[catholicpriest]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

No, I am saying that from the RCC position, neither calling the "brothers and sisters" cousins or saying they were Joseph's children from a previous marriage works. I am wondering how the RCC can justify the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin when both of the arguments that could possibly support it fail.

No, I think the reasonable, logical conclusion is that Jesus did in fact have brothers and sisters just as the scriptures says and that neither Mary nor Joseph were perpetual virgins. Mary and Joseph were married and had other children after Jesus. Everything fits perfectly then.

There is nothing within the history of the Church to suggest that Mary and Joseph had other children. You're on the outside-looking-in on this one. Find me one source from Patristic times that suggests that Mary had other children. Every Church Father that writes on the subject recognizes that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children. The belief that she did have other children is a new teaching. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. Obviously the Church Fathers and even the Protestant Reformers did not interpret the Scriptures the way you are interpreting them now. So, for you to be right, everyone else has to be wrong. I think I'll trust the Church Fathers and 2000 years of Christian tradition over one person's faulty interpretation of Scripture.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by catholicpriest

There is nothing within the history of the Church to suggest that Mary and Joseph had other children. You're on the outside-looking-in on this one. Find me one source from Patristic times that suggests that Mary had other children. Every Church Father that writes on the subject recognizes that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children. The belief that she did have other children is a new teaching. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. Obviously the Church Fathers and even the Protestant Reformers did not interpret the Scriptures the way you are interpreting them now. So, for you to be right, everyone else has to be wrong. I think I'll trust the Church Fathers and 2000 years of Christian tradition over one person's faulty interpretation of Scripture.

No, for you to be right you must be able to give a possible explanation for who these brothers and sisters were and who in Jesus's own house did not honor Him.

You make me laugh with the "faulty interpretation". You can not give one single reasonable explanation as to who the brothers and sisters were (as can be shown by the back and forth beliefs of those trying to make it fit) and yet you claim that the logical reading of the scriptures is faulty. Look in John's gospel, not once does he use the word adelphos for anything other than actual brother. The wisest thing to do is listen to those who walked with Jesus and called His brothers what they were, brothers.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

No, for you to be right you must be able to give a possible explanation for who these brothers and sisters were and who in Jesus's own house did not honor Him.

You make me laugh with the "faulty interpretation". You can not give one single reasonable explanation as to who the brothers and sisters were (as can be shown by the back and forth beliefs of those trying to make it fit) and yet you claim that the logical reading of the scriptures is faulty. Look in John's gospel, not once does he use the word adelphos for anything other than actual brother. The wisest thing to do is listen to those who walked with Jesus and called His brothers what they were, brothers.

I'm glad we Catholics make you laugh. At least you're getting something out of this.

I actually find it more reasonable to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. There is nothing in scripture that proves that Mary had other children, so I see no reason to jump to that conclusion. The only reason people do jump to that conclusion I think is just to have something else to whack Catholics over the head with. Since there is nothing in Scripture that says specifically that Mary had other children, I think it's reasonable to go with the belief of the Church fathers and all of the early Christians who lived closer to her time. Also, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant... the Ark of the Covenant in the old testament was so holy that a sinful human being couldn't touch it, or he would die. If that Ark of the old covenant was that holy, then how much more the Ark of the New Covenant, who held not just the word of God on stone tablets, but the Word himself... GOD himself. The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament was just a foreshadoing of our Blessed Mother, and even it was so holy that men coudln't touch it, lest they die. What does that say about our Lady?

EDIT: No, I'm not saying that nobody could touch Mary or they would die... obviously she had interaction with people even when she was pregnant with Jesus and they touched her. But I don't think God would have allowed a sinful man to have intercourse with her. If you read the protoevangelium of James (you can find it at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm ), In paragraph 20 it tells of a woman named Salome who didn't believe in the Virgin Birth, so after Jesus was born she put her finger into Mary's ______ to see if she was in fact a virgin, and her hand began to burn and fall off... "Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire." She pleaded with God to forgive her, and she was told by an angel to put her hand to the Infant and carry it and she would be alright... and she was. My personal opinion is that had Salome not repented and put her hand on Jesus then the fire wouldn't have ended with her hand but would have spread and consumed her whole body, and she would have died. But that's just my opinion.

But think about that... If God wouldn't even alow a finger of a sinful human to penetrate Mary's womb, do you think he would allow man to have intercourse? I don't think he would.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I'm glad we Catholics make you laugh. At least you're getting something out of this.

