The Perpetual Virginity of Mary --an offshoot from the thread on How and Why to Pray to Mary

[Tantum ergo]

For 1600 years some of the greatest theologians in the world read Scripture and found absolutely no indication that the Scriptural use of 'brothers' indicated 'blood siblings of the Lord'. They read (as we do) the passages, noted how said siblings could all be seen to have a diffferent mother from Mary the Virgin Mother of Christ. They read through Scripture as a whole, without cherrypicking, noting the 'foreshadowing' of the Old Testament and how it paralleled events in the New Testament. They read Revelation in its marvelous nuanced and multilayered prose. They read in addition works of the Early Church Fathers, who had benefited from both Scripture and the Sacred Tradition (oral) handed down from the apostles.

For 1600 years all Christendom read God-breathed, inspired Scripture and understood that Mary was not only Virgin but ever-Virgin, and that the bread and wine offered in the Eucharist was not 'only' bread and wine but became consecrated by the priest into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Christ, as clearly shown in John Chapter 6.

Then. . . some men developed 'itching ears' and started to flatly contradict Scripture.

Never mind that Scripture clearly showed all those 'brothers' were not children of Mary. But "brothers" to these men meant uterine brothers, and even though Scripture contradicted them, they insisted it be 'their way'.

Never mind that Scripture clearly shows that Jesus was presenting His Body and Blood for us to eat and drink. . .literally. . .so much so that most of His followers left Him because the saying was 'too hard for them'. But these 'new' men were sure that Christ 'meant' this only 'figuratively'. (That this belief would negate the use of priests or clerics to consecrate the Eucharist was a coincidence only). To hades with 1600 years of Scriptural teaching of this as literal Truth. The 'men' insist that Scripture is to be read 'their way' ALONE.

In fact, using "alone" as the ultimate 'end' to a sentence is practically a hallmark of this type (not all) of Protestant teaching.

It is so sad to see this muddle brought out of people who are so caught up with 'themselves' that they would deny and defy the God they think that they alone follow and know.

[GeorgiaPeach]

Justasking4: Just to refresh your memory, here is post #778...

Originally Posted by Randy Carson

Let me take a crack at this...

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

2. James, the Lord's “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

5. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.

[justasking4]

Part 1

guanophore;4125522]
Originally Posted by justasking4
You both did not address the question i asked: "He never taught that a husband and wife should be celibate for the entirety of their marriage."

guanophore
It is not a question. It was an assertion, an absurd one, and a strawman.

Nonsense. This is a question you need to answer. Hopefully you will below...

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Even if Paul himself was not married and encourages others not to marry still does not address the issue with those who are married.

guanophore
I agree, but making a statement like this: "even if Paul himself...." demonstrates that you are not accepting the testimony of scripture that Paul was a celibate.

At the time of his apostleship he may have been but we don't know much of his past before his Damacus road encounter to say.

He also encouraged celibacy.

True under certain conditions. Never as a permanent state for the married.

When he said "in view of the present time" he was referring to what he perceived as the imminent return of Christ. For that reason, it would not concern him at all if the married continued in celibacy.

Maybe

What do you think this verse means?
"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none..." 1 Cor 7:28-29

I think the footnote from the New American Bible sums it up when it says: [29-31] The world . . . is passing away: Paul advises Christians to go about the ordinary activities of life in a manner different from those who are totally immersed in them and unaware of their transitoriness.
I can agree with this. Would you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Did he ever exhort them not to have sex in their marriage as a permanent condition in the marriage itself?

guanophore
Whether or not you can understand this will depend upon the answer to the question above, but in any case, the things that Paul was saying in Corinthians are spoken under differenct circumstances from Mary, who was given to Joseph so he could be her guardian, not a source of sexual relations.

This is all speculations on your part. There is no evidence for this in any passage of Scripture.


[quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
True. That is your responsibilty since you are making the claim. I have the burden of proof to show otherwise and have done so.

