as ever virgin? NO! The closest tradition we have is from the protoevangelium of James. It is not in the canon of scripture, but it’s been heavily influential within Catholic tradition and is seen as evidence of what the early Christians believed.
behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph’s head. And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel.
Click to expand...
A lot of apologetics seems based on trying to prooftext doctrines that Protestants consider nonbiblical. As such, the arguments given are often limited to providing an answer without referencing non-biblical sources as it’s seen as turning Protestants off.

One thing we should be clear about, though, is the evolution of language and how important the cultural context of scripture is. The bible is an ancient document. Like most ancient documents, non-scholar readers need something like Cliffnotes to help them understand how the early Christians would have understood the text.

The Brick Bible (an illustrated bible with legos) does a very good job of simply illustrating the bible in the most obvious non-cliffnotes version ever. It’s actually a great way to demonstrate how important cultural context is as put it in the hands of a modern reader expecting “I just read the words and it’s obvious” has to be faced with what a literal interpretation in our time looks like.

The reality is that typically Christian denominations form their understanding of the bible by a few key stories they learn not through scripture but through children’s bibles (Indeed in a distorted manner) and a handful of passages that everyone focuses on without ever looking at the entire bible. Any person who does not understand how our culture and time wounds our ability to comprehend the bible will turn atheist if they simply read the bible cover to cover. It looks ridiculous.

And mind you, there are things that don’t make sense and some of which the cliffnotes answers are only suggestions. For instance, in the story of the fall, God says “When you eat of the fruit of the tree, you will die” (I’m paraphrasing). The serpant tells the woman she will die. After they eat of the fruit, they do not die. ONE answer is that they were immortal, but that answer is no where stated in the bible. It’s like answering why does the bible refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters if Mary were a perpetual virgin. The Protestant answer is that there’s no evidence in the bible that she was. End of story. The Catholic argues “Well, maybe it’s cousin.”
 
I like how Ann Rice’s Out of Egypt novel depicts it. First, she appreciates that the idea of the nuclear family (Mom and Dad living seperately from other relatives with their own children and no one else) is a very modern idea. She also adds the issue of disease in. She takes in both the arguments about cousins AND the argument that Joseph had been older and had children from a deceased wife before he took Mary as his wife.

So, Mary and Joseph’s household include Joseph’s son James (not Mary’s son) and Mary’s brother and sister-in-law and their children. If I recall, Mary’s brother dies. I’m not sure about her sister-in-law. I don’t remember. But there’s a point where she is comforting her neices and nephews and telling them that “You are my children. I am your mother and we are your family.” She corrects them away from calling themselves cousins.

Now, certainly, it’s just a piece of fiction, but the reality is that Mary’s perpetual virginity is a part of our teaching and families are complex. Prooftexting everything is like trying to get to know someone someone from a very tiny record that does not contain their whole story.

The bible doesn’t prove the doctrine of her perpetual virginity. Her perpetual virginity is simply not incompatible with scripture. I’d say the real reason the tradition is rejected is primarily because it is seen as connected historical attitudes about virginity and how the idea of perpetual virginity MAY have come about.

There’s the concern that as Christianity comes to the pagan world, the idea that Jesus is God leads to speculation on who Mary was because she bore God’s Son. How much honor is there in that? You’ve got titles like theotokos and the idea of her perpetual virginity which seems tied to this idea that she would be pure and holy and without the defilement of sin to be remotely worthy of bearing the Word of God within her body.

And within this idea is seen by Protestants an attitude that is opposed to their understanding of the gospel and is attached to the whole saints being presented in an a light of perfection that makes them unrelateable. How compatible is it to argue that Mary must be pure and ever virgin to bear the God who humbled Himself in human form?

Like it or not, prooftexting is a mere defense. No one definitively wins the argument. One must decide.
 
Last edited:
hope said:
If you want to call it ascetism than you will have to say that Paul was an ascetic
Click to expand...
Yes he was, and it is a gift from God, and not for all…he differentiated between his will and word on the matter for all and God’s will and word on the matter. It was not across the board pronouncement for all who would be a priest as it later became(3,4thC?)
 
Last edited:
12 For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Click to expand...
So you object to it being a law of the Latin Rite? But than I think of
19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
. . . . where the author claims that Protestants against perpetual virginity do not believe in necesity of a priest to be unmarried, implying a prejudice against any chastity vow by Mary or Joseph.
Click to expand...
First of all Protestants are sola Scriptura Christians so what they think in regards to “chastity vows” in tradition is irrelevant.

Second, earlier you were going appeal to Church Fathers about Denial of the Perpetual Virginity of The Blessed Virgin Mary.

That went right where I knew it would. Nowhere.

Why?

Because NO Early Church Father DENIED this doctrine and I knew it.

I knew you would HAVE TO start appealing to HERETICS to support YOUR tradition.

And third, there is NOT a “necesity of a priest to be unmarried”.

Catholics ALREADY have married men ordained to the Priesthood in twenty something Eastern Rites. And exceptions in the Latin Rite (such as when an married Anglican Minister wants to become a Catholic Priest).

This just suggests to me you misunderstand the priesthood.

There is ONE PRIEST–Jesus Christ. One.

Priests of all believers (Baptized Christians) have a SHARE in that ONE Priesthood.