I actually find it more reasonable to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. There is nothing in scripture that proves that Mary had other children, so I see no reason to jump to that conclusion. The only reason people do jump to that conclusion I think is just to have something else to whack Catholics over the head with. Since there is nothing in Scripture that says specifically that Mary had other children, I think it's reasonable to go with the belief of the Church fathers and all of the early Christians who lived closer to her time. Also, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant... the Ark of the Covenant in the old testament was so holy that a sinful human being couldn't touch it, or he would die. If that Ark of the old covenant was that holy, then how much more the Ark of the New Covenant, who held not just the word of God on stone tablets, but the Word himself... GOD himself. The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament was just a foreshadoing of our Blessed Mother, and even it was so holy that men coudln't touch it, lest they die. What does that say about our Lady?

EDIT: No, I'm not saying that nobody could touch Mary or they would die... obviously she had interaction with people even when she was pregnant with Jesus and they touched her. But I don't think God would have allowed a sinful man to have intercourse with her. If you read the protoevangelium of James (you can find it at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm ), In paragraph 20 it tells of a woman named Salome who didn't believe in the Virgin Birth, so after Jesus was born she put her finger into Mary's ______ to see if she was in fact a virgin, and her hand began to burn and fall off... "Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire." She pleaded with God to forgive her, and she was told by an angel to put her hand to the Infant and carry it and she would be alright... and she was. My personal opinion is that had Salome not repented and put her hand on Jesus then the fire wouldn't have ended with her hand but would have spread and consumed her whole body, and she would have died. But that's just my opinion.

But think about that... If God wouldn't even alow a finger of a sinful human to penetrate Mary's womb, do you think he would allow man to have intercourse? I don't think he would.

So you must believe that everything stated in the protoevangelium of James is fact??

[catholicpriest]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

No, for you to be right you must be able to give a possible explanation for who these brothers and sisters were and who in Jesus's own house did not honor Him.

You make me laugh with the "faulty interpretation". You can not give one single reasonable explanation as to who the brothers and sisters were (as can be shown by the back and forth beliefs of those trying to make it fit) and yet you claim that the logical reading of the scriptures is faulty. Look in John's gospel, not once does he use the word adelphos for anything other than actual brother. The wisest thing to do is listen to those who walked with Jesus and called His brothers what they were, brothers.

I am going to try to stay away from long-winded explanations, but the fact of the matter is that the Greek word, adelphos, which means brother, and the plural, adelphoi, are used frequently throughout both the Old Testament (LXX) and the New Testament when referring to male cousins, half-brothers, and step-brothers. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it is not the case when refering to the "brethren of the Lord." It is simply your desire to debunk the perpetual virginity of Mary that has put you on a blind crusade against her. Again, I ask you to find one single source from the Patristic Era, that shows an early Christian belief that Jesus had brothers and sisters. There are simply none in existence. Are you saying that you are a better exegete than the Church Fathers??? They were very much aware of the Gospel passages that refer to the "brethren of the Lord", and yet they didn't have any problem with Mary's perpetual virginity.

If you want to read a good explanation of how adelphos is used in Scripture then follow this link:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Bret...f_the_Lord.asp

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

So you must believe that everything stated in the protoevangelium of James is fact??

absolutely not! The Church didn't include it in the New Testament canon for a reason. But it's still a good witness to the faith of the early Christians, because it was written around A.D. 150. The Church could have very easily included it in the New Testament canon because the canon of the NT wasn't decided until A.D. 325. Obviously it's not 100% in line with Catholic doctrine. That doesnt mean that all of it is wrong and it doesnt mean that we shouldn't read it and take it seriously.

I don't understand how people can come along 2000 years after Mary's earthly life and start saying she had other children after Jesus. That's just stupid. As if people today know more about Her life than the early Christians did. Yeah RIGHT. I'm sorry, if it comes between listening to you or listening to the early Christians, i'm going to listen to the early Christians, because they knew a lot more about the life of Mary than you do.

I think we should just agree to disagree on this issue, because you're NEVER going to convince me that Mary had other children after She had Jesus Christ. And I'm never going to convince you that She remained a virgin throughout Her entire life. I think we should just agree to disagree, and call it quits... we could argue about this for weeks and neither of us is going to change our minds. There's no point.

take care

[catholicpriest]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

absolutely not! The Church didn't include it in the New Testament canon for a reason. But it's still a good witness to the faith of the early Christians, because it was written around A.D. 150. The Church could have very easily included it in the New Testament canon because the canon of the NT wasn't decided until A.D. 325. Obviously it's not 100% in line with Catholic doctrine. That doesnt mean that all of it is wrong and it doesnt mean that we shouldn't read it and take it seriously.