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by guanophore

Part 2
guanophore
And you still have not addressed post # 788, have you? Unless and until you do that you are all smoke and mirrors. Claiming to have "proven" something from scripture while deliberately excluding part of the scriptural evidence is disingenuous.

Nonsense. I have a number of passages that clearly support my position. Those are the ones you need to refute and have failed to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
It is not necessary for the word to be in Scripture to be true. What is necessary if it is true is to have some facts to back it up. Its this very thing that separates Christianity from all other non Christian beliefs.

guanophore
This is a direct refutation of Sola Scriptura. If all that is needed is contained in the Scripture, then we would not need to come up with any words not found in Scripture, would we?

What i said does not refute SS. Nice try....


SS has to do with doctinal authority and practice which is derived from the Scriptures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
No one needs my permission to believe. What is at issue here is the truth, belief and the claims of the Catholic church as being the only authority to properly interpret the Scriptures. It may not matter to you but it does to me.

guanophore
No, but other people do need your permission to hold their beliefs without your constant detractions. The reason it requires permission is because you are the one engaged in the campaign to change their minds. Since you believe that you have found your "truth", how is it that you cannot go your way in peace? Why should it matter to you what other people believe and practice, since you have made up your mind that it is only "opinion"?

It appears you don't understand the nature of these forumns that gives all of us to express our beliefs and discuss them. I find many on these forumns who challenge my positions all the time and i expect it. In fact i know they are dead set to change my mind and that's fine with me....

You seem to see yourself on a mission here at CAF to pursuade others that the Catholic church is NOT the only authority to properly interpret the scriptures,and that you have this authority yourself.

And what is your "mission" here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Now lets get specific. Now lets get specific. Who began the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin? We know the apostles never taught such a thing.

guanophore
That was God's plan for her life. You don't know that the Apostles taught this because you have not received the Apostolic Teaching from their successors,and you cannot "see" the scriptural evidence due to your anti-Catholic blinders.

You claim this quite a bit but when i ask for support for this assertion i get nothing... I guess this is the best a catholic can do..

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I see many wanting to use the fathers as some kind of definitive authority on what the entire early church throughout the world believed. I have yet to see evidence for that.

guanophore
Again, your perceptions are clouded by rejecting the truth. The truth is that the Sacred Traditions are found throughout the ECF's. It is the Sacred Tradition that is authoritative, whereever it is found.

Does this then mean that everything a church father wrote is Sacred Tradition and authortative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Are you saying that the Catholic church offically says what the early fathers wrote is Sacred Tradition?

guanophore
I addressed this with the above statement. you are still trying to nail jello to the wall, ja4.

It sure seems that way with you....

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I don't think you know either.

guanophore
That is ok! As it turns out, what you think has absolutely no impact on the Truth, which comes from Jesus. Your efforts to make yourself equal with Him as an authority will not be successful. The only result is that you embarass yourself

I learn something from you almost everytime we engage. Now i'm making myself " equal with Him as an authority". Only a picture could respond better than words on this one---



Quote:

Originally Posted by justasking4
Huh? If i already have a number of clear passage that make the connection that Jesus had blood brothers via Mary then these other passages that appear to show otherwise would not negate those that do.

guanophore
Because you are taking the passages out of context, and it is the practice of an ignorant and narrow minded person. That is why I say it is embarrassing. If there are other passages that mention the same persons and those other passages make it clear that the persons are not uterine brothers of Jesus, then you refuse to take them into consideration because of you fear of losing your preconceived notions....I don't know what else to say

.
You have never demonstrated from the passages i use that these brothers are not of Mary while i have repeated pointed out that if the authors wanted to say they were cousins or relatives they would have used words to convey that concept. We both know they did not.

You are free to take whatever passages you want, and connect them however you like. All I am saying is that it makes you look ridiculous.

I actually think its the other way around. Its poor exergesis of the passages that is extremely troubling on the Catholic side.

[savienu]

JA4, are you deliberately ignoring post 788 (reposted for you above)?

I really have to wonder why you are so afraid to address the "brothers of the Lord" issue when it is shown to you in context...

