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

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord.

irenaeuslyons correctly showed you

QUOTE:
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.

Then your rebuttal was:

QUOTE:
BZZZT!!! Actually, whenever Matthew translates “heos” to “until” in his Gospel, he ALWAYS refers to the activity ceasing in the future once an event ends:

This assumes the conclusion of what you are arguing and working backwards (fallacy of begging the question), instead of looking at the Greek language or early native Greek speaking Christians to see how they interpreted this.

And you do this Greek-routine frequently thetazlord (you’ve done it in other threads and others have called you on it).

You try to be the Greek scholar by virtue of a lexicon. And I really don’t have an issue with that per se if you were in UNION with the Greek speaking Fathers . . . but I am sorry to say . . . you are going it alone AND ignoring the Eastern native Greek-speaking Churches (as well as the other Eastern Churches and the Western Church for that matter).

**Aside from you drawing the conclusion in St. Matthew, and arguing backwards; all the ancient Fathers that commented on it, tell us St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic).

If you want I would be glad to show you several early historical quotes on St. Matthew’s Gospel being written in Hebrew . . . and you can invent some reasons why you won’t be able to find any quotes to the contrary.**

Back to “The Greek”

Let’s look at an extended quote from Fr. Ronald Tacelli who knows Bible Greek (also called Koine’ Greek) and routinely reads the Bible in Greek.

Let’s listen as he discusses this issue concerning the Greek speaking and Greek writing St. John Chrysostom who comments on the word “until” in Matthew 1:25 way back in the 300’s A.D.

Incidentally, St. John Chrysostom (346 – 407 A.D.), Archbishop of Constantinople, didn’t have to go to Protestant Seminary to learn to read and write Greek. He was a native ancient Greek speaker and writer.

“These men” that Fr. Tacelli criticizes below, are some of the current Protestant apologists who are attacking the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary based on their invented “heos hou” objection.

. . . . But regardless of how well or poorly these men (some Protestant apologists) know Greek, St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest early Church Fathers, surely knew the Greek language immensely well (he wrote and spoke it fluently) and was sensitive to its every nuance. Let’s look at what he had to say on the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the meaning of heos hou.

In his sermons on St. Matthew’s Gospel (cf. Patrologia Graeca, 7.58), St. John Chrysostom quotes Matthew 1:25 and then asks, “But why . . . did St. Matthew] use the word ‘until’?” Note well here: In quoting the verse, Chrysostom had used heos hou; but in asking the question, the word he uses for “until” is heos all by itself - as if he were unaware of a difference in meaning between these two expressions.

He answers his question by saying that it is usual and frequent for Scripture to use the word “until” (heos) without reference to limited times. Then he gives three examples. The first is his own paraphrase of Genesis 8:7: “The raven did not return until the earth was dried up.” Here Chrysostom uses heos hou for “until.” (But the actual text of the Septuagint has heos alone.) The second example is from Psalm 90:2: “From everlasting to everlasting you are.” The verse quoted (correctly) by Chrysostom has heos all by itself. The third example is from Psalm 72:7: “In his days justice shall flourish and fullness of peace until the moon be taken away.” And here the word for “until,” as in the Septuagint text, is heos hou.

It’s clear that for St. John Chrysostom, heos has exactly the same meaning as heos hou. That’s why he framed his question about “until” in terms of heos alone, even though the verse giving rise to the question, which he’d just finished quoting, had heos hou instead. That’s why it was natural for him to use heos hou in his paraphrase of Genesis 8:7. And that is why, in his list of analogues to Matthew 1:25, he used both heos and heos hou without the slightest hesitation - his linguistically sensitive ear registered no difference in meaning between them. (But there is a syntactical difference: heos hou came normally to be used as a conjunction; heos by itself as a preposition.)

If an unbridgeable linguistic chasm separated these two expressions, how could it be that the greatest master of the Greek language in all Christendom was unaware of it? The plain answer is that there was no such chasm. The whole “heos hou vs. heos” argument is a bunch of hooey. And both Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods and Stephanus in his Thesaurus Graecae Linguae agree; they state explicitly that heos and heos hou are equivalent in meaning . . . .

Above from He’s an Only Child-- A bogus Greek argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity is making the rounds. By Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J. Envoy Magazine Envoy Magazine, May/June, 1997, p.54.