I don't understand how people can come along 2000 years after Mary's earthly life and start saying she had other children after Jesus. That's just stupid. As if people today know more about Her life than the early Christians did. Yeah RIGHT. I'm sorry, if it comes between listening to you or listening to the early Christians, i'm going to listen to the early Christians, because they knew a lot more about the life of Mary than you do.

I think we should just agree to disagree on this issue, because you're NEVER going to convince me that Mary had other children after She had Jesus Christ. And I'm never going to convince you that She remained a virgin throughout Her entire life. I think we should just agree to disagree, and call it quits... we could argue about this for weeks and neither of us is going to change our minds. There's no point.

take care

Reed, your wisdom surpasses your years

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I wasn't planning on going to a sedevacantist parish, I was just wondering what it is. I wouldn't receive communion in any parish that isn't Latin rite or one of the Eastern rites. I woudln't mind going to a Latin Mass sometime, as long as it's been approved by the Church.

Take care

take care

Just wanted you to know . I would suggest you go to a Tridentine Mass approved by Rome. Where are you at? There might be one not too far from you.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

No, I am saying that from the RCC position, neither calling the "brothers and sisters" cousins or saying they were Joseph's children from a previous marriage works. I am wondering how the RCC can justify the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin when both of the arguments that could possibly support it fail.

No, I think the reasonable, logical conclusion is that Jesus did in fact have brothers and sisters just as the scriptures says and that neither Mary nor Joseph were perpetual virgins. Mary and Joseph were married and had other children after Jesus. Everything fits perfectly then.

You provide good reasons for Catholics to believe that Joseph was chaste and thus the so-called brothers and sisters of Christ would be his cousins or some other form of relative. It is a fact that only one scenario fits, either they were cousins, or they were step-siblings. Neither has been formally defined. How do BOTH fail, when one logically must fail?

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

No, I am saying that from the RCC position, neither calling the "brothers and sisters" cousins or saying they were Joseph's children from a previous marriage works. I am wondering how the RCC can justify the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin when both of the arguments that could possibly support it fail.

No, I think the reasonable, logical conclusion is that Jesus did in fact have brothers and sisters just as the scriptures says and that neither Mary nor Joseph were perpetual virgins. Mary and Joseph were married and had other children after Jesus. Everything fits perfectly then.

Quite a magic act to be able to keep that news from reaching anyone in the centuries after them... Only a select few considered such a thing, and odd that those who actually followed Christ rejected such as ludicrous...

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

No, for you to be right you must be able to give a possible explanation for who these brothers and sisters were and who in Jesus's own house did not honor Him.

You make me laugh with the "faulty interpretation". You can not give one single reasonable explanation as to who the brothers and sisters were (as can be shown by the back and forth beliefs of those trying to make it fit) and yet you claim that the logical reading of the scriptures is faulty. Look in John's gospel, not once does he use the word adelphos for anything other than actual brother. The wisest thing to do is listen to those who walked with Jesus and called His brothers what they were, brothers.

The faulty interpretation is to believe Christ meant for all truth to be completely obvious simply from Scripture. Those who were given the truth have passed it on to us in no uncertain terms. Never has it been speculated except for the one heretic that Mary was ever not virgin.

[goldenchild]

Read THIS as it covers all we have covered so far. If you have other arguments afterwards fine, but I don't see any point in rehashing stuff that has been settled many centuries ago.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Just wanted you to know . I would suggest you go to a Tridentine Mass approved by Rome. Where are you at? There might be one not too far from you.

I would love to go to a Tridentine Mass sometimes. I don't know if there are any around here. I'm in Carrollton, Ga.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I would love to go to a Tridentine Mass sometimes. I don't know if there are any around here. I'm in Carrollton, Ga.

I don't know how far you are willing to drive but there's an archdiocese(meaning Indult and okay for you I believe) Tridentine Mass at ST. FRANCIS DE SALES in Mabelton. Depending on where you are at in Carrollton, Mapquest says it's about an hour drive: MAPQUEST

[goldenchild]

Why would Jesus entrust the care of Mary to John when her "children" were still alive and it was their responsibility?