[Tantum ergo]

Post 788 represents the 1600 'unbroken' years for all Christians, and what we Catholics still believe today. While I'm not saying that "only" Catholics believe this (I am sure we have some Protestants who do believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, and I believe the Orthodox do as well) still we are certainly the largest 'single' group of Christians (at this time). Even if we were a tiny minority--a 'remnant' such as once existed in Judaism--we would still hold to that one, holy, catholic and apostolic teaching as firmly as we do to all the others that 'men' seek to 'change' to suit themselves.

I'm not surprised that there are some who, even with clear Scriptural evidence, will 'cling' to a couple of hundred year's worth of man-made teaching rather than face to them the unthinkable--that Catholicism is 'correct' (or at least 'more correct' than Protestantism of any save that ilk which does believe in Mary's perpetual virginity) here--and if here, what else might it not be 'correct' about and what else might the Protestant faith he has professed been 'wrong' about. . .and biggest questions of all --

WHY and HOW did that protestantism err so greatly? Since this was a 'pre-existing' teaching (despite huge attempts to make it a 'late' or 'invented' one by some protestants trying desperately not to 'believe' it), then there must have been a 'reason' to try to teach something 'different' from what Scripture actually says. The fact that some men tried to do this (and what Scripture itself says about 'adding or removing from Scripture' not to mention 'false gospels') must be extremely frightening for such a protestant to contemplate. . .for if he acknowledges Catholics are 'right' in this, he pretty much has to believe that those who taught differently are guilty of the above deep wrongs.

[GailMac]

Dear JA - You state: "You both did not address the question i asked: "He never taught that a husband and wife should be celibate for the entirety of their marriage." Even if Paul himself was not married and encourages others not to marry still does not address the issue with those who are married. Did he ever exhort them not to have sex in their marriage as a permanent condition in the marriage itself?" Ummmmmmmmmm..............

Yes I did, but you ignored it. SOOOOOOOOOO......I'll repeat myself with your question answered in focus.

Here we have 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7 and the verse is 5 It says ---5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

Now notice it says to refrain from sexual intimacy for a time. It doesn't say how long a time! This is at the discretion of the parites, the husband and wife. "For a time" could be a week, a month, a year, a lifetime.

I know that folks like Justasking will point to the rest of the passage, "and then return together again," to show St Paul didn't mean a life time and so vowing to abstain from relations in marriage would seem to go against this advise. You might want to look at more of the same Chapter for clarification. There you will see that St. Paul himself stating (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as is all of this book of the Bible) that it isn't a "command" but a suggestion, advice, council, etc......Pretty strong advise, but still not a command.

Verse 6: But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment."

This would mean that the persons choosing to abstain for relations for a time to pray or making a sacrifice of their conjugal love, are not bound under penalty of sin should they not carry out this bit of advice to the letter.

So, putting it all together here we clearly see, (unless you don't really want to) advise given to married couples regarding their sexual intimacy and abstaining from relations for a period of time and the length of this period of time isn't mentioned, which leaves it pretty open. So, I would say if a married couple decided to give up their sexual relations as a living oblation before God and agreed to do so, they would be able to receive the blessing of the Church, even in St. Paul's day. Obviously this was a practice that needed addressing and that is what prompted St. Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit, to write this letter. Please see the opening of the Chapter, verse1, "Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good......" It is easy to see St. Paul writing in response to some questions and thus we have this part of his letter.

Well, Justasking, I hope that is clearer for you to see. I am no theologian by a long shot, I'm no expert at anything except breathing. But if a silly little laywoman like me can get this stuff, surely you aught to try harder in understanding that of which we teach. I still think you aught to become a Catholic and then you could get over all your doubts and failings and have lots more time on your hands for prayers which God only knows folks need instead of wasting it arguing with fools like me.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. Jusasking have you every really asked God in a heart-felt way to reveal His Truth to you? I mean reeeeeealllly ASK Him? Beg Him on your bended knees at the side of your bed to show you if all of what we say were actually true?
And then LISTEN for the reply in your heart rather then in your head? I wish you would.