Naturally, St. John Chrysostom affirmed the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord. Something you steadfastly refuse to do.

Why don’t you give a list of quotes from native Greek speaking early Church Fathers making the points you are or simply denying the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord?

We both know the answer to this.

There aren’t any.

And you still have not even defined what you are denying!

As I said, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has three aspects.

An ante-partum aspect
An intrapartum aspect
And a post partum aspect

I am still not even sure of what you are denying at this point.

 

[Cathoholic]

I read your post 615 thetazlord.

It is like you didn’t even read my posts (545 here and 546 here) carefully.

You said:

Scripture supports there are FOUR women at the cross, not THREE.

(I assume you mean four Marys)

Where?

Just bring up and quote the verses. Don’t merely say it. Show it.

I brought up these early Christians, because of the false assumption that the ENTIRE Catholic church believed in the PVM.

You brought up NO early Christians denying the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord.

The ENTIRE Church DID and DOES assert the Perpetual Virginity of Mary thetazlord and you still haven’t given one example of a denial. NOT ONE.

Unless as I said, you hold Helvidius and Tertullian as your “father” (your term – Helvidius as a “father” “ECF”] not mine).

And just because “some” of their theology was wrong in other areas doesn’t automatically mean that they were wrong in this “particular” area. That’s a poor assumption.

You go back and re-read my post thetazlord. I not only DIDN’T appeal to other errors of Helvidius, I showed that Helvidius has NO WRITINGS that survived (here) and how St. Jerome ripped Helvidius on this issue (here).

ST. AUGUSTINE “Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband”
— St. Augustine Heresies section 56. A.D. 428.

I think you are grasping at straws.

Thetazlord just proclaiming something doesn’t make it so! I want citations.

None of the Scripture you cited denies the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord.

None of the real fathers you cited denies the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord.

You throwing out names like Eusebius and Hegesippus does nothing for your position. Especially since I appealed to them too (and gave the relevant quotes).

I want some evidence.

thetazlord. I want to see where all these phantom Church Fathers that allegedly deny the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary are?

You saying:

Augustine disagreed with Jerome regarding the identity of “who” these “brothers” of Jesus were . . .

is pointless.

I already asserted that too. I am not trying to assert the identity of who these brothers “were” so much as trying to show who the identity of these brothers “were NOT”.

Who they “were” is irrelevant if they are not who you say they are.

That’s where the whole of orthodox Christianity is in agreement thetazlord.

Your idea is an invention that you picked up from your self-proclaimed, “father” Helvidius (unless as I said, you want to claim Tertullian).

You also said:

Plus, “if” Mary was a perpetual virgin, passed down from the apostles, then “why” isn’t the RCC “universal” (“catholic”) about the actual identity of these “adelphos” of Jesus?

This is non-sense thetazlord.

In Acts 1:15 Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said . . . (2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”).

According to thetazlord motif the Church should list all of these people’s moms too? Or just the brothers in the verses YOU WANT listed?

And you accusing people of “red herrings” when they bring up the authority issue should be dealt with on this thread (here) thetazlord. They began a whole thread based on your false assertion of authority (here) concerning sola Scriptura thetazlord.

Why not join in on that thread that was began because of you thetazlord?

You should be able to deal with the authority issue (here) without the “red herring” aspect. I would be glad to join in on that too as the authority issue is relevant to so many areas (including the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Still does not answer why a closer kin was not awarded as a half brother .

Are you really saying Jesus did not have an interface, an exchange, a union with his divine nature ?

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 ?

And so, the answer to your question is: I don’t know with certainty that Jesus did not have “an interface” between his human understanding and his divine understanding, but several passages suggest that Jesus, as a man, did not have infinite knowledge of the future, etc. A few others suggest that He did.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is not what I meant. CC Sacred Tradition** today** does not equal Sacred Scripture (even CC Sacred Scripture), nor what the apostles orally preached.

So, Sacred Tradition, as a genre or mode of the transmission of the Word of God WAS equal to the Sacred Scriptures way back when, but somewhere along the way, Sacred Tradition lost its authority.

Is that the logic?

