Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[StevenFrancis]

Howdy folks. I love y’all, so don’t get offended.

But it is not scriptural to try and sell the idea that Mary is a virgin. Do you think they will change their thoughts on that?

thanks

hmmm…

Well I suppose the first and most obvious question is what on earth would be “unscriptural” about Mary being a virgin? What scripture? Whose scripture? I guess I don’t understand.

Then of course, Who are “they”, that you’re wondering will “change their thoughts on that”? The magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church? That would be be somewhat unlikely I would think. It’s dogma. We don’t have anyone busy “changing thoughts” on dogmatically defined teaching.

Having said this, I’m sure I’m just probably falling for some kind of bait anyway, but please, by all means explain how it’s not scriptural so we can help you see whatever it is you may have missed.

Thanks for stopping in. I hope you find the answers genuinely helpful on your Christian journey.

Peace to you,

Steven

 

[pablope]

I realize that the document is being used as a valid source. That does not mean anything. The net is full of stuff that has no validity. If you want to reject the Papal document in favor of the one you agree with … congratulations … You’re a Protestant.

Ok…I did some digging around and asked a question to an apologist. The document you cited is in connection with the development of the canon. The original intent of setting the canon was to have uniformity for the writings/books that were to be read during the Liturgy. As you are well aware, there were a lot of writings and those that did not make it into the final canon prior, were also being read during the liturgy. So the ban has to do with not reading those listed writings during the Liturgy.

The protoevangelum can be read/used for study, scholarly work, etc.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You cannot make a general conclusive statement for all early church fathers. The quotes you copied and pasted from this site start somewhere in the 3rd Century. You can say “some” of the 3rd and 4th century ones believed this.

Since the majority of the Church teaching was being spread orally (the Bible as we know it not being available in its current written format) and since we do not possess ‘all’ of what was written or spoken, how can you presume (knowing it WAS being ‘written’ in the 3rd century when the Church was STILL BEING PERSECUTED, and that what was written had already been ‘spoken’ teaching for some time prior to being written) it wasn’t taught?

You’re really reaching. Plus, show us, rbarcia, that the teaching was not then and now a consistent teaching of Catholics and Orthodox to this day… .

and show us where Mary having ‘uterine’ brothers and sisters for Jesus WAS CHRISTIAN TEACHING consistently taught as CHRISTIAN TRUTH between AD 300 and AD 1600. It wasn’t. . .not until some MEN started to teach it out of nowhere. . .

 

[rbarcia]

I didn’t say ‘everyone’ in the first 2 centuries believed that. In fact, that’s one reason it was probably written about later on. We know, even in the Churches in scriptures, many corrections were written to the Churches.

I didn’t say he was infallible, but he was the original reformer who broke away from the Catholic Church. That being said, I understand that ‘Protestants’ continued to splinter in many different directions. Now, through a few hundred years of splintering, we have many Churches who do not agree on doctrines. This means some are not following the correct doctrines.

Paul wrote many letters about dissension, dividers and being of the same mind and judgment. He even wrote about the dangers of ‘many’ doctrines.

Now, if the early Church fathers believed, up to and including the early reformers, why did the correct doctrines appear later, leaving generation after generation having followed an incorrect doctrine? Christ said He wouldn’t leave His as orphans, that He would send them the Spirit of Truth, and He would be with us until the consummation of the world. I don’t see any gaps in what He promised.

With the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose, He gave full authority to His Church. Nowhere does scriptures tell us we were to figure it out for ourselves.

I know ultimately when a discussion of a particular topic comes up, you have to back into “I lack authority argument.” Now as I stated earlier, we have no evidence in the first 2 centuries and it is not till the 3rd century. And once the Bible was translated into Latin and not made available to the common man, well most people had to take Rome’s word for it.

This is not an issue with interpretation like prophecy, it is just a common reading. Brother and the context show a pretty straight forward reading. If Rome is authoritative, why don’t they change all catholic Bible translation to relative?

We have no New Testament Manuscript in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. If some of the original New Testament writings were in Aramaic (although there is no proof) and the teaching of perpetual virginity was so common (why didn’t the Greek translators just translate it corrrectly).