[GailMac]

Thank you Tantum Ergo!

You stated: "Mary's maintenance of her purity underscored the fact that she was not 'a tool' or a 'thing' or. . .worst yet--somebody who was already 'promised' to Joseph yet 'usurped' by God, used, and then 'thrown back' to Joseph.

Only if Mary were a 'consecrated virgin' --that is, planned to be a perpetual virgin--does God become instead of a vile seducer AND an adulterer a truly 'righteous' God. For if Mary and Joseph were a 'normal betrothed couple' planning on normal sexual relations after marriage, for God to 'impregnate' Mary would have been the usurpation of Joseph's role. . .and for Joseph to then 'have' Mary afterward would have been unthinkable. For God to 'use' Mary in this way and then casually 'permit' her to be not only 'mother' to HIS son but 'mother' to Joseph's children would have been unthinkable."

And that is exactly why some of us holler "blasphemy" when some Protestants and even some so called Catholics, begin suggesting Mary and Joseph having relations. I'd also like to say, some men are so vile in their way of living that they still wouldn't have a problem with God behaving exactly the way they do. Like Bp Fulton Sheen talked all about - the ego of man so dysfunctional that he makes himself out to be a god! Then they think God should act and think just like themselves!

I'm a woman, and I listen differently to how some men talk about Mary. It sends up big red flags to me about how they feel all women should be treated and I shudder!

Peace,

Gail

[GailMac]

Dear Justasking - I'm so glad you brought us back to the Scripture passage with this statement ---- "You have never demonstrated from the passages i use that these brothers are not of Mary while i have repeated pointed out that if the authors wanted to say they were cousins or relatives they would have used words to convey that concept. We both know they did not."

And you have failed to demonstrate that GOD is the person suggesting that these are blood brothers to Jesus. The persons talking in the passage are folks God rebukes for their lack of faith. Jesus, who by the way IS God, speaks in the passage and says: "A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house."

I also ask you if they had posed this question to Jesus and the crowd - "...........and is he not from Mars!" would you be defending the Sola Scriptura position that Jesus came from Mars simple because someone asked the question?

The price they pay for their timerity in suggesting that Jesus had blood brothers and was merely a man among men is this: "58 And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief."

54 And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things? 57 And they were scandalized in his regard. But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58 And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief.
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat013.htm

Once again, in the passage there are three parties talking, the narrator Saint Matthew, some non-belivers, and Jesus Himself. The passage concludes with the narrator speaking, Saint Matthew. You keep shifting the speech to say the persons asking the questions are God, and elevate the questions to god-like authority ignoring the FACT that God does speak in the passage - He rebukes those who question Him. What they are actually questioning is His authority, His messianic mission, His miracles, His divinity. The method they choose is to strip Him of His virginal birth by hinting that Mary may not have been the Virgin everyone thought she was.

Why is this so clear to me when I read it -- you're whole premise is the exact same thing they did at that time. You're repeating the same mistake those questioning God did on that very day in Nazareth! Why you don't see the paralell in your approach is beyond me? I wish you COULD answer honestly. I know you can't. I'll pray for you some more.

Peace,

Gail

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by justasking4

Nonsense. This is a question you need to answer. Hopefully you will below...

1 Cor 7:29
" I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none,

Do you think he intended a period of time? And if so, why did he not say so?

Originally Posted by justasking4

At the time of his apostleship he may have been but we don't know much of his past before his Damacus road encounter to say.

Oh! Do you think he followed his own advice, even though married, to live as though he had no wife? How is this consistent with God's intention for marriage?

Originally Posted by justasking4

True under certain conditions. Never as a permanent state for the married.

Please explain how "from now on" is temporary?

Originally Posted by justasking4

Maybe

well, make up your mind!

Originally Posted by justasking4

I think the footnote from the New American Bible sums it up when it says: [29-31] The world . . . is passing away: Paul advises Christians to go about the ordinary activities of life in a manner different from those who are totally immersed in them and unaware of their transitoriness.
I can agree with this. Would you?

