Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #136  
Old Jul 8, '11, 4:41 am
NotWorthy's Avatar
NotWorthy NotWorthy is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: May 10, 2005
Posts: 13,932
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Inkaneer? Can you and Mike Harrison continue your discussion on whether or not Mike is Catholic or not with PM messages?

That would allow the thread to continue with the topic, "No relations until she bore a son...."
__________________
Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!
  #137  
Old Jul 8, '11, 6:51 pm
wynnejj's Avatar
wynnejj wynnejj is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2008
Posts: 1,997
Religion: Christian
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

I have to thank Arandur for her(?) post #26 and post #27 which were very interesting reflections on Mary's Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, and Assumption. There was a term "chiasmic tradition" which had me scratching my head. When I looked it up, it appears to mean the intersection of two lines or cross-over as in an "X". This made me think of the "X Files" and "Trust No One" and "The Truth is Out There". In fact Sacred Tradition appears to be much like this. Miracles follow the Saints attesting to a truth that is out there. If several saints have the same story, especially if accompanied by apparitions of Mary whereby she reveals more mysteries not covered in the Bible, then that becomes part of the Sacred Tradition. The problem is that like the X Files, more of the story is unfolding all the time and the facts have to checked, cross-referenced, and double checked with the intuition of a true believer. Jesus instituted His Church to be the interpreter of the truth as God chooses to reveal more, but one doesn't have to stray too far from the Bible to get what you need to be saved.

Some thoughts about the Immaculate Conception of Mary and how it relates to Creationism versus Evolution...

Creationists will posit that a new species does not spring from mutations. That is, a higher order of being cannot be created from a bad copy of the original. A mutation is strictly a degraded version of the original. That if man started out as SuperMan, the perfect original man, then after the fall every reproduction of man on earth is just another variation of Bizarro. Evolutionists suggest that every once in a very great while a mutation does create a "better copy" and a new enhanced species.

So with respect to Mary, I suggest her Immaculate Conception as the one mutation in the history of man on Earth where God's plan restores Mary to man's original prototype without stain of original sin, and truly in the image and likeness of God.

As to the original post, my belief is that Matthew 1:25 has to be understood the light of his witness sworn on a stack of Bibles, "So help me God!", of what he knows for sure, explicitly qualifying what he does not know for sure.

Matthew knows for sure that there were no pre-marital relations based on his belief in Jesus as the Messiah due to His Teachings and Miracles, and the fact that OT prophesies stated that the Messiah would be born of Virgin, thus corroborated by the testimony of Mary's words at the Annunciation. This is important... Mary's testimony to a Virgin Birth is simply corroborating testimony. Matthew could not in good conscience leave the statement unqualified and felt compelled to explicitly state that he knows nothing beyond Jesus birth about marital relations between Mary & Joseph either one way or the other.

Last edited by wynnejj; Jul 8, '11 at 7:01 pm.
  #138  
Old Jul 9, '11, 4:15 am
Mike Harrison Mike Harrison is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2010
Posts: 6
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotWorthy View Post
Inkaneer? Can you and Mike Harrison continue your discussion on whether or not Mike is Catholic or not with PM messages?

That would allow the thread to continue with the topic, "No relations until she bore a son...."
You are quite right NotWorthy. We have digressed substantially at this point from the principle topic of this thread "Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?". I'm sorry. I note though that you believe our discusssion is about whether or not I'm a Catholic. Inkaneer's decision that I'm not a Catholic is judgemental, regardless of what he claims. Don't you agree? That's my last post in this forum about the topic of my Catholcism. Inkaneer, you can contact me at [email protected] if you want to continue the discussion. PM discussion don't work for me as I don't allow pop-ups.What is your email address? Send me an email and I'll respond to your last post.

Your servant in Christ,
Mike
  #139  
Old Jul 9, '11, 5:16 am
inkaneer inkaneer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Posts: 2,076
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

First some house cleaning, I have no intentions of continuing any discussions with Mr. Harrison. He posted what he posted and now wants to change it. That tells me my initial discernment was correct. I don't know if he is really Catholic or someone posing as one [it has happened before, many times in fact] but I would think a Catholic would know that sacramentally Lutherans do not have the Euchrist and a Catholic cannot believe in sola scriptura. It is heresy, pure and simple.

