Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They were half brothers because Jesus' father was God, and the other brothers were from Joseph. It's like my sisters. We have the same father but different mothers so we are half...how can Jesus have half-brothers unless Mary or Joesph married someone else?
Points to ponder......
Mary 'of' Alpheuas, Mary 'of' Magdela [single], Mary 'of' James, Mary 'of' Cleophas,
Mary the Mother 'of' Jesus.
What is this? Why do we NOT see Mary 'of' Joseph??
Because in those days, it was customary to include 'of' when a marriage was fully consumated.
But when a woman was left single...sometimes they were named 'of' the town they resided or rather pardon, the town they came from.
I think WarriorAngel gave a great discertation on why this evolved to dogma. Catholics have 2,000 years of history and introspection into the matter, whereas most Protestant theologians are woefully ignorant of the historical and cultural context which forms the basis of this doctrine. Additionally, Catholics are not constrained by the "norming" process of sola scriptura. Indeed, the norming of the text of Scripture must be done within the context of culture, history, and the constant Apostolic teaching handed down from the begining of the church, and through the teaching authority of the Church bestowed upon it by Christ and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.I appreciate that this is important to Catholics and as such I can understand your frustration that this is raised ad nauseum, but I don't understand how mocking and bullying the posters you disagree with is going to help any of us understand your perspective any better.
Of course CJ and BigNorsk are going to present their own perspectives, but they've attempted to do so in a respectful and reasonably balanced manner, rightly acknowledging both perspectives while recognising that neither can be proven from scripture.
Thanks to Warrior Angel for respectfully bringing something relevant to the table for our consideration. I wonder if some others might attempt to address the issue instead of each other. I, for one would welcome some justification for the fact that this is dogma.
Peace
. Indeed, the norming of the text of Scripture
She got to the very crux of this issue. If you considered yourself a righteous, God-fearing, devout Jewish man, understanding the inccredible lengths of respect given to holy objects such as the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy of Holies, would you ever consider treading (so to speak) where God had claimed as His own? If only the consecrated High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies one day a year, could you enter the place where God Himself entered into the world? Please don't treat Mary as a common women, she is far from it. She is not some average Jane who said yes to God. She is the New Eve, as Jesus is the new Adam, who correct the sins of the original Adam and Eve.
That is because the Catholic Church has insights into this matter that Protestants conveniently ignore for the sake of presupposed positions of their own doctrine.The interpretation of WHAT text?
There is no Scripture about the supremely private sharing of sexual intimacies between Mary and Joseph within the sacred bonds of Holy Matrimony after Jesus was born. Friend, there's nothing to interpret. Nothing to norm. This has NOTHING to do with Scripture. If ANYTHING is abundantly and powerfully obvious in this discussion, it is that. And the longer Catholics keep this going, the more the point is made.
This is all about this "second testimony" as Mormons call it.
I already gave my male perspective to this very wierd, very odd series of questions. But I think the difference in our epistemologies really comes out here. To ME, self asking questions and then self implying an answer to our own questions does not make for the substantiation of a DOGMA. Friend, ANYONE can play that game - it proves NOTHING.
And okay, you could ask 10 men these questions and get 10 answers. It's entirely, completely, absolutely moot to the discussion unless you are asking Joseph.
The FACT is, God's holy inerrant written Word is respectfully silent on this matter of surpreme privacy. Protestants follow that. Catholics (for reasons no one has ever explained to me) are OBSESSED to the point of DOGMA about how often Mary and Joseph did or didn't "do it" after Jesus was born within the sacred bonds of the Sacrament of Marriage. They admit it's completely moot to anything, but they INSIST the issure of how often they "did it" is sooooooooooooooooooooo important as to have DOGMA status.
Odd to me.
My $0.01
Pax!
- Josiah
.
The necessity for it to develop into dogma started with Nestorius. Heresy always requires a further deepening and clarification of doctrine.Thanks for that Scott (#44 - I forgot to quote). I suppose it illustrates how it could develop into dogma. I just can't see why it had to.
Incidentally, please know I have a great respect for Mary. Frankly, it saddens me greatly that some Protestants seem to try to overcompensate for what they see as errors from Catholics. I'm certainly among those who count her blessed. I marvel at what God did trhough Mary for all mankind and I'm overwhelmed by the very thought of how that must have been for her.
Luk 1:48 For He looked on the humiliation of His slave woman. For, behold, from now on all generations shall count me blessed.