 

[rbarcia]

Since the majority of the Church teaching was being spread orally (the Bible as we know it not being available in its current written format) and since we do not possess ‘all’ of what was written or spoken, how can you presume (knowing it WAS being ‘written’ in the 3rd century when the Church was STILL BEING PERSECUTED, and that what was written had already been ‘spoken’ teaching for some time prior to being written) it wasn’t taught?

You’re really reaching. Plus, show us, rbarcia, that the teaching was not then and now a consistent teaching of Catholics and Orthodox to this day… .

and show us where Mary having ‘uterine’ brothers and sisters for Jesus WAS CHRISTIAN TEACHING consistently taught as CHRISTIAN TRUTH between AD 300 and AD 1600. It wasn’t. . .not until some MEN started to teach it out of nowhere. . .

see post 272.

There is no stretching here at all. What teaching have I stretched. Really?

Perpetual virginity was almost completely absent in the first 2 centuries, started to develop in the 3rd, and help by Rome after the Bible was translated in Latin and not made available to the common man. By 600 AD, the Bible has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate! The Catholic Church of Rome refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin. Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed! This was because mostly the priests were educated to understand Latin. That is an obvious reason why people could not question this teaching since the Bible in any other language would mean execution. These were the dark ages for sure. There were a few places like the Scottish Island of Iona with pockets of Biblical teaching but for the most part, history is history.

Now, you can throw verses about that gates of hell will not prevail, so how could their be a dark age, but ultimately, the Lord and His people still prevail.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I know ultimately when a discussion of a particular topic comes up, you have to back into “I lack authority argument.” Now as I stated earlier, we have no evidence in the first 2 centuries and it is not till the 3rd century. And once the Bible was translated into Latin and not made available to the common man, well most people had to take Rome’s word for it.

This is not an issue with interpretation like prophecy, it is just a common reading. Brother and the context show a pretty straight forward reading. If Rome is authoritative, why don’t they change all catholic Bible translation to relative?

We have no New Testament Manuscript in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. If some of the original New Testament writings were in Aramaic (although there is no proof) and the teaching of perpetual virginity was so common (why didn’t the Greek translators just translate it corrrectly).

You are challenging Church fathers from the 200s, on. Tantum ergo makes a very good point, in my opinion. That is, you have not produced any documentation showing when the belief was as you believe, from any era. Tantum also tried to explain to you another historical fact, that the earliest Church worked more from the oral tradition.

St. John wrote Revelation around 110AD, with the canon being defined much later. Yet, most Protestants use the Bible as the standard for all the faith, and seem to ignore the scriptures speaking of holding to tradition, whether by word or epistle. But you’ve been through this same exact argument before on these forums, haven’t you?

If you want to work beliefs on absence, for a period of time, maybe we should start a thread on the Trinity and see what the early Church fathers wrote about that for several hundred years and compare it to what you believe today.

Now, instead of maintaining we are wrong show us the documentation where we are wrong. Show us where the perpetual virginity was being taught as you say it is. Please feel free to use any language available.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Let alone the fact that its Biblical and Historical that God had One Son. The One Son was Jesus through Mary, which could not be born into sin as the Ark of Covenant show in scripture. And so-where in history or scripture does anthing contadict this, only confirm it.

Where does the Bible state Joseph had other biological sons through Mary? Aside from the fact God had One Son born Human/Divine in nature’s. There’s in clear reading only abstract belief based of individual interpretation by large promoted by inferior Sola Scritura understanding. And for the largest part from the last century. All which has promoted to promote a lifesyle in Protestant thinking which would like to combine the modern world with Christainity.

No-where in scripture does it indicate Mary commits a sin. On the contrary She not only complete Her Biblical Birth and agrena through Gods will. But She continues through Her veneration in God as being the First disciple of Jesus right till the Cross.

The veneration of Mary starts in the catacombs till Constantine in 314. Then the veneration of Mary continues in public through the public in Art and Literature to this day.

No-where in History is an woman more higher verenerated in Art, or in the 2500 existing biographys today. So the veneration of not only preceeded Scripture but has continued to this very day.

Then we have how the veneration of Mary has coverted Christians through intercession for century’s in other mystical ways straight from the will of God. The Confraternity of the Rosary by the Dominicans. The Blue Army, Fatima, Lourdes and Zeitoun Egypt.

