Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[joe371]

So, since it’s impossible to have an “unbelieving believer,” then - Scripturally - who are these “brothers” in Matthew Ch.12 on the OUTSIDE that differ from Jesus’ believing “brothers” on the INSIDE? Keep in mind, that these unbelieving “brothers” who are related to Jesus are mentioned in the same sentence as Jesus’ biological mother. So, without a preconceived religious view, then “who” does it make the most sense are these “brothers” of Jesus with His biological mother?

I never said: it’s impossible to have an “unbelieving believer,”…

I said: It is impossible for you and I to agree i.e. to determine one way or the other. If I tell you what I believe you will simply tell me that I’m wrong. Again, I respect your right to disagree with me, but I disagree with you vis-a-vis Jesus’ brothers, nevertheless. Scripture cannot resolve the issue for us. If it could you and I would agree.

 

[joe371]

Actually, there is no OT Law commanding the “next eldest sibling” to care for the mother if both the husband & oldest son are both dead. Therefore, Jesus would not be bound by this man-made Law (see Matthew Ch.15). Jesus could therefore entrust His earthly mother to His “spiritual brother” John. That’s actually what Jesus is trying to get across in Matthew Ch.12 when He contrasts His biological family (mother & brothers) with His “spiritual” family (believers), since His biological brothers didn’t believe in Him & were mocking Him during His ministry (John 7:3-5). This explains “why” they weren’t at the cross, & why Jesus had the freedom to assign care to His mother to His spiritual “brother” - as well as Jesus’ cousin - the apostle John.

So, Jesus didn’t “take His mother away from his family in disobedience to the law,” since: a) there was no Law in the OT commanding this; b) Jesus entrusted her to a close & faithful family member, His cousin John; & 3) in addition to being closely blood-related family, John was also Jesus’ “spiritual” family, which is more important.

OK, no law, such as honouring your father and your mother, which would necessitate the next living eldest son caring for his mother. :shrug:Certainly it was exceptional that John, a cousin, was given care of our blessed mother Mary because he was not her son; certainly, in my humble opinion, if there had been a younger son, Jesus would have entrusted His mother to him. It sounds as if there is reason to believe that a widowed mother’s care would have traditionally, if not by commandment, started with the oldest son due to the set up of the law of inheritance, then naturally passed to the next youngest son. Could there be exceptions i.e. Jesus could have entrusted Mary to a close & faithful family member, instead of being passed to the next youngest son? Sure. This is what I was talking about in my last post. Scripture will not help us resolve our differences.

 

[stewstew03]

Actually, I did see it. And I have addressed it, either with you or another poster. First, that specific Ezekiel prophecy has nothing to do with Mary. In fact, it has nothing really to do with Jesus either.

Okay, a few questions, thetazlord, to help me understand how far apart we really are:

• Is Jesus the High Priest described in the NT? (see Hebrews)
• Is Jesus the New Temple? (see Gospel of John)
• Do you read the OT in light of Jesus and the NT?
• Do you understand Ezekiel to be describing a literal third temple that will be built in Jerusalem?

These are fairly simple questions, and I would have assumed the answers to some of these before your last comment – but probably better not to assume…

 

[Mystophilus]

These verses in Matthew Ch.12 actually support that Jesus had uterine brothers, because if you go back a few verses, Jesus actually contrasts his unbelieving brothers OUTSIDE, with His believing “brothers” INSIDE. So, since there’s no such thing as an “unbelieving believer,” these unbelieving brothers are brothers who are related to Jesus by blood - ie: Jesus’ younger half-brothers.

The problem which seems to be tripping you up here is the term “brother”, which, in English, is considerably narrower than αδελφος was in Greek. The Greek term was used not only for kinsman outside of the nuclear family, but also for fellow soldiers, colleagues, and even non-human but apparently related things, such as similar laws (Plato, Laws, 3.683).

Thus, Jesus says in Matthew, “Who are the ones to whom I am connected? They are the ones who do the will of my Father”.

This is why native-Greek-speaking Fathers of the early Church had no problem with the idea that Jesus was an only child: it does make perfect sense of what the Scriptures say in Greek.

 

[thetazlord]

They did, but not in the time of Jesus. The Pharisees put their canon together only after the Christians professed the Deuterocanonical’s as being scripture. The Greek speeking Jews of the diaspora - and there were more Greek speaking Jews than not - recognized the Deuterocanonical’s as the inspired and inerrant, the written Word of God, conflicting with the Pharisees. But the Jews also, believed in oral Tradition, separate from the written book.

