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

[PRmerger]

I think that the bible should sometimes be interpreted literally, but other times be interpreted realistically.

So do you think it realistic that Jesus actually rose from the dead?

 

[religioussoup]

So do you think it realistic that Jesus actually rose from the dead?

No, I believe that he literally rose from the dead, as most Catholics also believe. However I do not think Jesus fed an entire crowd with 5 breads and 2 fish and have leftovers, but I believe that God has asked us to share with one another.

 

[spedteacherita]

I think that the bible should sometimes be interpreted literally, but other times be interpreted realistically.

Trouble with this kind of interpretation is that different philosophies/heresies can be pulled out of a story which did not actually happen. Recently, one of my pastors stated that the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) was interpreting that Ruth and Naomi were lesbians and Jonathon and David were gay couples because of their close relationships.

I really don’t see how that could be!

 

[spedteacherita]

No, I believe that he literally rose from the dead, as most Catholics also believe. However I do not think Jesus fed an entire crowd with 5 breads and 2 fish and have leftovers, but I believe that God has asked us to share with one another.

You have to remember that Scripture is God-inspired (God-breathed). Jesus was the Word and we can’t pick pieces and parts to believe and not believe…

 

[PRmerger]

No, I believe that he literally rose from the dead, as most Catholics also believe.

Fair enough.

Why do you believe in this unrealistic event?

However I do not think Jesus fed an entire crowd with 5 breads and 2 fish and have leftovers, but I believe that God has asked us to share with one another.

I understand you reject this because it is unrealistic.

But if He can rise from the dead, why couldn’t He feed thousands with 5 loaves and 2 fish?

It’s kind of like: if someone can run a marathon, then he can certainly run a 5K, right?

 

[religioussoup]

Trouble with this kind of interpretation is that different philosophies/heresies can be pulled out of a story which did not actually happen. Recently, one of my pastors stated that the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) was interpreting that Ruth and Naomi were lesbians and Jonathon and David were gay couples because of their close relationships.

I really don’t see how that could be!

I apologize that I am not familiar with Ruth, Naomi, Jonathan, and David. I do not think that the relationships should be disputed, but the events can be. Religion is not about what people wrote in the bible but about how you can take the underlying messages of the stories and apply them to become a better person.

 

[religioussoup]

Fair enough.

Why do you believe in this unrealistic event?

I understand you reject this because it is unrealistic.

But if He can rise from the dead, why couldn’t He feed thousands with 5 loaves and 2 fish?

It’s kind of like: if someone can run a marathon, then he can certainly run a 5K, right?

Now that I think about it, I’m really not sure. Your running analogy is really great! But I just believe what I want to believe. My dad had a heart attack and went to heaven yet survived, and I think that’s always made me reason that Jesus could’ve also been raised from the dead.

 

[perpetual200]

Mary was also of the house of David. This is how Christ could be said to be of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3) and conversely it be said that of the fruit of David’s loins, according to the flesh, God would raise up Christ (Acts 2:30) (NB, this also refutes the heretical view still heard today that Christ took nothing of Mary)

 

[PRmerger]

But I just believe what I want to believe.

LOL! Thanks for your honesty.

But remember, you should conform yourself to truth. Not make truth conform to yourself.

Otherwise, what you are worshipping is simply the god of the Almighty Self.

 

[religioussoup]

You have to remember that Scripture is God-inspired (God-breathed). Jesus was the Word and we can’t pick pieces and parts to believe and not believe…

The bible was written many many years after Jesus lived. By MEN. God did not write the bible. I am sorry but all of this is my opinion that I have chosen to believe or not to believe.

 

[clem456]

It’s easier to believe Christ rose from the dead because the miracle can be isolated to Christ himself out of context of other people. No one was there to see it. In a superficial way, belief in the resurrection only requires acceptance of a spiritual event.

The miracle of the loaves and fishes requires belief that he acted among, and really and truly touched the lives of, thousands of people. It requires an acceptance of God’s powerful action in very human events. It requires a belief that God can change observable reality before the eyes of many people.

 

[PRmerger]

The bible was written many many years after Jesus lived. By MEN. God did not write the bible. I am sorry but all of this is my opinion that I have chosen to believe or not to believe.

So why then do you believe they got it right about the Resurrection?

And it’s good for you to express what you believe, but you need to examine the reasons for what you believe.

For example, let’s say there’s someone (your brother, maybe?) who says, “I believe that women are dumber than men. I just believe what I want to believe!”

Wouldn’t you ask your brother to offer some reasons why he believes this?

 

[religioussoup]

It’s easier to believe Christ rose from the dead because the miracle can be isolated to Christ himself out of context of other people. No one was there to see it. In a superficial way, belief in the resurrection only requires acceptance of a spiritual event.

The miracle of the loaves and fishes requires belief that he acted among, and really and truly touched the lives of, thousands of people. It requires an acceptance of God’s powerful action in very human events. It requires a belief that God can change observable reality before the eyes of many people.

I’m not sure. I think part of me believes almost like, the bigger the better. Sure maybe Jesus can divide breads and fish among a crowd, but rising from the dead? It’s almost like it’s too big to not be true. But at this point I’m not really sure what to believe.