So how many lost souls were able to re-gain the vision of God through the Blessed Mother in this day? These are very real victorys for the Lord and the balance which off-sets evil in the world and allows mankind to continue. The victorys of Mary today are no different then God speaking to Abraham in the Bible about Sodom and Gomorrah. When evil becomes prevelant, God opens a window in time to instruct man. Through the Holy Spirit these windows God has opened, He has chosen to use Mary. Then the message becomes confirmed by a Miracle from God. And this is scripture also.

How all this can be ignored simply serves Christainity in a negative aspect.

If something in this world is a Truth, then it will stand. And in the case of the Blessed Mother the Truth has stood and never waivered.

Yet when we reach this most difficult hour in time, this truth is challanged instead of embraced?

Evil has been given its hour, so its no surpirize. But the hour is slowly coming to a close.

So yes the attack on Mary is higher today than any other time in History. The start of the denial of Mary then becomes a systematic denial of Christ and scripture. Look how far the NIV is today in scripture and how will that serve Sola Scripura followers but to lead further astray.

Today we have so called Christian denonminations which has held evey heretical thinking possible, which could only serve the evil of the world. Concepts which place Christ, the Father and Holy Spirit not as one God but as three seperate individuals which aspire to Pagan thinking. Others which reduce the Christ just a man and raise mans status to being a God by equaling themselves to Jesus Chirst. Others which claim Jesus was just a Prophet by not God. Then the Bible itself beomes viewed an not Divine, but a Book like the Book of Morman is? Or the Quran which views the Holy Bible as insigificant. While the entire faith is based on Christian Heresy.

I’ll be sticking with Jesus Christs church which He started. And be praying for those to see truth and hold fast to their faith as the physical world erodes.

The only right and smart thing to do is to embrace the Pope and Gods Church and in this last period to do exactly what the Blessed Mothers goal is. To save as many Souls which can be possible.

Thats the logic, moral, right, and correct path to take today.

God Bless, Gary

 

[onenow1]

And if Jesus had other brothers, I am curious why he does not mention to his mother who would take care of her? Instead he tells John the Apostle? I thought Jesus was an orthodox Jew?

Hi, Nicea,
I guess a lot of folks just can’t understand Luke,the gospel writers, or the culture of the times.

Luke 1:
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us,

2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,

3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus,

4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

Luke 1: 29,34,But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.

And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”

WOW ! Is it possible Mother Mary did not know where babies came from ?

Peace

 

[mark_avery]

i think the decision is left up to your personal opportunity, or whether to side with those that like the friends of Job, argued against him in unnecessary defence of the lord,or those that like Job have confidence with the revelation they might have received.

The papacy has really no option but to exclaim or teach that our lady was without other son`s,for it is always best to stand at the back and then ask or be told to come forwards.

Mathew 12:46-50…would then also mean that his mother was also not his real mother,which in respect could also be true,for she was also only alive,for because of the fact that everything and everyone came through our lord,and that includes Mary (new Jerusalem bible).

Also however odd your understanding would have you believe about the functionality of the family, because of Jesus`s birth,could easily be rectified with visions of present family life.

Our lady,like our lord was also blessed if that`s the right word, to experience all our emotions,and unlike Jesus she is not to be worshipped.

Either way she is mother to mankind and such a joy is it to know i have a perfect mum in heaven!!

Bless you…

 

[4everjustjesus]

Again, I don’t want to come on here and cause chaos. I just ask we look at this honestly leaving our pride at the door. Scooby, I agree with you. Brothers and sisters can be used as a general term and I don’t have a problem with that. Is that what the Bible talks about here? The evidence would say no in my opinion. If the Bible just says brothers and sisters as a broad statement, then i might buy the argument that Mary was a virgin. The Bible doesn’t do that however.

In Matthew 12, it reads: While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. - Matthew 12:46. Honestly, if someone uses mother and brother in the same sentence, you are thinking a true mother and brother. If they said brothers and sisters, then you might have an argument.

In Luke 1, we know that Jesus and John the Baptist are literal cousins. They are relatives. This shows that the term relative, brother can be used as literal, not just talking about a group of believers. The disciples are those “brothers” right?

In Matthew 13, it reads: When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”– Matthew 13:53-56. Here the Holy Spirit actually names the brothers, many of whom we have never heard of. If he was talking about the disciples, then why wouldn’t he name one of the twelve? The evidence demonstrates that this is a very specific naming of his literal brothers. Again, the Bible never says Mary was a virgin either, so keep that in mind when you look at my argument.