I think you’re missing the point of what Jimmy Akin was saying. Based on what he said in the YouTube video, the Pharisees of Jesus’ time recognized the exact same writings in the OT as Protestants do in their OT canon today. And when he stated that, he was comparing that to the Sadducees - again - of Jesus’ time that only recognized the 5 books of Moses. And this is why when Jesus corrected the Pharisees on doctrine, he corrected them with the OT, referring to it as “the Law & the Prophets” to distinguish their canon from the shorter canon of the Sadducees. This is also why - again - towards to end of Luke Ch.24, Jesus doesn’t just refer to the OT canon as “the Law & the Prophets,” but more specifically, “the Law & the Prophets & the Psalms.” This is because the Psalms & the rest of the “writings” were a separate “section” of the OT from the Prophets that the Pharisees would have recognized. You might want to go back & rewatch that YouTube video by Mr. Akin.

So are you suggesting that Christians defer to the Pharisees to determine what is scripture? And on what basis in scripture do we do so? All Christians for 1,500 years believed in at least 73 books…not 66. Even the Original King James 1611 bible had 73.

Even Jesus acknowledged to His disciples that the Pharisees were “sitting in the chair of David,” acknowledging what Peter & Paul would later refer to the Jews preserving the “oracles of God” - the OT Scriptures. Jesus didn’t have problems with the Pharisees unless they deviated from - or added to - Scripture (Matthew 15:1-9). Protestants simply recognize the same thing Jesus, His disciples, & the Pharisees realized and accepted in the first century, as well as Ezra around 400 B.C. did at “The Great Synagogue” - the canon of the Hebrew & Aramaic Scriptures that Protestants do today, which did not include the 7 Apocrypha books as well as the “additions” of Esther & Daniel that - unlike the books of Esther & Daniel - weren’t even written until the Intertestimenal Period. This is also why the Aramaic Targums did not translate these 7 books & “additions.”

BTW, not “ALL Christians for 1,500 years” believed in these 73 books. Like you implied (“at least”) many of them also included other books in addition to the 73 in the Catholic OT canon. Many recognized just the 73, many others recognized the same 66 that are in the Protestant OT canon. But as mentioned above, if we go back to the time of Ezra in the OT, as well as the time of Jesus in the NT era, the 46 books is what the believing Jews recognized.

And as far as the KJV goes, the translators of it never considered it Inspired Scripture. Rather, they placed it as an addendum to be read, but not for doctrine, because they recognized it for the same reason Ezra, Jesus, & His disciples did.

Yes and this is why Catholics can so clearly see the prefigurement of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the Old Testament. We can see the prefigurement in the Last Supper, the Manna and the Showbread.

With all due respect, this really has nothing to do with the OP. Feel free to start a new thread, invite me to comment, & I’d be happy to discuss it with you there.

for one, the Jewish faith would disagree with you. You see the NT through the eyes of faith, but not the full apostolic faith taught by Christ to the apostles and from them to their descendants, and from the descendants to their descendants…and on… Christianity was Catholic and of One faith, all believing in the 7 Sacraments. All of Christianity believed so until the 1,500’s…

The “Jewish faith” is apostate, so it’s really irrelevant that they “disagree with me.” And the “eyes of faith” that I see through is the NT, which does not support that Mary remained a virgin. These little rabbit trails have been fun, but could we please focus on the OP? It seems like I’m spending more time redirecting people back to the OP, than I do addressing it.

 

[thetazlord]

Wait a minute… you come close to claiming that Christ is the Word Made Flesh.

Are you sure you want to do that? Are you claiming Christ is an actual person who existed in time and space? Be careful. Before you can say “we find in the New Testament canon”, you must first find the person, Christ. And if you find the person Christ, you must find a community of believers -before the NT is recorded-. Are you sure you mean what you say above?

And what this “community of believers” based their faith on were the OLD Testament Scripture, which separated them from the apostate Jewish leaders who added to these Scriptures, as well as contradicted them. That’s why the apostates Jews didn’t recognized their Savior. Had they went strictly by OT Scripture, they would have realized Jesus was a fulfillment of it, as well as the promised Savior that the OT prophets wrote about. That’s why we as Christians need to rely on Scripture, so we know “Who” the “real” Jesus, unlike Mormons who call themselves “Christian” but base their “faith” on the book of Mormon which teaches a different “Jesus,” just as the gnostic & pseudoepigraphical writings do.