 

[Porknpie]

Actually, the Septuagint wasn’t accepted by ALL of the Jews. As CA apologist, Jimmy Akin, admits the OT canon was a little “fuzzy.” So even though the Septuagint was used (which also contained OTHER books in it that the RCC removed), it wasn’t “universally” accepted by ALL Jews. Jesus actually described the THREE fold division of the OT (the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms) that Protestants also recognize, rather than the FOUR fold division in Catholic Bibles. So, the “all” of Scripture that Paul was referring to excluded the 7 Apocrypha books & the “additions” to Daniel & Esther that were “added” to those books, which were written long AFTER those books were written. Also, when Paul states that ALL Scripture is Inspired (God-breathed), he’s saying that if anything that he, or Peter, or any of the other apostles refer to as “Scripture” it too is God-breathed, such as Luke’s Gospel (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7), & ALL of Paul’s epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16). Revelation too is God-breathed since it’s self-authoritative (Revelation 1:1,19). Therefore, unlike the Bereans who only had the OT Scripture, we have the NT Scriptures which are also God-breathed.

Now, can we get off of the Red Herring of the canon of Scripture, & discuss the OP?

Agree 100% with Jimmy Akin. Per the bold above, where is the bible quote that has St. Paul excluding the deuterocanonicals?

And what were St. Paul’s letters, written by St. Paul? Per Michael Gorman, the majority of protestant scholars believe St. Paul did not write 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus and Ephesians. Thus, Protestantism appears to not know what Peter was referring to when he says all of Paul’s letters are scripture… and submits to the authority of the Catholic Church to have discerned that they were in fact scripture. To the point OP, the canon of scripture and authority is always relevant as it is also inconsistent to trust The Church on the canon but reject it on faith and morals. In the end, is always comes down to the promise Jesus made to lead his Church to all truth.

Can you image the howling that would have occurred if Catholics removed 7 books of the bible after 1,100 years of Universal Christian belief from the year 400 onward?

 

[Randy_Carson]

This “oral tradition” often cited in 2 Thess. 2:15 as Scriptural “proof” for extra-scriptural “oral tradition” being on par with written, Inspired Scripture (along with 1 Corinth 11:2 & 2 Thess 3:6) is based on misunderstanding that the “tradition” that Paul had been “orally” communicating was that Jesus was the “fulfillment” of OT written prophecies about the coming Messiah. And, the ‘traditions’ which Paul says that were to be received ‘by word of mouth or by letter from us’ aren’t different traditions (ie: one tradition by mouth & a separate tradition by letter), but rather the same traditions that would ‘either’ be ‘taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.’ These ‘traditions’ were what Paul had just written, because he begins this verse with ‘So then’ or ‘Therefore,’ indicating that the ‘traditions’ he was talking about were what he had just communicated to them in writing, which were about the Second Coming of Jesus (v.1-14).

You’re right, Theta. Sacred Tradition is not different than Sacred Scripture.

Let’s let that sink in…

Not at all when you properly understand what Paul is talking about by “traditions by word or by letter.”

I appreciate your recognition that Sacred Tradition was equally authoritative to Sacred Scritpure - especially in light of the fact that Sacred Tradition came first. The Church taught initially, authoritatively and without error, by word of mouth.

Is there a verse that tells the Early Church to begin ignoring Sacred Tradition and the authority of oral teaching and to focus exclusively on written teachings only at some point in the future?

Or is this the extra-biblical tradition of (Protestant) men?

Now that we’ve nixed that, can we PLEASE avoid these purposeful Red Herrings & return to the subject of the OP???

The authority of Sacred Tradition goes to the OP - especially in light of the fact that you cannot prove from Sacred Scripture that Mary had a second child.

Every verse you quote against the PPV of Mary can be explained by those who understand what is really being said and why it is being said in the manner it is said.

You can argue till the end of time, but you have NO PROOF. If you did, the Church never would have taught the doctrine to begin with. If you did have definitive proof, this argument would have been settled long ago.

 

[ericc]

Yes, so where is the marriage bed deemed improper or disobedient. The only instruction I saw was for Joseph to leave Mary alone until His birth. No instruction to obey thereafter except those within Jewish marriage which is consummation and to replenish the earth, to have your quiver full.