In Galatians, we read: Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. – Galatians 1:18. Now again James is mentioned here as the Lord’s brother. He is not named as a disciple or an apostle, but a “brother”. If this was just a general term for brother, it’s quite an odd coincidence that James is named both in Matthew’s gospel and here in Paul’s letter. We don’t know anything about this guy named James, except he is referenced as his brother. The evidence is starting to become overwhelming at this point.

In John, we read: What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him. After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days. – John 2:11:12. Here the Holy Spirit distinguishes Jesus’ brothers and his disciples. They cannot be one in the same because he says “his brothers AND his disciples”. They are not mutually exclusive. That’s like saying that the NFL suspended Terrell Owens and Ocho Cincho. They are two separate individuals. In John, the disciples which are thousands are not brothers according to what the sentence says. Looking at the evidence, there really isn’t an argument for Jesus not having literal brothers.

Back to John, we read: Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” For even his own brothers did not believe in him. – John 7:6-9 We again see the disciples distinct from the brothers. The disciples are for Jesus, and the brothers at this point in his life are mocking him. Jesus’ brothers were not believers at this point in their lives and are basically telling him to put your money where your mouth is. the point you made earlier is that brothers are within the body of believers and I said I had no problem with that. Here Jesus’ real brothers are not only not believers, but they are mocking him and basically telling him to go down to Judea since he says he is the son of Man. Only later on did his brothers believe, and two of them wrote epistles in the New Testament.

So, I don’t want to offend anyone, and nobody’s salvation is in danger here. My point is that the Bible needs to be taken literally and by looking at what the Bible says, not what a minister or pastor says is what’s really important. I think we all know there are a lot of false teachers out there. I want everyone to have a great understanding of the Bible and I hope to see all of you great Christian brothers with me in heaven!

hey!

So there’s a couple of factors to this:

First of all, as someone else mentioned, the Church is older than the bible, and this has been a teaching of the Church from the start. As you may/may not know, the faith of the Catholic church is based on (1) Scripture, and (2) tradition. Catholic tradition holds that Mary was a virgin before and after the birth of Christ. Remember that the bible was born our the the tradition. The Church picked the books of the bible THAT SUPPORTED the beliefs they already had. Up to that point, our faith was mostly oral tradition.

Secondly, the only scriptural proof that I have heard of regarding this is that the original greek/hebrew (i forget what language ) uses to different words for “the brothers of Jesus” and “James, the brother of John”… as in “brother” in those two sentences (and other ones that described direct sibling relationships) are different.

Hope this helps some!

God Bless you,
4EJJ

 

[Nicea325]

Hi, Nicea,
I guess a lot of folks just can’t understand Luke,the gospel writers, or the culture of the times.

Luke 1:
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us,

2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,

3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus,

4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

Luke 1: 29,34,But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.

And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”

WOW ! Is it possible Mother Mary did not know where babies came from ?

Peace

Exactly! What is equally important, if for the sake of argument, Jesus did have other blood brothers/sisters as many believe,strange how NOT one NT writer or Apostle bothers to give any insight ot information about them? Likewise,no ECF ever mentions these so-called brothers? I find it a bit odd?

 

[rbarcia]

Let alone the fact that its Biblical and Historical that God had One Son. The One Son was Jesus through Mary, which could not be born into sin as the Ark of Covenant show in scripture. And so-where in history or scripture does anthing contadict this, only confirm it.

Where does the Bible state Joseph had other biological sons through Mary? Aside from the fact God had One Son born Human/Divine in nature’s. There’s in clear reading only abstract belief based of individual interpretation by large promoted by inferior Sola Scritura understanding. And for the largest part from the last century. All which has promoted to promote a lifesyle in Protestant thinking which would like to combine the modern world with Christainity.

This thread has already shown quite a few.

**Matthew 13

55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
**

Let’s see. Is that the Son of Carpenter, is that the son of Mary, and look his cousins.

Hmm… Context would seem to indicate father, mother, and children. What what does my simple mind know.

No-where in scripture does it indicate Mary commits a sin. On the contrary She not only complete Her Biblical Birth and agrena through Gods will. But She continues through Her veneration in God as being the First disciple of Jesus right till the Cross.

