Immaculate Conception - Why Did It Take 1,854 Years to Discover This Doctrine? (2)

[JoabAnias]

But Joab my friend some of the INSPIRED writings lead us to believe that Mary and Jesus' brothers hung with him, no reason to think they weren't Mary's kids...

Yes there is as I have already mentioned. Joesph was an older widower with children already. Which also explains how Joesph could disappear from the time of the finding in the temple to the beginning of Christ's public ministry and also lends credence to Mary's preservation as a virgin all of her life.

Peace.

 

[holdon]

You don't know?

No, I do know....

You mean like self interpretation of the scriptures where what choses what they think they mean?

Under the direction of the Holy Spirit.....

"and yourselves, the unction which ye have received from him abides in you, and ye have not need that any one should teach you; but as the same unction teaches you as to all things, and is true and is not a lie, and even as it has taught you, ye shall abide in him."

 

[JoabAnias]

Hi Joab. Thanks for your input. I meant 'only child' as in the only offspring of Mary, since she is the focal point of the topic at the moment. I don't find any evidence that Joseph was a widower coming into his relationship with Mary, and no reference at all to his pre-existing children being with them before the birth of Jesus. You'd think it'd mention his other kids if they escaped to egypt with them, right? Or if he left them behind with other family, or anything. I haven't read through the birth account of Jesus in some time, but from what I recall, there is nothing that would lead to this assumption, other than extrabiblical texts written at a later date. Being that the text is not written till later, or 'uninspired' as you may call it, what gives it the veracity to base a belief upon? Other than that it is an answer? I consider gnostic writings as uninspired, and therefore do not give them any particular level of trust. Is this another issue of trusting the teacher rather than the teaching? If I'm incorrect, please correct me on this. This is one subject in which I'm still trying to understand the catholic view. Thanks, and God bless.

Dude I just posted an in depth and broken down reply to you but it timed out when I hit submit and I lost the whole thing. As I view this as a potential prevention I will just resubmit the following:

This belief is not a matter of faith; as Catholics we can hold that Joseph was or was not a widower when he married Mary. It's a speculative question that we can't really answer with absolute certainty. But the ancient sources are interesting.

The idea that he was a widower first came up in the Proto-evangelium of James.That's one of the apocryphal Gospels, so it's not a reliable historical source but it shows what early Christians thought. The reason he's portrayed as a widower is to explain who Jesus' "brothers" are. In this theory they would have been Joseph's children by an earlier marriage. There's another writing in Coptic called History of Joseph the Carpenter. That work said he was 91 when he received Mary.

As well, the brothers of Jesus weren't mentioned until Jesus was an adult and Joeseph had already disappeared from the scene sometime in the 18 years between the finding in the temple and the wedding feast at Cana.

I speculate that Josephs pervious children didn't live with Joseph at the time of Jesus birth.

Peace.

 

[JoabAnias]

Under the direction of the Holy Spirit.....

If the pastor next door has a different interpretation yet both feel guided by the Holy Spirit are both interpretations correct?

What is the correct method to interpret scripture?

 

[JoabAnias]

I thought you believed in this thing called the Perpetual Virginity

Yes, we believe Mary was a virgin here entire life and bore Jesus without the pains of child birth.

 

[JoabAnias]

But Joab my friend some of the INSPIRED writings lead us to believe that Mary and Jesus' brothers hung with him, no reason to think they weren't Mary's kids...

Other than it would be making an assumption with no factual basis. In fact the believers of the time believed Jesus brothers to be either his cousins as the Jews refered to cousins as brothers or Josephs children from previous marriage.

I would be interested to see any inspired writings that could be interpreted to show Jesus hung with other children born of Mary.

Peace.

 

[JoabAnias]

God created Adam and Eve in His image and likeness. Once Adam and Eve had sinned we read that they begot children in their own image and likeness: tainted by sin.
Mary was no exception. She was born out of a human father and mother.

Do you believe Jesus was tainted with original sin because He was born of Mary?

 

[simonthezealot]

In fact the believers of the time believed Jesus brothers to be either his cousins as the Jews refered to cousins as brothers or Josephs children from previous marriage.

You mean like the church father Hegesippus who apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as "the Lord's brother according to the flesh" (church history of Eusebius, 3:20

And Tertullian apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus' brothers were "really" his brothers, his "blood-relationship" (Against Marcion, 4:19).

 

[JoabAnias]

You mean like the church father Hegesippus who apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as "the Lord's brother according to the flesh" (church history of Eusebius, 3:20

And Tertullian apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus' brothers were "really" his brothers, his "blood-relationship" (Against Marcion, 4:19).

Your making claims Simon but I am not seeing any quotes or dates. Tertullian entered into heresy and I have never even heard of Hegesippus. There is no doubt there are opposing viewpoints with the Church. Its through these deliberations and descernments that the consensual truth within the paradosis of the faith and Magisterial College is arrived at. Never the less the sources you reference are much further from the time of the events than the ones I have, one being the Proto-evangelium of James.

These facts only underline the divine nature of the Church. If it had only been human in origin, it would have collapsed long ago. But the glory of the Church lies in the fact that despite the existence of such debate, not one of them ever led the Church into error in what it taught and the truth is fruther understood through the Holy Spirit and the develpment of the doctrines He inspires for our edification along the way.

Peace.

 

[holdon]

If the pastor next door has a different interpretation yet both feel guided by the Holy Spirit are both interpretations correct?