I am not objecting to the objectives of marriage. I am highlighting appropriate behavior in the presence of God. Abstention from sex. I am highlighting that Mary’s womb is Holy being the abode of God. No right minded Jew will dare defile it.

You are assuming Joseph a righteous man will demand his right for sexual relations and that he doesn’t fear the Holy Spirit. If you are not God-fearing, obviously you will demand what you think is rightfully yours. But we know that all we have is given by God. The story of Lot tells you that God may permit all you have to be taken away. Joseph is very well aware of that. Joseph knew that Mary’s womb is his God’s dwelling place. It is a holy place prohibited to him for all times. Holy things are meant for the Lord, not for ordinary person. In Ex 30 you can see examples of holy oil and incense wholly for holy use. That God has set aside Mary to bore the Son of God is clear to Joseph that Mary has been made Holy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now, can we get off of the Red Herring of the canon of Scripture, & discuss the OP?

I posted a summation in posts #519-522.

 

[ericc]

I am not objecting to the objectives of marriage. I am highlighting appropriate behavior in the presence of God. Abstention from sex. I am highlighting that Mary’s womb is Holy being the abode of God. No right minded Jew will dare defile it.

You are assuming Joseph a righteous man will demand his right for sexual relations and that he doesn’t fear the Holy Spirit. If you are not God-fearing, obviously you will demand what you think is rightfully yours. But we know that all we have is given by God. The story of Lot tells you that God may permit all you have to be taken away. Joseph is very well aware of that. Joseph knew that Mary’s womb is his God’s dwelling place. It is a holy place prohibited to him for all times. Holy things are meant for the Lord, not for ordinary person. In Ex 30 you can see examples of holy oil and incense wholly for holy use. That God has set aside Mary to bore the Son of God is clear to Joseph that Mary has been made Holy.

Sorry, I mean Job instead of Lot.

 

[thetazlord]

QUOTE:
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.

Then your rebuttal was:

QUOTE:
BZZZT!!! Actually, whenever Matthew translates “heos” to “until” in his Gospel, he ALWAYS refers to the activity ceasing in the future once an event ends:

I noticed how you “conveniently” ignored the fact that I listed TWO DOZEN uses by Matthew using “heos” where he uses it to mean “once an event ends, so does the activity” just in his Gospel alone, & ZERO times he uses it to mean “the activity continues.” So, I’m not “begging the question.” You are arguing by exception. So it doesn’t matter whether Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or not. Even “if” these “early sources” are correct, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek “translation” of Matthew would be Inspired as well, because it too would have been written by Matthew guided by the Holy Spirit. So, your argument is faulty & irrelevant. And using FOURTH & FIFTH century quotes to support a dogma that was already being firmly established by then is actually begging the question. I find it ironic that one of these “earliest sources” is quoted by Eusebius - the very same source who argues against the PVM.

You try to be the Greek scholar by virtue of a lexicon. And I really don’t have an issue with that per se if you were in UNION with the Greek speaking Fathers . . . but I am sorry to say . . . you are going it alone AND ignoring the Eastern native Greek-speaking Churches (as well as the other Eastern Churches and the Western Church for that matter).

Saying that I’m “not in union with the Greek speaking Father…etc” as somehow “proof” that I’m incorrect is, again, circular reasoning. That’s like saying I’m wrong because I’m no longer Catholic. You can’t objectively use “A” to prove “B,” because “A” says so, even if “A” is correct. Circular reasoning. You still need to compare “A’s” interpretation of Scripture (“C”).

If you want I would be glad to show you several early historical quotes on St. Matthew’s Gospel being written in Hebrew . . . and you can invent some reasons why you won’t be able to find any quotes to the contrary.

And I could show you “historical quotes” from even earlier “historical” sources, but because they disagree with your sources “that” is what makes it wrong? That’s how you determine “truth”?

Let’s look at an extended quote from Fr. Ronald Tacelli who knows Bible Greek (also called Koine’ Greek) and routinely reads the Bible in Greek.

Let’s listen as he discusses this issue concerning the Greek speaking and Greek writing St. John Chrysostom who comments on the word “until” in Matthew 1:25 way back in the 300’s A.D.