 

[ericc]

I should’ve included that what I wrote was what I personally believed.

Of course it is good that one believes what one writes. Otherwise, that would be hypocritical. What is even more important is what one believe is true or not.

As a matter of fact, in the higher-developed countries of this world, you would be right to say that it makes more economic sense to have 1 child. However, in the lower-developed countries, it makes much more sense to have more children. This is the case of the current overpopulation problem in India, since children are less of an expense and more of an asset. Also, the diseases during that time and lack of medical knowledge would’ve caused Mary and Joseph to want more children (like everyone else did), in case something happened to them.

Unfortunately there are economists that don’t support what you have written. Too many kids in poor families, couldn’t get proper education/health care for individual kids, which continue the poverty cycle in a nutshell. A smarter family would concentrate their resources to benefit one child to break out of the poverty cycle. Statistics doesn’t show India getting out of the poverty trap for many families, but China with its strict 1-child policy seems to be doing better. But we should stick to the topic. God doesn’t need a lesson in economics. And Jesus mission on earth wasn’t to create financial wealth for his family…

Of course, if you have God under your roof, that’s pretty special. But while Jesus went off preaching and sharing his new ideas, who was helping Joseph/Mary actually sustain their family? You can’t pay taxes by using the money your son received while coming up with the idea of baptism.

Well it seems Jesus does not have a shortage of funds. He has many supporters and the extended family travels with the group. Families of the Apostles as well. All he needs to do is catch some fish and the fish would have money in their mouths. Yep, that was how he paid his taxes.

I think that the bible should sometimes be interpreted literally, but other times be interpreted realistically. Personally, I do not believe in Adam and Eve one bit. But I do believe that disobeying your parents is wrong, and that is the underlying tone of the story. I believe that Mary and Joseph had more children. That doesn’t make Jesus any less the son of God or make Mary any less pure. It means that they needed to do what they needed to survive as a carpenter and his wife so they could provide for each other, the son of man, and their children.

I don’t know how you form your beliefs. Others have spent a lifetime studying this. I guess you must have advanced degrees in biblical knowledge and theology and many many years of research to come to such conclusions. I don’t have that background so I won’t challenge you on these points. Perhaps you can be generous enough to share your accumulated knowledge on how you determined these conclusions. I am sure many of us here would like to know as well.

For me, I rely on the Church to tell me what she knows. So who do you rely on for your knowledge? Because what you wrote is not taught by the Church. So you must have alternate sources. You need to show these sources are credible too so that we can have a proper exchange of viewpoints.

 

[ericc]

I’m not sure. I think part of me believes almost like, the bigger the better. Sure maybe Jesus can divide breads and fish among a crowd, but rising from the dead? It’s almost like it’s too big to not be true. But at this point I’m not really sure what to believe.

Because you have a mental block on miracles? Jesus was right, even miracles won’t convince a die-hard.

 

[zz912]

The bible was written many many years after Jesus lived. By MEN. God did not write the bible. I am sorry but all of this is my opinion that I have chosen to believe or not to believe.

What do you mean b “many many years”?

Paul’s letters were written in the 40’s-60’s. The synoptic Gospels in the 40’s-60’s. Peter’s letters prior to mid 60’s. Same with James, and Jude. Revelation and gospel of John from 60’s-90’s.

Are you saying that we can’t trust a book written today about the events of the 1980’s???

And I do applaud you for admitting that you choose what you will and won’t believe. It seems though that it is based off your feelings and emotions about a topic instead of the facts.

 

[Erich]

Fortunately, we don’t need a time machine, because we have Inspired Scripture, that supports that Mary & Joseph did indeed have children after the birth of Jesus, & even named four of their sons.

Reread post #103 on this thread. Jesus did not have any siblings who were the children of Mary and Joseph.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Jn. 19:27 - Mary had no other children. Jesus entrusted her to John where Jewish custom demands a biological son of Mary first.

Mt. 1:25 - Joseph knew her “not until” which is heos in Greek. Heos references the past, never the future. So “not until” does not mean he “knew” her after.

 

[benhur]

Luke 2:52
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor.

How can God grow in wisdom?

God can’t but a man can. Do you think it would have been better to have the infant , even yet in a stable, to display wisdom of the ages ?

 

[benhur]

Jn. 19:27 Jewish custom demands a biological son of Mary first.

If not biological “brethren”.Why were they not chosen ? Half brothers are above cousins.
Mt. 1:25 -

Joseph knew her “not until” which is heos in Greek. Heos references the past, never the future.

Right, because that is all that really mattered for a prophetical fulfillment recording. First, to show obedience to the dream. Second, to verify virgin,HS birth. After that, it did not matter if she remained ever virgin or not. Then you must either assume a return some previous oath of virginity, or to a normal consummation of a Jewish marriage with possible children to follow. I think the latter is less an assumption but the norm , without any evidence of the former virginity oath.

So “not until” does not mean he “knew” her after.

Some would disagree. For the sake of argument I went with it , for it does not mean Joseph did not have relations with her afterwards either.