Now back to topic. I posted this once before on a similar topic as it does come up again and again and always citing Matthew 1:25 along with the verses that refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters ( Mt 12:46; Mt 13:55; Mr 3:31,32; Lu 8:19,20; etc.). There is also the famous words of St. Paul in Ga 1:19 where he calls the Apostle James the Lord's brother. However, a careful reading of the scriptures will show you that of the two Apostles named James neither one was a son of Mary and Joseph. These latter verses are used as "proof" of Mt1:25 and require a strict interpretation of the Greek word adelphos as meaning a sibling brother born of the same parent. However, the fallacy of that logic is demonstrated by Mt 28:10 [where Jesus calls the Apostles his brothers (adelphos)] and Lu 22:32 [where Jesus calls the Apostles, Peter's brothers again using the word adelphos]. In both instances the Greek word translated as brother (brethren) is adelphos. What this means is that the word adelphos is used to portray other relationships other than that of a sibling brother. To force a strict meaning onto the word in the face of other evidence to the contrary is to inflict violence onto the scriptures.

But there is something else. It is what I call the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to admit is there let alone talk about. That is the evidence from the early church. In an age where relationships meant something, when, for instance, Jude claims of being a brother of James (Jude 1:1 ) there is not one single claim of anyone claiming to be either a sibling brother of Jesus or a child of Mary. WHY? Where are these alleged sibling brothers? If you wanted to "drop an name" then what two bigger names could one drop in christianity than Jesus or Mary? But no one ever did. Why? The answer consists of two reasons. First, there were no sibling brothers of Jesus. Second, the christian world knew it. Anyone making such a claim would have been immediately reviled by christians because they knew the truth, that Jesus was the only child of Mary.
  #140  
Old Jul 9, '11, 9:18 am
BrianH BrianH is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2005
Posts: 2,799
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/chart...0Testament.htm
This particular link deals with the argument that there were only two James in the NT instead of at least three.
  #141  
Old Jul 9, '11, 6:41 pm
NotWorthy's Avatar
NotWorthy NotWorthy is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: May 10, 2005
Posts: 13,932
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/chart...0Testament.htm
This particular link deals with the argument that there were only two James in the NT instead of at least three.
Wow, Brian... you are studying from Agape Bible Study?!?!? Isn't that too Catholic for you?

BTW, I agree with Michal Hunt's assessment. The book of James is written by neither of the Apostles named James.
__________________
Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!
  #142  
Old Jul 11, '11, 12:37 am
Trebor135 Trebor135 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2010
Posts: 2,131
Religion: Orthodox (ACROD)
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Since Cachonga has withdrawn from the thread, this is mainly for interested third parties reading now and in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cachonga View Post
You misunderstand me. We know that not everything was written down. However, my position is that, since God is the author of Scripture, we can know that what IS written down IS sufficient (see 2 Tim 3:16).
2 Timothy 3:16-17 has to be the most abused passage in the New Testament. If Paul were really teaching the doctrine of Scripture alone here, this learned writer, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would have contradicted himself elsewhere: in Ephesians 4:4-8,11-16 and 1 Timothy 3:15 (on the latter, see “Biblical Proof of Church Infallibility and Disproof of Sola Scriptura in One Bible Verse”).

Quote:
As far as the ECF’s, you mentioned Irenaeus. I showed in another thread (or maybe a PM) that he believed that Jesus was about 50 years old when He was crucified, and that this was taught by John and other Apostles (Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXII). The problem with ECF’s is that they can make mistakes (as Irenaeus proves).
Irenaeus didn’t believe this. Mark Bonocore explains here.

Quote:
In regard to “written-only teaching”, did Jesus overcome Satan in the wilderness with tradition or the written word?
It was rhetorically most appropriate for Jesus to rebut Satan with Scripture: the Devil was employing it against Christ first.

Quote:
Did Jesus prove that the Corban rule was a tradition of men by quoting another tradition, or by comparing it to the written word?
If Jesus meant to teach Scripture alone as the remedy to Jewish “traditions of men”, isn’t he contradicting himself in Matthew 23?

[1] Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
[2] "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
[3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."

Mark Bonocore and Art Sippo look at this issue here.

