E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
So … it’s a question of continuity with the Old Testament, believed because it is true rather than because there is any deeper reasoning than citation of Old Testament prophecy.
- Status
R
rovimax
Guest
Do you held your interpretation then as truth? Just curious
A
aspirant
Guest
This chastity is the common destiny of all Christians.
When we consult the biblical evidence, however, that is the direction in which it clearly points.
About that…
“he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
“Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
“he comes… to be glorified in his saints”
“So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory.”
“Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.”
“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you… And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory… Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you… And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.”
“The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”
“When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.”
“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.”
If we take the New Testament seriously, God is ALL ABOUT sharing his glory with his saints. That’s salvation at work.
Being a physician? What’s that supposed to mean? Are we supposed to believe he did a gynecological exam?
Then it should be sufficient that Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41), called Mary “mother of my Lord” (1:43). That’s much closer to “mother of God” than 1John 5:7 is to “Trinity.”
J
jpaul1953
Guest
Shawn,
The Church didn’t deem Mary a perpetual virgin.According to all believers at the time she remained a virgin. The Church didn’t make it up. The Church just continued in what was believed. If the Church didn’t believe what the early Church fathers and the Apostles believed then the Church would accept that maybe Mary had kids. No where in the Holy Scriptures does it say Mary had othe children. Nowhere. What it says is that Jesus had other brothers and sisters.
If Aramaic and Hebrew had no word for cousin, uncle , aunt, etc and all were called brother/sister which makes logical sense to Catholics, then the bible stating jesus had other brothers and sisters does not validate that these were biological brothers/sisters.
jpaul1953
M
Muzhik
Guest
This is the same point that tripped up Ophrah. G_D is a jealous G_D, but He is not jealous OF. G_D is jealous FOR.
The themes of weddings and marriage continuously come up in Scripture when describing the relationship that G_D wants to have with us. Now, suppose you and your honey are at a party, and you see someone hitting on your sweetie. It doesn’t matter if she is responding or not, your first reaction is about the other person tempting what is yours. You are jealous, not **of **the other person, but **for **your beloved.
Now, if the person chatting her up is one of your best buds, or is one of her BFFs, then it’s not an issue. You know these people, and you know they have your back – they’re not going to encourage her to step out on you. You also know that these best buds or BFFs are happy to be with you, just because you are you. Any admiration someone may have towards them does not diminish any admiration that someone may have for you.
This is a crude analogy for our relationship with G_D. Like anyone pursuing a loved one, G_D wants that loved one to be devoted to Him. We don’t want our loved ones stepping out on us, or even to be tempted by flashy cars or charming smiles. In the end, G_D loves us and wants us to love Him – to be devoted to Him, forsaking all others. The “best buds” and “BFFs” are the saints – those who are in heaven. They have already shown their devotion to G_D. When talking with us (which must be through prayer, since they are no longer on earth), they are not going to try to steal love away from Him. No matter how close the friendship or relationship we have with the saints, they’re going to try to direct us TOWARDS the One whom we are meant to be with.
This is even more true with Mary Theotokos. As much as we may love His mother and want to spend time with her, she’s going to be directing us towards her Son. Like any good mother, she wants us not for herself, but to be devoted to her Son, with whom we will celebrate the wedding feast at the end of time.
A
Annie_B
Guest
okay, suppose that Mary never did give birth to any other children… That could still be perfectly possible in a “sexually active” marriage. Maybe God made it so that her womb would stay “holy” by not allowing her to conceive any other children. In other words, the absence of biological brothers or sisters does not prove that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus!
Annie
Annie
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh…I see.
Could you perhaps point us to the verses which state that Jesus is consubtantial with the Father and that the Holy Spirit is a person Who proceeds from the Father and the Son?
Or were these finer points of trinitarian theology worked out by the Catholic Church at the dawn of Christianity?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You mean other than the fact that John and the other Apostles who knew Mary personally handed these things down to their disciples (Timothy, Titus, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc)?