Scripture contradicts itself so much it’s not even worth debating.

Really??? Scripture contradicts itself? I don’t think there’s a single Catholic, let alone Protestant, would agree with this. I’m surpised no one has corrected you on this.

You quote a lot of material here. What you should do is go talk to someone who does scripture as a life’s vocation, and talk to them about the myriad family trees of scripture interpretations that have developed over the centuries.

Different Scripture interpretations is different than there being contradictions in Scripture. The latter - there are none.

The absence of contradiction and other transmission difficulties does not prove inspiration,

Contradictions disqualify a particular writing as being God-breathed. The fact that NONE of the books of the Bible contradict each other, nor contain errors - of any kind - in them, as well as most of them containing fulfilled prophecy, supported & called “Scripture” by other authors (like Peter’s with Paul’s, & Paul’s with Luke’s, & Luke’s with Isaiah, etc), as well as the other godly attributes previously mention prove their Inspiration. You don’t find these qualities in ANY other pieces of “religious” writing.

Scripture is a messy endeavor undertaken by sinful humans inspired by God, but it’s still inspired.

So, how can Scripture be Inspired (God-breathed), yet contain contradictions in it? That’s like saying God contradicts Himself.

Those who wrote the Gospel were contradictions themselves. they wanted to be committed followers of the Person, but were awful persons in many ways, some of them unfaithful to the end. Yet Christ not only accepted death in the shadow of their unfaithfulness, he rose and still, gave to these persons his Tradition. He trusted common sinners with the words of eternal life. No tape recorders, no video, no pens and paper at Pentecost. If God wanted the book to be our faith, he sure did his best to fail us.

The writers of Scripture being sinful doesn’t mean the Scripture they wrote errant or have contradictions in them. God using sinful men who are capable of being in error, yet these same men made NONE in “any” of the books of the Bible, prove that they were aided by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). I think you’re still confusing the inerrancy of Scripture, with the errancy of those who wrote Scripture. The writers themselves were not anything special. God used these “ordinary men” to do His will.

Your faith is inverted. Christ should be at the top of the pile. From Christ the person comes the community, a living Tradition, then the book.

Jesus is the “top of the pile.” Relying on God-breathed Scripture to discern between the “real” Jesus vs. the false “Jesus” mentioned in extra-biblical literature doesn’t somehow “diminish” Him. Tradition is only useful provided that that tradition doesn’t contradict Scripture, which Jesus Himself attests to (Matthew 15:1-9).

You’ll find this unsatisfying, but we believe Mary is Ever-Virgin because the community that Christ breathed on says it is so.

The “community” that Christ “breathed on” was His disciples like Peter, John, & Matthew who later wrote Inspired Scripture, and later the Holy Spirit descending on the early Church at Pentecost, like James & Jude who also wrote Inspired Scripture. So, if this “community” that Jesus “breathed on” believed that Mary was an “ever-virgin,” please provide a single quote from anyone from this “community” in Inspired Scripture, that they “believed” she was. Surely “somewhere” in the NT, at least ONE of them mentioned something as significant & specific as this.

 

[thetazlord]

One could argue that Hebrews has contradictions to the other Pauline texts (which raises whether it is inspired or not).

1. the author never had an encounter with Jesus (2:3)
2. The Greek style and vocabulary is different than the other Pauline epistles
3. Has a theology of salvation by works (Ch 11), not faith
4. Has a letter closing but no letter opening
5. The rhetorical structure is different

PnP

If Hebrews has contradictions in it, then it shouldn’t be in God-breathed Scripture, because that would be like God contradicting Himself, which is impossible. BTW, I don’t know where you get the idea that Hebrews 11 teaches a works-salvation, since the entire chapter is about these listed saints being recognized as genuine believers based on their faith, not works. Their faith were demonstrated BY their works, which James later explains what “true” faith that isn’t “dead,” is demonstrated “by” (James 2:18). But neither the writer of Hebrews nor James’ epistle teaches a works-based salvation, because that would contradict Paul who taught we are saved by grace through faith, & not of works (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9). The other points in your list don’t disqualify inerrancy of Scripture

Now, let’s get back to the OP, rather than create Red Herrings, shall we? Does God-breathed Scripture support that Mary “remained” a virgin after she married, while she was pregnant with Jesus? - yes, Scripture states this. After she gave birth to Jesus? - no (Matthew 1:25), as well as several other Scriptures.