Quote:
Did Phillip convince the Ethiopian eunuch with tradition or by the scriptures? Did the Bereans test the teachings of Paul against tradition, or the written word? The written word doesn’t change!
These examples actually disprove Scripture alone. Note this portion of the account in Acts 8:

[30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
[31] And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Without the intervention of Philip, the Ethiopian eunuch would have never figured out based on Scripture alone that Isaiah was (1) discussing anything relevant to his own life or (2) making prophecies that had finally been fulfilled.

As for Acts 17, if these Bereans had relied on their interpretation of Scripture alone, perhaps none would have been converted. “Novel traditions of men!” these `Protestants’ would cry. “You contradict the Word of God here, there, and everywhere.” The case of the Thessalonians is instructive.

Quote:
Can you say the same for your “traditions”? I find many of your “traditions” that contradict Scripture (just as Jesus did with the Corban rule). Tradition is good and useful, but when it conflicts or contradicts Scripture, it should be considered a tradition of men!
Would you condone the addition of a book to the New Testament? If not, you have one tradition of men to dispense with, i.e., the New Testament must contain only the twenty-seven books of today. Nowhere within its pages does the New Testament outline the current canon.

Quote:
You missed my point. The tradition Paul was referring to was the Gospel. What part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ speaks of Mary’s perpetual virginity or immaculate conception (I’m trying to stay on topic, but there are many other dogmas that could be included in this question).
The body of tradition which Paul was discussing was more expansive than you make out:

[13] But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
[14] To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

For the Apostle to the Gentiles, “be[ing] saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” is just as important as the gospel, strictly defined. If the perpetual virginity of Mary is part of “the truth”, the audience is obliged to accept it in order to “be saved” as readily as the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, whether or not this doctrine is “taught… by word of mouth or by letter”.
  #143  
Old Oct 31, '11, 11:57 am
Cranch Cranch is offline
Regular Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: September 20, 2006
Posts: 926
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

As usual I am late to the party, but I just wanted to address the following.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Harrison View Post
…We have the official Catechism of the Catholic Church to guide us. For my Catholic sisters and brothers, refer to section 499. It is very specific in the last sentence. "And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin."

I researched this in the Catechism because I too was troubled by verse 25 in as much as I would like to be an effective apologist for the Church.…

Of course, I began by reviewing Mt 1:25 and the notes in the New American Bible. The New American Bible is an approved Bible of the Catholic Church and, in fact, was translated from original scriptures by a large group of Catholic scholars. It has the Nihil Obstat as well as the Imprimatur and was approved by the USCCB on September 30, 2010. What I read caused me concern.

In Mathew Chapter 1, which describes the birth of Jesus, verse 25 in the New American Bible reads "He had no relations with her (Mary) until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." It references a foot note that reads "[1:25] Until she bore a son: The evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated as "until" does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus' birth, nor does it exclude it." (Italics are mine).

The note was ambiguous so I referenced the Catechism. The Catechism underscores the fact that Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus as a virgin and even cites Mathew 1:18-25 (see Section 497]). It doesn't address Mt. 1:25 specifically though or the idea of Mary remaining a virgin after Jesus' birth. However, section 499 is very specific in the last sentence. "And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Harrison View Post
…What are your thoughts about the ambiguous footnote in our Bible versus the very clear and definitive statement in our Catechism?
My thoughts are the NAB notes are not to be relied upon and this is a perfect example of why not. Instead of taking this opportunity to definitively teach what the Church proclaims on this matter, this note deliberately interjects wording that might possibly foster confusion for a reader (as it did for Mike) regarding the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Is the note technically incorrect? No. Is it Catholic? Not in my eyes.

As far as the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur go, the following note (found for example on the title page of the NAB-Basic Youth Edition) is instructive:
The nihil obstat and imprimatur are declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.

In other words, in this case, you do not find the NAB notes saying the the Blessed Mother is NOT a Perpetual Virgin. You just find the door left open in the notes. Thankfully, Mike made the wise decision to go to the CCC for an answer to his question.
  #144  
Old Feb 22, '12, 6:01 pm
PumpkinSeed PumpkinSeed is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2012
Posts: 641
Religion: Follower of Christ
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