Again, his “scholarship” on the Greek is based on the beliefs of Chrysostom. So, with all due respect to this respected ECF (which I have read up on), this “resource” also ignores the fact that Matthew uses “heos” TWO DOZEN times to mean the exact opposite of your “interpretation” of the meaning of “heos.” Again, arguing by exception.

“These men” that Fr. Tacelli criticizes below, are some of the current Protestant apologists who are attacking the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary based on their invented “heos hou” objection.

I’ve heard this argument before, & it’s less than settled. And it still ignores what I wrote above. Even the “exceptions” you use from the Septuagint ignores this & argues from exception. It’s ignoring the elephant in the room.

Why don’t you give a list of quotes from native Greek speaking early Church Fathers making the points you are or simply denying the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord?

We both know the answer to this.

There aren’t any.

Why don’t you list quotes from native Greek speaking early Church fathers (1st & 2nd Century) making points that affirm the bodily assumption of Mary. We both know the answer to this. There aren’t any. I can do this too. And, again, I’ve listed early Christians in the Church from the first few centuries, as well as Eusebius, who do affirm that Mary had other children. But because they aren’t “technically” listed as ECF’s, that someone “disproves” their testimonies, because they don’t agree with these LATER ECFs. Hardly an objective criteria for determining truth.

BTW, here are some quotes since you asked:

St. Basil indicates for us that the view that Mary had other children during his era:
“was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

Here is St. Basil (329-379 A.D.)(saint in RCC) commenting on the doctrine again:
“[The opinion that Mary bore several children after Christ]…does not run counter to faith; for, virginity was imposed on Mary as a necessity, only up to the time that she served as an instrument for the Incarnation, while, on the other hand, her subsequent virginity had no great importance with regard to the mystery of the Incarnation.” Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem, PG 31:1468.(See. fn 174 of Carol, Vol. 2, p. 277).

(continued…)

 

[thetazlord]

(continued…Part 2)

And although Catholics love to quote Irenaeus, they overlook a significant quote by him:

Irenaeus (130-203 A.D.) refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was “as yet a virgin” (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn’t remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary’s being a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth to the ground being “as yet virgin” before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:
“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
Irenaeus associates “come together” with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

And you still have not even defined what you are denying!

As I said, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has three aspects.

An ante-partum aspect
An intrapartum aspect
And a post partum aspect

I am still not even sure of what you are denying at this point.

I’m denying that Scripture supports the PVM, because Scripture supports that the “brothers” of Jesus were His half-brothers, not solely because of the “heos” argument, but also because when you cross-reference ALL of the verses that discuss Jesus’ “brothers” & extended family, you come to the conclusion - from Scripture - that the “brothers” are indeed Jesus’ half-brother, because Scripture eliminates all the other possibilities. And as far as using Origen as an “early resource” for the PVM, keep in mind his source for his “belief” that he uses is the Protoevangelium of James:

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary” (Origen, A.D. 248).

Sorry, but “this” is the “earliest source” for “who” the “brothers” of Jesus are - not Scripture. Scripture doesn’t support this. If it did, either it would have mentioned Joseph being married before, or an ECF would have. Not a false ‘gospel.’

 

[sallybutler]

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. “Borrowing” Mary’s egg to fertilize it by the Holy Spirit to conceive Jesus doesn’t equate with Mary being the “spouse” of the Holy Spirit. If it is, they you are saying that Joseph AND the Holy Spirit are Mary’s husbands. Is that what “you” are believing? Scripture STATES that Joseph is Mary’s husband, & that Mary is Joseph’s wife. There is no confusion about this in Scripture.

If God asked you and your spouse to refrain from ‘marital’ relations, regardless of what society expected, would you do it?

You are suggesting that married people are unable to live a life of celibacy. There are many reasons why married people may decide to not have sex. Some may do it for religious reasons, some for financial reasons, some for health reasons. Have you not heard the phrase ‘marriage of convience’?

Historically, not all marriages were for the production of children. People might get married without ever meeting their spouse. This was often done to insure property transfers or for political reasons. It was often true for second marriages, when the purpose of the marriage might be to provide a ‘mother’ for the widower’s children or as a way to support a widow and her children.

So yes, being husband and wife did not always mean that sexual intercourse would result.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Really? Mary didn’t conceive a child?

You are just playing antics with semantics.