 

[thetazlord]

The problem which seems to be tripping you up here is the term “brother”, which, in English, is considerably narrower than αδελφος was in Greek. The Greek term was used not only for kinsman outside of the nuclear family, but also for fellow soldiers, colleagues, and even non-human but apparently related things, such as similar laws (Plato, Laws, 3.683).

Thus, Jesus says in Matthew, “Who are the ones to whom I am connected? They are the ones who do the will of my Father”.

This is why native-Greek-speaking Fathers of the early Church had no problem with the idea that Jesus was an only child: it does make perfect sense of what the Scriptures say in Greek.

I’m well aware that the Greek word for “brothers” (adelphos) has numerous meanings, which include uterine sibling. But I’m not “limiting” my understanding to it either. Rather, Scripture itself supports that the “UNbelieving brothers” Jesus is referring to are not His “believing brothers,” nor His disciples (John Ch.2), nor “relatives” (Mark Ch.6), nor cousins (see Luke Ch.1), nor kinsmen (see Paul’s epistles). The Gospel writers, as well as the apostle Paul, use different & specific Greek words for “relatives,” “cousins,” & “kinsmen,” in their Greek NT writings than they do for “brothers.” So, if they were referring to any of these other groups of people when they wrote in the GREEK, they would have used of these Greek words, just as they did in other parts of their same writings. In fact, Mark, Luke & John specifically use the Greek words for “relatives” & “kinsmen” rather than “adelphos,” when referring to non-uterine relationships.

 

[Porknpie]

I think you’re missing the point of what Jimmy Akin was saying. Based on what he said in the YouTube video, the Pharisees of Jesus’ time recognized the exact same writings in the OT as Protestants do in their OT canon today. And when he stated that, he was comparing that to the Sadducees - again - of Jesus’ time that only recognized the 5 books of Moses. And this is why when Jesus corrected the Pharisees on doctrine, he corrected them with the OT, referring to it as “the Law & the Prophets” to distinguish their canon from the shorter canon of the Sadducees. This is also why - again - towards to end of Luke Ch.24, Jesus doesn’t just refer to the OT canon as “the Law & the Prophets,” but more specifically, “the Law & the Prophets & the Psalms.” This is because the Psalms & the rest of the “writings” were a separate “section” of the OT from the Prophets that the Pharisees would have recognized. You might want to go back & rewatch that YouTube video by Mr. Akin.

Even Jesus acknowledged to His disciples that the Pharisees were “sitting in the chair of David,” acknowledging what Peter & Paul would later refer to the Jews preserving the “oracles of God” - the OT Scriptures. Jesus didn’t have problems with the Pharisees unless they deviated from - or added to - Scripture (Matthew 15:1-9). Protestants simply recognize the same thing Jesus, His disciples, & the Pharisees realized and accepted in the first century, as well as Ezra around 400 B.C. did at “The Great Synagogue” - the canon of the Hebrew & Aramaic Scriptures that Protestants do today, which did not include the 7 Apocrypha books as well as the “additions” of Esther & Daniel that - unlike the books of Esther & Daniel - weren’t even written until the Intertestimenal Period. This is also why the Aramaic Targums did not translate these 7 books & “additions.”

Thetazlord, I’ll go back and check my other sources but I did not believe that the Pharisees determined a canon of OT scripture until after Jesus. But that said, to quote Jimmy Akin completely, he clearly says that Jesus and the apostles recognized the septuagint as “scripture” (not apocrypha). To quote him, he says that “Jesus and the disciples went a bit further” than what the pharisees believed to be scripture. In accepting the septuagint as scripture, Jesus and the disciples accepted the deuterocanonical books (most). So NO, protestants do not recognize what was scripture as understood by Jesus and the apostles.

BTW, not “ALL Christians for 1,500 years” believed in these 73 books. Like you implied (“at least”) many of them also included other books in addition to the 73 in the Catholic OT canon. Many recognized just the 73, many others recognized the same 66 that are in the Protestant OT canon.

What Church in the first 1,500 years of Christianity did not recognize at least 73 books?

But as mentioned above, if we go back to the time of Ezra in the OT, as well as the time of Jesus in the NT era, the 46 books is what the believing Jews recognized. I’m confused here…do you profess 39 books or 46 books as being scripture? And by what authority??