Or other than the fact that Mary’s own question to the angel, “How can this be since I do not know man” indicates her intent to remain a virgin?
Or the fact that an infallible Church led by the Holy Spirit into all truth as promised by the One who promised to build her has declared Mary’s Perpetual Virginity as dogma?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Annie-
You sound like a genuine seeker of truth, so I offer this for your consideration:
Four Positive Proofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Proof #1 - The Vow of Perpetual Virginity
First, at the annunciation, the angel said that she would conceive and bear a son, she asked, “How can this be, since I do not know man?” She knew how babies were made, and she was about to be married. “How can this be?” would seem like a pretty silly question unless she had made a prior vow of virginity.
So, Why is she betrothed to Joseph if she made a vow of virginity?
Consecrated virginity was not common among first century Jews, but it did exist. According to some early Christian documents, such as the Protoevangelium of James (written around A.D. 120), Mary was a consecrated virgin. As such, when she reached puberty, her monthly cycle would render her ceremonially unclean and thus unable to dwell in the temple without defiling it under the Mosaic Law. At this time, she would be entrusted to a male guardian. However, since it was forbidden for a man to live with a woman he was not married or related to, the virgin would be wed to the guardian, and they would have no marital relations. Joseph agreed to marry Mary as her guardian - not as her husband - because he was much older and a widower. See Proof #3 below.
Proof #2 - The Absence of Younger Siblings in Childhood Scenes
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.
Proof #3 - The Presence of Older Siblings by Joseph’s First Marriage
Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).
Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).
Proof #4 - Jesus Entrusts Mary to John
Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.
Z
Zooey
Guest
:clapping::clapping:
A
Annie_B
Guest
Randy -
thank you for your kind reply. If I may, I would like to reply to what you call “proof”. I am in no way belittling your faith or the points you make, just putting my ideas down…
Proof # 1
“How can this be?” seems like a logical question from one who had never “been” with a man when told by an angel she was to have a son. I do not see that the question itself shows that she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity. To be fair, it also does not prove that she did not take such a vow. To me it merely shows that she wants to know how she could have a child and still be a virgin.
Proof #2
Did you by chance mean absence of OLDER siblings? Either way, the phrases used do not seem to eliminate the possibility of other siblings. I am the daughter of my mother, but then again, so is my sister
Proof #3
Whether or not there were older siblings from Joseph’s prior marriage (never heard of that before!), does not in any way prove that there were no other siblings. However, my original post was in regards to Mary’s state of perpetual virginity (or the lack thereof) and that just because there were no other siblings (assumed for the point of this discussion) does not in any way prove that Mary stayed a virgin her entire life.
Proof #4
For this one let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that Jesus did have blood brothers. Why would that relationship automatically make them the best to care for Mary? If I were to die and have to be put in the position of leaving a loved one in the care of another I would certainly not pick MY blood brother
As a young widow (I am now an old married lady) I had to make a will and declare who I wanted to care for my young daughter in the event of my death. I had to actually ELIMINATE my side of the family as potential caregivers/guardians due to circumstances that would have made them extremely poor choices for raising my daughter in a Godly manner and environment.Again, my original point was regarding virginity not siblings, but I do appreciate the time you took to share your views!
Annie
A
aspirant
Guest
It does not at all seem the natural response of a betrothed woman. If I tell an engaged young woman “You will have such beautiful children!” the natural response will be “Thank you!” or at least “God willing!” The response “How?” would not really make any sense unless she already knows she or her fiance are infertile (which Mary did not), she is ignorant regarding how conception takes place (which Mary’s question rules out), or there’s no intention to consummate the marriage.
Exactly. What betrothed woman thinks she will remain a virgin? One who does not intend or expect to consummate the marriage.
Many Christians throughout history have believed that Joseph either had children by a prior marriage or by adoption. It’s a very ancient belief, attested in second century Christian writings like the pseudepigraphal Protoevangelium of James: “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.” (Among ancient Christians who refer to this text and/or the idea that Joseph had children by other means are Origen, St. Epiphanius, etc.)