No, of course not. Even pastors and popes can be misguided.

What is the correct method to interpret scripture?

To compare scripture with scripture.

 

[holdon]

Do you believe Jesus was tainted with original sin because He was born of Mary?

No. She conceived what was Holy. Read it for yourself.

 

[JoabAnias]

No, of course not. Even pastors and popes can be misguided.

Then what happens when both opinions are apparently scriptural and there is a stalemate, are both of the Holy Spirit?

To compare scripture with scripture.

Where does the canon come from and which interpretation do will be used?

 

[holdon]

Then what happens when both opinions are apparently scriptural and there is a stalemate, are both of the Holy Spirit?

There can only be one correct I would think. It depends a little on the problem. Problems can be multifaceted of course.

Where does the canon come from and which interpretation do will be used?

The NT "Canon" comes from the writing of the apostles and prophets of the New Testament.
The OT canon was established by the prophets from before the Hellenistic period. It is abundantly testified to by itself, by Jesus and the Apostles and prophets of the New Testament as well.

Between all the books of Scripture there is internal and intrinsic evidence for their Godly origin......

 

[sunlover1]

Then what happens when both opinions are apparently scriptural and there is a stalemate, are both of the Holy Spirit?

Both cannot be scriptural if they're in disagreement.
Just because someone thinks it's the Holy Spirit,
doesnt mean that it is.
Anyone can be in error.

 

[Polycarp1]

For what it's worth...

I'm an Anglican; I have no special need to believe in the Immaculate Conception, but no particular grounds to be required to doubt it either.

I would observe that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, a separate Catholic doctrine (shared with others, BTW) is being confused with the I.C. here. The I.C. simply says that Mary, unlike all other humans, was conceived without original sin, that the human tendency to sin innate in us since the Fall was not transmitted to her. She was conceived by a normal act of marital sex between her parents, not herself a virgin birth.

Even many Catholics, however, in attempting to honor Mary, fail to recognize the Church's teaching: like all the Faithful, Mary was saved through the grace of God mediated through the Atonement of Christ. The difference is that in the Catholic view, this worked "retroactively" -- since God is indeed master over time like all other created things -- to save her from conception onward, in order that her womb would be a sinless dwelling for the Incarnate Son. Like many another Catholic dogma, it needs to be seen as Christocentric, focusing on His Incarnation and Atonement, and His redeeming work.

As I noted above, the question of the I.C. is tangential to my own faith. But taking it as detracting from a focus on Christ is, I think, a mistake, and one we should avoid.

 

[JoabAnias]

Both cannot be scriptural if they're in disagreement.
Just because someone thinks it's the Holy Spirit,
doesnt mean that it is.
Anyone can be in error.

Right. So how does one get to the bottom of it?

Better yet, How does God give us a solution to this.

Read the Acts of the Apostles for the answer.

Peace.

 

[tiitmouse]

Both cannot be scriptural if they're in disagreement.
Just because someone thinks it's the Holy Spirit,
doesnt mean that it is.
Anyone can be in error.

This is important to me. I have thought myself that different teachings cannot all come from God. So who is to decide which is right and which is wrong.

 

[JoabAnias]

There can only be one correct I would think. It depends a little on the problem. Problems can be multifaceted of course.

Yes of course. Now where does one throw their hands up in the air to keep their focus on Jesus instead of laws?

The NT "Canon" comes from the writing of the apostles and prophets of the New Testament.
The OT canon was established by the prophets from before the Hellenistic period. It is abundantly testified to by itself, by Jesus and the Apostles and prophets of the New Testament as well.

What about Mark, Luke, and Paul who never knew Jesus?

Do you know the history of the Septuagint most likely read by Jesus?

Between all the books of Scripture there is internal and intrinsic evidence for their Godly origin......

Exactly, the process of hermeneutics begins with the explicits of scripture, how then does one extrapolate the truth from the implicit beliefs and sustain them as true?

Do the implicit truths ever effect the explicit statements of scripture and if they do does that change the explicit meaning?

Peace, I am off to Holy Thursday Mass and then work. Night.

 

[Athanasias]

For what it's worth...

I'm an Anglican; I have no special need to believe in the Immaculate Conception, but no particular grounds to be required to doubt it either.

I would observe that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, a separate Catholic doctrine (shared with others, BTW) is being confused with the I.C. here. The I.C. simply says that Mary, unlike all other humans, was conceived without original sin, that the human tendency to sin innate in us since the Fall was not transmitted to her. She was conceived by a normal act of marital sex between her parents, not herself a virgin birth.

Even many Catholics, however, in attempting to honor Mary, fail to recognize the Church's teaching: like all the Faithful, Mary was saved through the grace of God mediated through the Atonement of Christ. The difference is that in the Catholic view, this worked "retroactively" -- since God is indeed master over time like all other created things -- to save her from conception onward, in order that her womb would be a sinless dwelling for the Incarnate Son. Like many another Catholic dogma, it needs to be seen as Christocentric, focusing on His Incarnation and Atonement, and His redeeming work.

As I noted above, the question of the I.C. is tangential to my own faith. But taking it as detracting from a focus on Christ is, I think, a mistake, and one we should avoid.

Great essessment! Amen!

 

[sunlover1]

This is important to me. I have thought myself that different teachings cannot all come from God. So who is to decide which is right and which is wrong.

What are the choices?