The Bible is quite clear that Mary conceived a child. And that’s just how we talk. “I have conceived 5 children”. I suppose we (if we’re a woman, of course) could say, “Gracie was conceived in my womb” but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s also true that “I conceived a child”.

And just be thorough, look at what the Bible says:

biblehub.com/luke/1-31.htm

Notice that all of the translations indicate MARY conceiving. Not Jesus being conceived.

 

[Porknpie]

I’m denying that Scripture supports the PVM, because Scripture supports that the “brothers” of Jesus were His half-brothers, not solely because of the “heos” argument, but also because when you cross-reference ALL of the verses that discuss Jesus’ “brothers” & extended family, you come to the conclusion - from Scripture - that the “brothers” are indeed Jesus’ half-brother, because Scripture eliminates all the other possibilities. And as far as using Origen as an “early resource” for the PVM, keep in mind his source for his “belief” that he uses is the Protoevangelium of James:

Thetazlord,

Curious, do you believe that your position is infallible on this point?

 

[thetazlord]

I read your post 615 thetazlord.

It is like you didn’t even read my posts (545 here and 546 here) carefully.

No, actually I read them. The problem is that when you use Scripture, you pick INDIVIDUAL Scriptures to either make them sound vague or use them in a way to support your viewpoint. I, however, don’t do that. I have examined ALL of the verses that deal with the family of Jesus (which there are dozens), & by doing that Scripture eliminates all of the other “theories” made popular over the centuries. Something that even the ECF’s didn’t actually do, but the “heretics” you like to call did do.

(I assume you mean four Marys)

Where?

Just bring up and quote the verses. Don’t merely say it. Show it.

No, I meant four WOMEN, because Salome isn’t a “Mary.” Scripture doesn’t describe her as “Mary,” of even “Mary Salome,” but simply Salome. Here are the verses since you refuse to look them up yourself:

“Many women were there looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee while ministering to Him. Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

“There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome.” (Mark 15:40)

Notice, both Matthew & Mark refer to THREE women - two “Mary’s (Mary Magdelene & Mary the mother of James the Less & Joses)” & one “non-Mary (Salome).” And they were away from the cross, because Jesus had died already. Now, compare these women to John’s Gospel:

“Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25)

Notice, the “new” woman listed in John’s Gospel is Mary the mother of Jesus (even though he doesn’t mention her by name. The error in reading this passage is the “assumption” that “His mother’s sister” is referring to "Mary the wife of Clopas(Alphaeus). However, if that “assumption” is correct, then John omits his own mother (Salome), even though Matthew & Mark NAME her in their Gospels. Again, it is extremely unlikely that John would have omitted mentioning his own mother in his own Gospel, especially since he was there, particularly since Matthew & Mark “did” mention her. Plus, he mentions the other TWO women (Mary Magdelene & Mary the mother of Clopas/Alphaeus), so why would he omit Salome, his mother??? The confusion also comes from the fact that in Matthew & Mark’s Gospels the THREE women “moved away” from the cross after Jesus died, while Mary was still at the cross (presumably with John). John doesn’t mention his mother by name in His Gospel - just as he doesn’t mention Mary the mother of Jesus, nor himself by name either - because they are family, since Salome (not Mary of Clopas) is “Jesus’ mother’s sister,” which would make John, Jesus’ cousin - a close family member who Jesus entrusted to, who is also Jesus’ heavenly “brother” as well (Matthew 12:48-50).

No offense, but you rely to heavily on the consensus of ECF’s rather than on the Word of God.

I showed that Helvidius has NO WRITINGS that survived

Yet, EWTN affirm his belief, along with others:

“writers like Tertullian, Helvidius, and possibly Hegesippus disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary” (2nd paragraph)

ewtn.com/library/MARY/15459A.HTM

I already asserted that too. I am not trying to assert the identity of who these brothers “were” so much as trying to show who the identity of these brothers “were NOT”.

Who they “were” is irrelevant if they are not who you say they are.

Yes you are. You are trying to “impute” your preconceived personal “belief” into the text of Scripture based on the writing of LATER ecfs, who based them on the SECOND century false “gospel” - which is where Origen BASED his “belief” on. And “who” these “brothers” of Jesus are is relevant, because since Scripture supports them being half-brothers, then “who” they are affects Mary’s perpetual virginity.