S
shawn38
Guest
Could I say it’s truth? Not with any certainty. It just appears based on the context of all verses combined, it would be more probable that she had not. However the Greek leaves open the possibility. It makes no difference either way though. Salvation is still through Christ alone.Do you held your interpretation then as truth? Just curious
S
shawn38
Guest
How come than it’s only through tradition that this is taught? We have letters from Timothy and Titus and neither indicate this.
QUOTE=Randy Carson;6149774]Or other than the fact that Mary’s own question to the angel, “How can this be since I do not know man” indicates her intent to remain a virgin?
Luke 1:26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David.
Or the fact that an infallible Church led by the Holy Spirit into all truth as promised by the One who promised to build her has declared Mary’s Perpetual Virginity as dogma?
Matt 1:18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins."
Being that fornication was a sin and she was not married to Joseph at the time, she’d be expected to be a virgin. She was betrothed to Joseph. In both cases a divorce would be necessary for separation.
R
rovimax
Guest
All of us want to be truthful. Time will tell. However there is only One Truth and the Truth is Jesus. We can agree on that. Which one of us is telling the Truth. Jesus knows.
A
aspirant
Guest
Like the doctrine of the Trinity, it is taught implicitly in scripture and explicitly in the teaching of the Church for two millennia. This is sufficient reason for people of Christian faith to believe.
Letters from Timothy and Titus? Where?
If you mean the letters to Timothy and Titus from Paul, so what? I didn’t mention it in my last letter to my mother, either. People write about the matters that occasion their writings.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Annie, Mary’s question is more profound than that. Any woman about to be married would understand that pregnancy was likely to follow. So, when the angel says, “You will conceive and bear a son”, Mary’s natural response would be, “Oh, good” and not “How can this happen?” She knew how it would happen on a natural level since she knew how babies are made. Thus, her question reveals that Mary wondered how this could occur because she had no plans to have relations with Joseph because she was a consecrated virgin.
No, the lack of younger siblings was the point in this “proof”. When Jesus was twelve he was in the temple, correct? There is no mention of any younger siblings during the account or anywhere else in the NT. And, btw, whenever anyone is mentioned as a “brother” or “sister” of Jesus, it is always as “brother of the Lord” and never as “son of Mary”. Why? Because someone could be a “brother” (or cousin) of Jesus without being a child of Mary. See how that works?
The Catholic argument seeks address questions concerning those whom the scriptures describe as “brothers” of the Lord. And the argument can be made in two ways.
Either these people were actually cousins (the Aramaic language has no word for cousin thus forcing the use of the word “brother” instead) or they were half-brothers and half-sisters by a previous marriage. I happen to think that it’s not a case of either-or but one of both-and. IOW, some of the people in the NT may have been Joseph’s older children (this would explain their lack of respect toward their younger, half-brother in some passages - an attitude that younger brothers would not display in that culture. Think of Joseph’s older brothers in the OT throwing him down the well and selling him into slavery.) while others may have been more distant relations who took care of Mary after Joseph’s death while Jesus was travelling around the countryside.
Are you by chance a convert to Mormonism? If so, I can understand your choice. However, the issue has more to do with Jewish law, I think. The law stipulated that the oldest child was responsible for the care of aging parents. If the oldest died, then the next oldest was responsible and so on. No matter how you slice it, if Jesus had ANY brothers and sisters, his designation of John as Mary’s caretaker was an affront to her own flesh and blood. On the other hand, if the “brothers” really were the sons of a first wife, then Jesus’ decision makes more sense. If the “brothers” were simply cousins, then the decision was actually a necessity.Proof #4
For this one let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that Jesus did have blood brothers. Why would that relationship automatically make them the best to care for Mary? If I were to die and have to be put in the position of leaving a loved one in the care of another I would certainly not pick MY blood brother
Thank you for the time you took to consider them.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
A
agent_grey
Guest
She is our mother. We include Joseph.