So this thread is about her virginity. She was a good woman. She was married, and having children with her husband is by no means a sin. Though, Jesus was the only Perfect Lamb suitable for an offering.

The veneration of Mary starts in the catacombs till Constantine in 314.

huh?

Then the veneration of Mary continues in public through the public in Art and Literature to this day.

No-where in History is an woman more higher verenerated in Art, or in the 2500 existing biographys today. So the veneration of not only preceeded Scripture but has continued to this very day.

Then we have how the veneration of Mary has coverted Christians through intercession for century’s in other mystical ways straight from the will of God. The Confraternity of the Rosary by the Dominicans. The Blue Army, Fatima, Lourdes and Zeitoun Egypt.

Sounds like worship to me

So how many lost souls were able to re-gain the vision of God through the Blessed Mother in this day? These are very real victorys for the Lord and the balance which off-sets evil in the world and allows mankind to continue. The victorys of Mary today are no different then God speaking to Abraham in the Bible about Sodom and Gomorrah. When evil becomes prevelant, God opens a window in time to instruct man. Through the Holy Spirit these windows God has opened, He has chosen to use Mary. Then the message becomes confirmed by a Miracle from God. And this is scripture also.

So the gospel is to believe in Mary through visions and wonders?

Matthew 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed.

so all who don’t believe in Mary being the mother of God are evil in your eyes? and large numbers of converts is a sign is truth?

Matthew 7:13
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.

How all this can be ignored simply serves Christainity in a negative aspect.

If something in this world is a Truth, then it will stand. And in the case of the Blessed Mother the Truth has stood and never waivered.

Yet when we reach this most difficult hour in time, this truth is challanged instead of embraced?

Evil has been given its hour, so its no surpirize. But the hour is slowly coming to a close.

So yes the attack on Mary is higher today than any other time in History. The start of the denial of Mary then becomes a systematic denial of Christ and scripture. Look how far the NIV is today in scripture and how will that serve Sola Scripura followers but to lead further astray.

Today we have so called Christian denonminations which has held evey heretical thinking possible, which could only serve the evil of the world. Concepts which place Christ, the Father and Holy Spirit not as one God but as three seperate individuals which aspire to Pagan thinking. Others which reduce the Christ just a man and raise mans status to being a God by equaling themselves to Jesus Chirst. Others which claim Jesus was just a Prophet by not God. Then the Bible itself beomes viewed an not Divine, but a Book like the Book of Morman is? Or the Quran which views the Holy Bible as insigificant. While the entire faith is based on Christian Heresy.

I’ll be sticking with Jesus Christs church which He started. And be praying for those to see truth and hold fast to their faith as the physical world erodes.

The only right and smart thing to do is to embrace the Pope and Gods Church and in this last period to do exactly what the Blessed Mothers goal is. To save as many Souls which can be possible.

Thats the logic, moral, right, and correct path to take today.

God Bless, Gary

It seems like you stick with Mary, and rosaries, and signs and wonders. If only such zeal were used to defend the gospel of Christ. Idolatry is a sin. Making up a god weather it may your own version of Mary or some hindu god, or a false version of Jesus.

That he died and suffered and rose on the third day in fulfillment of the scriptures. and all who repent and believe in Him shall have eternal life.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It seems like you stick with Mary, and rosaries, and signs and wonders. If only such zeal were used to defend the gospel of Christ. Idolatry is a sin. Making up a god weather it may your own version of Mary or some hindu god, or a false version of Jesus.

That he died and suffered and rose on the third day in fulfillment of the scriptures. and all who repent and believe in Him shall have eternal life.

You went too far in my opinion. We do not practice idolatry or make up gods. Of course there are some anti-Catholics that prefer to know what we do rather than listen to us tell you what we do.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Rbarcia:

You are going way too far and engaging in the kind of scattershot, ‘throw out dozens of charges in one post’ behavior that keeps us from actually being able to talk with you.

Nobody said that having a baby is a sin. Why did you ask?

Nobody said that Mary was the “box of the 10 commandments.” When Robbie Burns called his love “A red red rose” he wasn’t saying he was courting a FLOWER. Metaphoric language is not LITERAL.

Sometimes Jesus touched to heal, sometimes He didn’t. Sometimes it was permitted for us to touch HIM and sometimes it was NOT. (read Scripture).

Plenty of places in Scripture where the word ‘brother’ was used and did not mean ‘uterine’ brother. You know that but you don’t want to admit it.