That’s where the whole of orthodox Christianity is in agreement thetazlord.

Your idea is an invention that you picked up from your self-proclaimed, “father” Helvidius (unless as I said, you want to claim Tertullian).

Again, majority does not equate with truth. Scripture does (John 17:17).

(continued…)

 

[thetazlord]

(continued…Part 2)

In Acts 1:15 Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said . . . (2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”).

According to thetazlord motif the Church should list all of these people’s moms too? Or just the brothers in the verses YOU WANT listed?

I’m shocked you are using this really really BAD example. This is a classic example where the same Greek word for “brethren” (adelphos) is used in two different ways. The use in v.15 obviously refers to the believing “brethren” in general (the 120), while in v.14 where the “brothers” of Jesus are listed WITH Jesus’ apostles & others, are Jesus’ half-brothers (adelphos), who make up “part” of the 120 believing “brethren.” Seriously, you really thought that would trip me up???

And you accusing people of “red herrings” when they bring up the authority issue should be dealt with on this thread (here) thetazlord. They began a whole thread based on your false assertion of authority (here) concerning sola Scriptura thetazlord.

The Red Herrings are issues that have nothing to do with the OP. Forums rules state NOT to do that & to stick with the OP, or start a new thread. Do you condone violating forum rules???

Why not join in on that thread that was began because of you thetazlord?

You should be able to deal with the authority issue (here) without the “red herring” aspect. I would be glad to join in on that too as the authority issue is relevant to so many areas (including the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

Because I am busy responding to all the comments here. I don’t have time to “live” on Internet. I do have a life you know.

 

[thetazlord]

Agree 100% with Jimmy Akin. Per the bold above, where is the bible quote that has St. Paul excluding the deuterocanonicals?

And what were St. Paul’s letters, written by St. Paul? Per Michael Gorman, the majority of protestant scholars believe St. Paul did not write 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus and Ephesians. Thus, Protestantism appears to not know what Peter was referring to when he says all of Paul’s letters are scripture… and submits to the authority of the Catholic Church to have discerned that they were in fact scripture. To the point OP, the canon of scripture and authority is always relevant as it is also inconsistent to trust The Church on the canon but reject it on faith and morals. In the end, is always comes down to the promise Jesus made to lead his Church to all truth.

I don’t know where you got the idea of the “majority of protestant scholars didn’t believe it,” but it’s irrelevant because their “beliefs” aren’t God-breathed - ONLY Scripture is described as God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). But it’s irrelevant because if we had lived in the first century, we would have heard what Peter wrote about ALL of Paul’s writings as being Inspired Scripture. So, it’s a pointless argument, particularly to the OP, which can we PLEASE get back to??? And the point is that the NT Scriptures that talk about Jesus’ “brothers” (which we AGREE on the NT canon, which makes your particular post irrelevant) support that they are Jesus’ half-brothers.

Can you image the howling that would have occurred if Catholics removed 7 books of the bible after 1,100 years of Universal Christian belief from the year 400 onward?

Actually, they DID “remove” books from the Septuagint. Not “all” of the books in the Septuagint made the Catholic OT. And if they hadn’t “added” the “select” books from the Septuagint into their canon & gone strictly by Scripture to correct doctrine & belief (2 Timothy 3:16-17), there would have been no need for a Reformation. The Church would have been unified like Christ intended.

Now, can we get back to the OP, rather than diverge on Red Herrings???

 

[thetazlord]

You’re right, Theta. Sacred Tradition is not different than Sacred Scripture.

Let’s let that sink in…

Not at all when you properly understand what Paul is talking about by "traditions by word or

 

[thetazlord]

Thetazlord,

Curious, do you believe that your position is infallible on this point?

No, because it’s not “my position,” because I’m not “adding” my opinion into the text. That’s the point. I’m going strictly by God-breathed Scripture. Those who don’t are the ones doing claiming their “position” is “infallible.”

 

[PRmerger]

No, because it’s not “my position,” because I’m not “adding” my opinion into the text. That’s the point. I’m going strictly by God-breathed Scripture. Those who don’t are the ones doing claiming their “position” is “infallible.”

But each of is is permitted to read the Scriptures and come to our own understanding of them, yes?