R
Radical
Guest
Hello again, Randy
Btw something that Mary could have been wondering at that time would be: “How can this be that I will give birth to the future king of Israel, since I haven’t even had sex with Joseph and Joseph is hardly next in line for the throne?”…but I won’t argue that this was what Mary really meant, b/c I think Luke was capable of expressing and explaining these greater concerns and would have done so…if it was important.
a) they are unimportant to the story
b) they died in infancy
c) there weren’t any other siblings, but not for a lack of trying
I find it very odd that you would resort to an argument from silence in order to explain away the (greater) silence of the NT and the Apostolic Fathers with respect to the matter of Mary’s alleged perpetual virginity. What is more significant? 1) The silence (wrt Jesus’s other siblings) in one short passage or 2) the silence (wrt Mary’s perpetual virginity) in all of the NT and in all of the writings known as the Apostolic Fathers?.
More “proofs” ? I know you are trying to be a better apologist so I will offer this for your consideration:
So by asking “How can this be, since I do not know man?” she wouldn’t have meant “How can this be, since I haven’t had sex with Joseph yet.”…this, you say would be silly b/c she should have been clever enough to know that she would be having sex in the future with her husband…and that is how she would have a son in the future. Instead, you think that by asking “How can this be, since I do not know man?” she would have actually meant “How can this be, since it doesn’t fit with my plan of being a life long virgin?” … I note that the passage doesn’t make mention of such a plan and the angel’s answer doesn’t exactly mention that her plan of being a life long virgin would remain in place…or that it would be abandoned. Given their silence on the matter, it seems that the angel and Luke might have not been aware of that plan and that silence sure requires you to read a lot into that phrase “since I do not know man”. Here again we must rely on your ability to interpret Luke’s hidden meaning (when Luke was very capable of stating his meaning and describing something that has been given such importance by an institution that fancies itself as The Church).
Btw something that Mary could have been wondering at that time would be: “How can this be that I will give birth to the future king of Israel, since I haven’t even had sex with Joseph and Joseph is hardly next in line for the throne?”…but I won’t argue that this was what Mary really meant, b/c I think Luke was capable of expressing and explaining these greater concerns and would have done so…if it was important.
good start…its rarity would mean that your proposal is unlikely
early, but about a 150 years after the alleged fact…and then a spurious document at that…not a good foundation for a “proof”. Ironically, I note this document says,* “But Mary had forgotten the mysteries of which the archangel Gabriel had spoken, and gazed up into heaven, and said: Who am I, O Lord, that all the generations of the earth should bless me?”* …given her cognitive abilities as described in the Protoevangelium of James, even if Mary was a consecrated virgin, it is likely that she wouldn’t have been able to remember the fact for more than a month or two at best.
You do realize that there are other possible reasons that Jesus’s siblings were not mentioned at that time (besides perpetual virginity). Some of those reasons would be:
a) they are unimportant to the story
b) they died in infancy
c) there weren’t any other siblings, but not for a lack of trying
I find it very odd that you would resort to an argument from silence in order to explain away the (greater) silence of the NT and the Apostolic Fathers with respect to the matter of Mary’s alleged perpetual virginity. What is more significant? 1) The silence (wrt Jesus’s other siblings) in one short passage or 2) the silence (wrt Mary’s perpetual virginity) in all of the NT and in all of the writings known as the Apostolic Fathers?.
I find it odd that you would try to build something from “a” vs. “the” when I suspect that you would vigorously protest if a non-venerator would try to draw inferences from the “until” of Matthew 1:25 or from the “first-born” of Luke 2:7. In any event, it wasn’t a title and it was but one occasion and the same wording isn’t used in Matt 13:55. The full verse at Mark 6:3 reads: * Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. * When brothers are expressly named and when sisters are expressly mentioned why should we spend any time trying to manufacture an inference out of “the”?
Why odd? If Jesus is the centre of the story, then it would be quite expected to describe others by their relationship to Jesus and not someone else.
- Status