So something ‘sounds like worship to you?’ Well, luckily for us, GOD is the one who ‘defines’ worship, not you. Since we do not worship Mary as God, but venerate her as Scripture tells us to, you aren’t just mistaken in what you ‘think’, after being given so much information you are obstinantly DEFIANT in your refusal to accept our response and your determination to keep on insisting we do something we do NOT. That is ‘bearing false witness’ against your fellow Christians IN MY OPINION.

Mary had no other children than Jesus. She committed no sin whatsoever in bearing no other children than Jesus. Scripture does not say she had any other children than Jesus. Christian teaching for 2000 years does not say she had any other children than Jesus.

We are not idolaters. We worship only God. For a person to accuse us otherwise would be boorish, ignorant and rude, and would be verging on, if not already ‘crossed over’, into a breaking of the forum rules.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Those accusations made, which have no merit, is the same as '‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor’.in my honest opinion. We tell what we believe and we are falsely accused of something else.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

see post 272.

There is no stretching here at all. What teaching have I stretched. Really?

Perpetual virginity was almost completely absent in the first 2 centuries, started to develop in the 3rd, and help by Rome after the Bible was translated in Latin and not made available to the common man. By 600 AD, the Bible has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate! The Catholic Church of Rome refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin. Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed! This was because mostly the priests were educated to understand Latin. That is an obvious reason why people could not question this teaching since the Bible in any other language would mean execution. These were the dark ages for sure. There were a few places like the Scottish Island of Iona with pockets of Biblical teaching but for the most part, history is history.

Now, you can throw verses about that gates of hell will not prevail, so how could their be a dark age, but ultimately, the Lord and His people still prevail.

Please show us documentation of when your belief about Mary was recorded.

I believe, even with 2 centuries of absence in early Church writings, we will see your belief was absent until well after the reformation, even though the Catholic belief clearly existed through the documentation available from the 200s to present day; approximately 1800 years. As you say, history is history.

As you recognize ‘mostly priests were educated’, how many people then do you think could read ANY language during those times?

Again, it’s more than strange one would trust the scriptures that were preserved for 1500 years, for the reformers to have, and not trust the Church that preserved those scriptures. If the Church was ‘untrustworthy’ it certainly had more than opportunity to ‘re-translate’ scriptures to say whatever they wanted it to say. That would have been much easier than the executions you suggest.

The 600s are far removed from the 1500s. There appears to be a ‘cherry picking’ of history for biased reasons, when history shows the Bible was translated into other languages well before Protestants started translating it into other languages. What was the big difference of mass production between the two? Why not look up the invention of the printing press to see the answer?

Dave Armstrong

“[W]e have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the 7th century, consisting of great portions of the Bible … we have the well-known translations of the Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow . . . In the same (8th) century we have the copies of Eadhelm . . . of Guthlac, . . . and of Egbert . . . these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great . . . and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury . . . the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1250), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle . . . (d.1349) . . .”

Because of the disputes in ‘private interpretation’ it should be clear to anyone that the Church preserved them the way they were written. What it appears some are missing to cause so many interpretations is tradition, that the very scriptures tell us to hold to, whether by word or epistle.

 

[onenow1]

Exactly! What is equally important, if for the sake of argument, Jesus did have other blood brothers/sisters as many believe,strange how NOT one NT writer or Apostle bothers to give any insight ot information about them? Likewise,no ECF ever mentions these so-called brothers? I find it a bit odd?

Indeed odd ! If Jesus had brothers and sisters either they didn’t like Him, or they were away on vacation in Rome. Luke certainly would have written about this 20 yrs later, they certainly would have been celebrities. !

Peace

 

[jmcrae]

Again, I don’t want to come on here and cause chaos. I just ask we look at this honestly leaving our pride at the door. Scooby, I agree with you. Brothers and sisters can be used as a general term and I don’t have a problem with that. Is that what the Bible talks about here? The evidence would say no in my opinion. If the Bible just says brothers and sisters as a broad statement, then i might buy the argument that Mary was a virgin. The Bible doesn’t do that however.

The Bible makes no claim in either direction, and when you look at James, the 'brother" of Jesus, we see that his father was named Alphaeus - clearly, then, not a sibling of Jesus, but probably a cousin, or good friend.