Ordained ministerial priests have a larger share in that ONE Priesthood.

And the priests who are overseers or Bishops, have an even deeper share of that One Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

And many of the priests “follow the Lamb WHEREVER He goes” in the context of virginity.

And you seem to have an issue with this (?).

So none of your claims are to the point.

We are 500 plus posts into this thread and I am still waiting for SOME evidence, ANY evidence as to WHY you should reject the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

So far you have offered NO evidence to consider a DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary as persuasive.
 
Last edited:
mcq72.

You said doctrine that has not been condemned is not such a high bar for acceptance.

(Even though I have never once called for the Protoevangelium to be “accepted”).
"Not being condemned is not such a high bar.
Click to expand...
If that is such a “low bar” than surely you INVENTING (or at least parroting the early church heretics) DENIALS would be a much LOWER BAR for acceptance.

Yet you seem to accept the doctrine of the DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary just fine.

Which led me to my question of what your real problem is with this?

It does not seem to be an academic objection.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
This just suggests to me you misunderstand the priesthood.
Click to expand...
Oh I am sure I may misunderstand some points, but surely there must be some relevancy that every priest I have encountered is of the Roman rite and quite celibate…have not met any priests from other rites that I recall…perhaps a few but for me an oddity…i have known more ex priests (Roman) who have gone on to marry.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Which led me to my question of what your real problem is with this?
Click to expand...
As I mentioned to you before, and I’m guessing you’ve heard ad infinitum from others like myself, it does not seem to be apostolic and certainly not explicitly scriptural. I understand it to be more based on tradition which to me is not as normative.
 
Catholicwife32 said:
Any person who does not understand how our culture and time wounds our ability to comprehend the bible will turn atheist if they simply read the bible cover to cover. It looks ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Again understand, but I think more in terms of the person not being born again if scripture looks ridiculous. But agree that the Spirit seeks to teach and reveal the nuances of His scripture
 
Catholicwife32 said:
You’ve got titles like theotokos and the idea of her perpetual virginity which seems tied to this idea that she would be pure and holy and without the defilement of sin to be remotely worthy of bearing the Word of God within her body.
Click to expand...
First of all thank you for sharing. I can only add another aspect, and that is one of spiritual experience in encountering the Living God (and yet even here we may differ). I say that because your post here is very foreign to the paradigm of my Christian experience: that Christ came in the flesh to save us, to make us what we could not be by ourselves, by grace, so that we could once more be one with Him, He in us and we in Him.

So to me it was by grace that Christ came to a cleansed vessel that Mary was, by her faith, and that in His promises and outlined will that was Judaosm, the one truth faith of God at that time. Christ did not need a perfect, sinless immaculate vessel…the grace was that she as an Israelite and could be chosen by God and found pleasing by her faith, not because she was perfect…

God’s divinity was veiled in flesh, and came to touch flesh, even sinful flesh, and walk on an imperfect earth. Mary did not need to be perfect, just as we do not need to be perfect (yet) to be indwelt by the Holy Ghost, even Christ. Yet we are made perfect by grace thru the gift of faith, as Job was "perfect " before the Lord.

I mean Mary is like one of us, where we say, “Lord I am not worthy but speak the word” and He makes us whole and enters in. I mean Christ did not wait till we were perfect before He would touch us.

The best a Catholic could say is that it was fitting that Mary was immaculte, but certainly not necesary. I mean really, to make her as Holy as Christ, as sinless as Christ, is only fitting as a co redeemer, which I partly understand is her next title as you say.
 
Last edited:
Catholicwife32 said:
And within this idea is seen by Protestants an attitude that is opposed to their understanding of the gospel and is attached to the whole saints being presented in an a light of perfection that makes them unrelateable. How compatible is it to argue that Mary must be pure and ever virgin to bear the God who humbled Himself in human form?
Click to expand...
Should have read this first before I posted , pretty much what you would expected from me.
 
mcq72’s problem concerning the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary . . .
it does not seem to be apostolic and certainly not explicitly scriptural. I understand it to be more based on tradition which to me is not as normative.
Click to expand...
It is CLEARLY Apostolic.

Bishops around 400 A.D. excommunicated another Bishop for DENYING this doctrine!

And NOBODY came to the excommunicated Bishops’ defense.

If the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin were a novelty, this would NEVER have occurred.

There are Ecumenical Councils that just matter of factly asserted this doctrine too. (While NONE of the Fathers denied it.)

If this were a theological novum, this would NOT be the case.

Look at the list of Fathers that St. Jerome appeals to.

Now you will object and say YOU don’t agree with Jerome’s interpretation of those Fathers writings.

Aside from that being wrong, there MAY be writings from ALL of those men that YOU do not even have any more. We just don’t know. (WHY should I accept YOU over St. Jerome??)

The “EXPLICITLY Scriptural” issue is just going to turn around and “bite” your whole argument.

Why?

Because Scripture NEVER EXPLICITLY STATES that everything we are called to believe is EXPLICITLY STATED in Scripture.

You are introducing an invention (“explicitness necessary in Scripture”) to give you cover for ANOTHER invention (denial of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary) all the while you are DENYING Apostolic Tradition and putting heretical ideas you have imbibed in a sacrosanct position.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top