What would of been the problem if they did have sex after Jesus was born? What would of been the problem if they really did have more children. Why is it an issue? Would it change your mind on Jesus or Mary if she did have sex with her husband after Jesus was born? I don't see the problem. They were married, so they had every right to have sexual relations.
  #145  
Old Feb 23, '12, 2:19 am
Trebor135 Trebor135 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2010
Posts: 2,131
Religion: Orthodox (ACROD)
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PumpkinSeed View Post
What would of been the problem if they did have sex after Jesus was born? What would of been the problem if they really did have more children. Why is it an issue? Would it change your mind on Jesus or Mary if she did have sex with her husband after Jesus was born? I don't see the problem. They were married, so they had every right to have sexual relations.
Please take a look at this article.
  #146  
Old Feb 25, '12, 7:22 am
inkaneer inkaneer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Posts: 2,076
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/chart...0Testament.htm
This particular link deals with the argument that there were only two James in the NT instead of at least three.
Paul identifies the James that he calls, "brother of the Lord" as an Apostle. That narrows the list down to two and neither one of them was fathered by Joseph. That means, along with the other evidence I listed in my prior post that the word adelphos that Paul uses as meaning 'brother' cannot be interpreted as meaning strictly a sibling brother. If you do then you introduce error into the scripture and that is a NO NO for any christian.
  #147  
Old Feb 25, '12, 5:19 pm
timotheos timotheos is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Posts: 937
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trebor135 View Post
Please take a look at this article.
Bless you for linking this. Brother Anthony Opisso was a Filipino immigrant who became a medical doctor (started out in in North Dakota), practiced in a couple of states for a few years, then dropped out to become a hermit brother in New Brunswick, I think. He loved the Jewish tradition, and was quite the scholar as I understand. He died a few years ago. A very bright and humble man, according to a retired priest friend of mine who knew him.

But back to the subject at hand, I find it a bit amusing, mostly because it demonstrates how it takes time for the reality of the events described in Bible to really sink in. I mean, after Mary has a real-life encounter with the archangel Gabriel, and she is told she will conceive and bear the Son of God, and Joseph has not one, but two, vivid dreams clearly sent from God himself, we are supposed to believe that, after the Son of God is born, Joseph and Mary decide to start an average married life.

Umm ... maybe it's just me, but if I had received anywhere NEAR this kind of personal revelation, though I may not understand what it meant, I would be very, very conscious not to cause the slightest hint of corruption to those central to the revelation.
__________________
"Only he can believe who is willing to believe" - Fr. John Laux, M.A.
  #148  
Old Feb 27, '12, 7:15 pm
NotWorthy's Avatar
NotWorthy NotWorthy is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: May 10, 2005
Posts: 13,932
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer View Post
Paul identifies the James that he calls, "brother of the Lord" as an Apostle. That narrows the list down to two and neither one of them was fathered by Joseph. That means, along with the other evidence I listed in my prior post that the word adelphos that Paul uses as meaning 'brother' cannot be interpreted as meaning strictly a sibling brother. If you do then you introduce error into the scripture and that is a NO NO for any christian.
Where does Paul identify James as an Apostle? I am not aware of this.

I would place James, the brother of the Lord, outside of the Twelve (including matthias ), but I know there is not a consensus either way.
__________________
Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!
  #149  
Old Feb 28, '12, 7:55 am
inkaneer inkaneer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Posts: 2,076
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotWorthy View Post
Where does Paul identify James as an Apostle? I am not aware of this.

I would place James, the brother of the Lord, outside of the Twelve (including matthias ), but I know there is not a consensus either way.
In Galatians 1:19 Paul writes: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother." [RSV]

According to Matthew 10 there were only two Apostles named James. One was the son of Zebedee and the apostle John's brother and the other was the son of Alpheus. Neither was the son of Joseph.
  #150  
Old Feb 28, '12, 1:08 pm
NotWorthy's Avatar
NotWorthy NotWorthy is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: May 10, 2005
Posts: 13,932
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer View Post
In Galatians 1:19 Paul writes: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother." [RSV]

According to Matthew 10 there were only two Apostles named James. One was the son of Zebedee and the apostle John's brother and the other was the son of Alpheus. Neither was the son of Joseph.
I think you are mistaken here. Paul calls Barnabas and apostle, doesn't he?

I would think the rendering of the verse would be, "But I saw none of the other of the Twelve except James the Lord's brother."

The NAB doesn't feel that this James is one of the two James of the Twelve. I'll check some other commentaries tonight.
__________________
Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8246Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5011CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: James_OPL
4344Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: James_OPL
4029OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: B79
3830SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3562Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3223Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3203Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: memphian
3112Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: lewisjoan
3047For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Thomas Choe



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:27 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.