In Matthew 12, it reads: While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. - Matthew 12:46. Honestly, if someone uses mother and brother in the same sentence, you are thinking a true mother and brother. If they said brothers and sisters, then you might have an argument.

In the Old Testament, we read that Joseph of Egypt had 12 brothers - but we also read that his mother died in childbirth giving birth to his only other sibling, Benjamin. The other 10 “brothers” were children of his father’s, but they had different mothers.

The “brothers” mentioned in this passage could have been sons of Joseph, from a previous marriage, but not sons of Mary. Or they may have been young men who lived in the same house, for whatever reason. It happens often enough - I have two sisters who aren’t related to me by blood at all - they are daughters of my mother’s husband (who is not my father), and born to his previous wife.

In Luke 1, we know that Jesus and John the Baptist are literal cousins. They are relatives. This shows that the term relative, brother can be used as literal, not just talking about a group of believers. The disciples are those “brothers” right?

Was Mary even giving birth to people of different races, then, as well? (neither Judas Iscariot nor Simon Zealotes were of the same race as the rest of them - do you say that they were literal sons of Mary, as well?)

In Matthew 13, it reads: When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”– Matthew 13:53-56. Here the Holy Spirit actually names the brothers, many of whom we have never heard of. If he was talking about the disciples, then why wouldn’t he name one of the twelve? The evidence demonstrates that this is a very specific naming of his literal brothers. Again, the Bible never says Mary was a virgin either, so keep that in mind when you look at my argument.

And again, the brothers of Joseph were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin - but only Benjamin is his true blood brother. The other ten were born of other women.

In Galatians, we read: Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. – Galatians 1:18.

This is either James the son of Alphaeus, or James the son of Zebedee, since these are the only two Apostles named James. We know that Mary the mother of Jesus was never in a marital relationship with either of these two men.

Now again James is mentioned here as the Lord’s brother. He is not named as a disciple or an apostle, but a “brother”.

Read it again. “I saw none of the other Apostles except for James” - the James in question is clearly an Apostle.

If this was just a general term for brother, it’s quite an odd coincidence that James is named both in Matthew’s gospel and here in Paul’s letter. We don’t know anything about this guy named James, except he is referenced as his brother. The evidence is starting to become overwhelming at this point.

Actually, it’s becoming less and less.

In John, we read: What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him. After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days. – John 2:11:12. Here the Holy Spirit distinguishes Jesus’ brothers and his disciples. They cannot be one in the same because he says “his brothers AND his disciples”.

And again, no mention of them being sons of Mary the mother of Jesus. It is possible, and indeed, there is a pious tradition that seems to indicate that Joseph was a widower with sons living at home. They would have been thought to be Jesus’ brothers, just as Joseph himself was thought to be Jesus’ father.

 

[Zooey]

John quotes Psalm 69 in Reference to Jesus, 2 other times.

John 2:17
His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

John 15:25
25But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’

It is clear then that Psalm 69 is a prophecy about Jesus. I color match those prophecy. The scripture in between states my mother’s son

4 More in number than the hairs of my head
are those who hate me without cause;
mighty are those who would destroy me,
those who attack me with lies.
What I did not steal
must I now restore?
5O God, you know my folly;
the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you.

6Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
O Lord GOD of hosts;
let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
O God of Israel.
7For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach,
that dishonor has covered my face.
8I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
9For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.

(I am sure though a devote catholic will say I am not authoritative, and verse 8 is not about Jesus, just the ones around it) .

John 7:5
For not even his brothers believed in him.

Can be seen as fulfilling verse 8.

Some reason why you are quoting that Psalm out of context? Like, say, ** Psalm 69:5?**
“O God, Thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from Thee”.[KJV].
Sheesh. It gets really, really old when somebody shows up cherry-picking Scripture. The fact that parts of a poem familiar to the author of the sacred text remind him of Christ does NOT mean that every word of it also applies.
But then, you all ready knew that…

 

[Zooey]

rbarcia:

You cannot say the teaching of perpetual virginity was taken for granted and everyone in the first 2 centuries believed that.

Oh, but it was taken for granted (See ECFs).
And I can say that everyone orthodox believed that.
The meandering minds of :shrug:heretics are outside our purview here…

rbarcia:

And I don’t hold Luther to be infallible.

Except, of course, when he agrees with you…