And as far as the KJV goes, the translators of it never considered it Inspired Scripture. Rather, they placed it as an addendum to be read, but not for doctrine, because they recognized it for the same reason Ezra, Jesus, & His disciples did.

No clearly, Jesus and disciples recognized the Septuagint, which included the deutercanonicals. That’s the point Jimmy Akin was making.

With all due respect, this really has nothing to do with the OP. Feel free to start a new thread, invite me to comment, & I’d be happy to discuss it with you there.

Quite fair.

The “Jewish faith” is apostate, so it’s really irrelevant that they “disagree with me.” And the “eyes of faith” that I see through is the NT, which does not support that Mary remained a virgin. These little rabbit trails have been fun, but could we please focus on the OP? It seems like I’m spending more time redirecting people back to the OP, than I do addressing it.

Well tying it back to the OP, if you can not trust the SAME Church to teach without error and faith and morals, neither can you trust it to have determined the canon of scripture. For argument sake: you can not trust that the Church discerned correctly the 27 books of the NT. And, Catholic would argue that scripture DOES support Mary’s perpetual virginity although not explicitly. Yet we hold to scripture itself as St. Paul tells us to do, to both what has been written and spoken. The Deposit of Faith contains both. Scripture itself is clear on that. By holding to “Scripture alone”, you are contradicting scripture itself.

 

[cena]

If Hebrews has contradictions in it, then it shouldn’t be in God-breathed Scripture, because that would be like God contradicting Himself, which is impossible. BTW, I don’t know where you get the idea that Hebrews 11 teaches a works-salvation, since the entire chapter is about these listed saints being recognized as genuine believers based on their faith, not works. Their faith were demonstrated BY their works, which James later explains what “true” faith that isn’t “dead,” is demonstrated “by” (James 2:18). But neither the writer of Hebrews nor James’ epistle teaches a works-based salvation, because that would contradict Paul who taught we are saved by grace through faith, & not of works (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9). The other points in your list don’t disqualify inerrancy of Scripture

Now, let’s get back to the OP, rather than create Red Herrings, shall we? Does God-breathed Scripture support that Mary “remained” a virgin after she married, while she was pregnant with Jesus? - yes, Scripture states this. After she gave birth to Jesus? - no (Matthew 1:25), as well as several other Scriptures.

James 2
14 - What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?
15 - And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:
16 - And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?
17 - So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
18 - But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
19 - Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
20 - But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 - Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 - Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?
23 - And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.
24 - Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
25 - And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?
26 - For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

 

[JustaServant]

Where exactly in the Bible is it written, that the Bible, is the final authority on everything? One would think such an important point would be clearly stated in the Book in which you are claiming is the final authority.

 

[zz912]

But this is all really a Red Herring, because since we agree that ALL of the 27 Gospels & epistles of the NT are God-breathed, then what’s contained in those books are God-breathed.

We agree, but the WHY is a fundamental question. You didn’t personally select these 27 books. The Catholic Church did. So you accept the Church’s authority to declare these 27 books as the inerrant word of God. So why and on what basis do you declare the Church has no authority (or no authority in any other areas)?

 

[zz912]

Actually, by time of Jesus, the Law of Moses was already recognized as Inspired, which was accepted by the Pharisees as well as the Sadducees. In fact, the Law of Moses was recognized as Inspired Scripture by the time of Joshua (Joshua 1:8; 8:34-35; 24:26; etc). In fact, Jimmy Akin even acknowledges that the Pharisees acknowledged the EXACT SAME writings of the OT Scriptures that Protestants recognized in their canon:

This is misleading. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah (the first five books) as Scripture. So it’s clear that what was and was not Scripture was not decided at the time of Jesus.

 

[zz912]

But, again, all this is a Red Herring. Since we BOTH agree that ALL of the 27 writings of the NT “are” indeed God-breathed, can we “try” to stay on subject & focus on the OP???

When exactly should and did the Christians reject or do away with the oral teachings that St. Paul referenced and commanded they hold fast to?

 

[zz912]

Actually, I did see it. And I have addressed it, either with you or another poster. First, that specific Ezekiel prophecy has nothing to do with Mary. In fact, it has nothing really to do with Jesus either. If you keep reading, it talks about a future “prince,” but if you continue reading, it can’t be referring to Jesus, because this “prince” has to make sacrifices for his sins, which couldn’t be Jesus, since He’s sinless (2 Corinth 5:21), as well as other things written about this “prince” that can’t be Jesus. Also, this is an example of reading too deep into a text a preconceived religious belief. So, even “if” this “prince” was Jesus (which it’s not), all it states is Him entering into Jerusalem through a gate. And based on the eschatology, there will be a third Temple built in the end times that the “man of lawlessness” will enter & desecrate this Temple.