I realize that the Catholic denomination has "a second testimony" (to use the Mormon terminology) that the Catholic denomination has chosen and which the Catholic denomination considers to be at least equal (and functionally superior) to God's holy inerrant written Word. And THAT is the "source" for this DOGMA. As is the 'second testimony' that the LDS has chosen for it's unique dogmas. In my roughly 5 year jouney with Catholicism, I found many Catholics admitted that. It sure saves a lot of time and gives more credence, IMHO. But I must say, I've always found Mormons to be more "up-front" about this than Catholics.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is a very common feature of many of the ECFs. Not sure where you're getting your info.Jesus is definitely not illegitimate according to scripture, that is one of the points of the first chapter of Matthew. If Jesus was illegitimate, it wouldn't make much sense to give the lineage of Joseph would it? Because that wouldn't be the lineage of Jesus, but Joseph married Mary and so Jesus, born during the time of that marriage was Joseph's Son. Not physically, but legally. So it would be proper to call Joseph Jesus' Father, though we would understand it not to be in a physical way, but legally, socially, he was.
Now if Joseph didn't marry Mary, that all becomes very problematic. Without an adoption ceremony, Jesus would not be Joseph's son and indeed would be illegitamate.
The virginity of Mary has been embraced since the start of the Church and indeed is embraced to this day throughout. What was not embraced early and is not embraced by many to this day is the eternal virginity of Mary.
Marv
Whether or not she had any children (which I'm inclined to think she did) she still had sexual relations.This post is VERY bogus. Mary DID NOT have ANY other children.
I wouldn't be so hasty to call it nonsense.You hear this nonsense from anti-Catholics or sites that are so.
Well, at the time she had named her child Judas the betrayal of Christ had not yet happened so what would it matter?Imagine Mary naming one of her kids JUDAS..
I fail to see how she could possibly be considered your mother.When people like this come on and defame Our Blessed Mother.
Which most likely are fictional stories.and read all about her apparitons over the centuries.
Exactly, which makes her no one special. Not any more special than any other woman.Her task was to give birth to the Son of God and nothing more.
Her task was to give birth to the Son of God and nothing more.Exactly, which makes her no one special. Not any more special than any other woman.
However, this does not prove anything.
There is nothing in Scripture to deny her perpetual virginity, and there is nothing in Scripture to affirm it. It is adiaphora (an area of theological freedom, or at least for sola Scriptura Protestants) in the strictest sense.
the central New Testament passage used by defenders of her perpetual virginity is likewise not conclusory.
When Christ on the cross says to Mary and the beloved disciple, I think it really does imply that Mary did not have other children. Indeed, one of the four brethren mentioned in Mark 6:3, James, was certainly alive and well at this point and went on to become the leader of the Jerusalem church; another brother, Jude, is possibly to be identified with the apostle Jude/Thaddeus/Lebbeus. Why charge the beloved disciple (John?) with responsibility rather than one of these two men?
The other passage used to defend perpetual virginity is Mary's exclamation 'How can this be; I have not known a man,' in Luke 1:34. I wonder, with Catholics, why she would be so surprised if she wasn't expecting to remain a virgin; verse 27 clearly states that she was already engaged to Joseph. If she was expecting to go on to have marital relations with Joseph, we might expect an exclamation more along the lines of, 'Wow, Joseph and I are going to bear the Mashiach?' From this, then, it has been suggested that Mary was a consecrated virgin and her marriage to Joseph a marriage of protection, as was often found in the ancient world.
But, it possible that the angel's appearance implied that the conception would take place prior to the consummation of her marriage, and (as much of the Scriptures are summary) may have been so said in the original appearance. Her exclamation may simply have been a reaction to the idea of a virgin birth in general. I simply can't see how we can honestly exegete a consecrated virginity and marriage of protection from this verse.
On a purely Scriptural basis, then, I see the perpetual virginity of Mary as neither denied nor affirmed. It is adiaphora in the truest sense.
Even if you reject church tradition (and I know most of you do), the document provides evidence on purely historical grounds. And as for me, as a person who accepts tradition where it does not contradict Scripture (yes, we Protestants who accept tradition do exist), I really can't ignore this.
And so I stand with Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and all the historic Protestant reformers in affirming the perpetual virginity of Mary (yet with Josiah, as a matter of pious opinion, not dogma).
Really? Because I thought 'All nations shall call me blessed' was in the Bible for a reason. Have any of you Protestants actually read the Magnificat?
She's not just an incubator, for crying out loud. She's the mother of the King (the Mother of God, Theotokos), and by Israelite standards that makes her the Queen- the Queen of all Heaven and Earth.
If you said that about my mother, I'd be mad. So go ahead and say it to Him if you'd like, but as for me:
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb Jesus Christ.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?