That being said, this Ezekiel text in no way proves, Scripturally, that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Try again.

I responded to this claim of yours, and you never responded to it. Is it your contention that EVERY DETAIL of prophesy about Jesus has to match Him spot-on???

Does Psalm 22, the Psalm that Jesus quoted on the cross, apply to Him in every way???

Please answer.

 

[ready]

The Universal Ordinary Magisterium teaches infallibly that Mary remained ever a virgin before, during and after her giving birth to her Son Jesus Christ. To deny this infallible truth is to be very guilty of heresy. Material heresy becomes formal heresy and excommunicates a person ipso facto when the material heretic obstinately refuses to accept the infallible truth of Mary’s perpetual virginity. God bless you.

 

[zz912]

These verses in Matthew Ch.12 actually support that Jesus had uterine brothers, because if you go back a few verses, Jesus actually contrasts his unbelieving brothers OUTSIDE, with His believing “brothers” INSIDE. So, since there’s no such thing as an “unbelieving believer,” these unbelieving brothers are brothers who are related to Jesus by blood - ie: Jesus’ younger half-brothers.

Please give a citation for the claim (chapter and verse) that those outside were unbelieving.

Matthew 12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 3:31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

Luke 8:19 Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”

21 He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”

 

[zz912]

It is impossible to determine one way or the other…But I respect your right to disagree…I could give my take on it to prove you wrong, but it would simply be my opinion versus yours, resulting in an impasse. Scripture cannot resolve the issue for us.

I wonder if Scripture or Jesus tells us who we should turn to for questions and issues like this???

Anyone think of any verses that deal with something like this?

 

[zz912]

The Gospel of John wasn’t written “after” Revelation. John’s Gospel was written sometime between 80-90 A.D. Revelation, around 95-96 A.D.

Actually there is good argument for Revelation to have been written before the Gospel of John, especially with its references to Nero and the vision being given on John’s visit to the island. Your statement here seems like you are asserting definitively that these dates are known, which is false. You have no idea if Revelation or the Gospel was written before or after one another, so you CANNOT accept the Gospel of John since you don’t know if it was written after Revelation and would violate your personal Bible litmus test.

More than I can provide here, such as: the Protoevangelium of James which states that Mary’s virginal status was “tested” by her mid-wife? by “inserting” her finger, which - by definition - would have made Mary no longer a virgin.

Please don’t speak on things you don’t know about or understand. That’s doesn’t make one a non-virgin, unless you are trying to claim that gynocologists are destroying virginity every day, or that tampon use ends virginity. What a PREPOSTEROUS claim. Under your bizare belief, there are no virgin women in this country over the age of 15-16 in this country, unless they’ve never been to the gyno.

Other examples are 2 Clement, the gospel of Peter, gospel of Judas, gospel of Mary Magdelene, writings of the ECF’s that didn’t even always agree with each other. You don’t these issues with the 27 canonical books of the NT.

Funny, but there are a lot of people confused over the “faith vs works” argument because of what is written in the 27 books. One book stresses one, and another stresses the other. We’ve had 500 years of Protestantism based on this confusion from people reading the NT.

Also, could you explain what disqualifies the Didache from inclusion in the NT. It was written in the 50-60’s AD, contains noting contrary to the other 27 NT books, and was the direct teaching of the Apostles. So why do you not accept it as Scripture?

 

[zz912]

Thetazlord, I’ll go back and check my other sources but I did not believe that the Pharisees determined a canon of OT scripture until after Jesus. But that said, to quote Jimmy Akin completely, he clearly says that Jesus and the apostles recognized the septuagint as “scripture” (not apocrypha). To quote him, he says that “Jesus and the disciples went a bit further” than what the pharisees believed to be scripture. In accepting the septuagint as scripture, Jesus and the disciples accepted the deuterocanonical books (most). So NO, protestants do not recognize what was scripture as understood by Jesus and the apostles.

Especially since Jesus quotes from or borrows from the Deuterocanonicals. And Jesus celebrated Hannukah, which is only found in…the Deuterocanonicals.

Did Jesus celebrate false festivals?