I can't believe you are using an external resource, a Catholic footnote, no less, to interpret scripture. I have to save this one to a file.

If you can agree that Mary and Joseph, in view of the fact they had been given responsibility for the Savior of the World, chose to go about theri life in a manner totally different, then yes.

[quote=justasking4;4125832] This is all speculations on your part. There is no evidence for this in any passage of Scripture.

Originally Posted by justasking4

True. That is your responsibilty since you are making the claim. I have the burden of proof to show otherwise and have done so.

No. You have no credibility at all, since you refused to examine the contents of post # 778. You have disqualified yourself!

Originally Posted by justasking4

Nonsense. I have a number of passages that clearly support my position. Those are the ones you need to refute and have failed to do so.

It was done in # 778, but are apparently afraid to look. I don't blame you. It is very difficult to read that, study it, and still cling to the erroneous notion you purport.

Originally Posted by justasking4

SS has to do with doctinal authority and practice which is derived from the Scriptures.

Yes, I understand this. What we are lacking is anything in the scripture that states this authority exists in the scriptures alone.

Originally Posted by justasking4

It appears you don't understand the nature of these forumns that gives all of us to express our beliefs and discuss them. I find many on these forumns who challenge my positions all the time and i expect it. In fact i know they are dead set to change my mind and that's fine with me....

No, ja4, I think the consensus here is that nothing you read here will change your mind. It is also the consensus that you are not here to learn. You yourself have made it clear that you desire to show Catholics their error, and convert us into 'bible christians".

What I am noticing is that you seem to use CAF as a forum for you evangelistic efforts.

Originally Posted by justasking4

And what is your "mission" here?

To study my faith, and learn how to communicate about it intelligently. As a supporter of CAF, it is also my responsibility to preserve the mission of CAF. That mission is to provide Catholic answers to persons who genuinely are looking for information about Catholicism. CAF is not here to provide you with a venue to ply your theological wares.

Originally Posted by justasking4

You claim this quite a bit but when i ask for support for this assertion i get nothing... I guess this is the best a catholic can do..

Even a non-Catholic can recognize that you refuse the Apostolic Teachings.

Originally Posted by justasking4

Does this then mean that everything a church father wrote is Sacred Tradition and authortative?

All of Sacred Tradition that is referenced in the ECF's is authoritative, just as all scripture referenced by them is. It is in part due to these references that the canon was able to be identified.

Originally Posted by justasking4

It sure seems that way with you....

Were you trying to nail me to the wall too?

You will not be able to grasp the nature an extent of Sacred Tradition until you can master some basic concepts that seem to have eluded you.

Originally Posted by justasking4

I learn something from you almost everytime we engage. Now i'm making myself " equal with Him as an authority". Only a picture could respond better than words on this one--

I agree. The way you make yourself equal with Christ makes me nauseus too!

Originally Posted by justasking4

.
You have never demonstrated from the passages i use that these brothers are not of Mary while i have repeated pointed out that if the authors wanted to say they were cousins or relatives they would have used words to convey that concept. We both know they did not.

There is no point trying to go any further, since you are still stumped on # 778. After we get through those passages, we might be able to move on. If you persist in fear to avoid them, then I think we are stuck here.

Originally Posted by justasking4

I actually think its the other way around. Its poor exergesis of the passages that is extremely troubling on the Catholic side.

It seems that you have a persistent pattern of trying to give your problems to Catholics. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps you don't realize that it is you that is troubled, not Catholics?

[Good Fella]

Originally Posted by justasking4

Even if Paul himself was not married and encourages others not to marry still does not address the issue with those who are married. Did he ever exhort them not to have sex in their marriage as a permanent condition in the marriage itself?

According to Judaic tradition, Moses chose to remain continent for the remainder of his life with God's full approval. The rabbis explain that Moses made this choice because he was aware that he was chosen to personally commune with God, not only on Mount Sinai, but through the forty years of sojournment in the desert. Thus Moses kept himself "apart from woman" in a sanctifying state of separation to devote his undivided entire self to God's service.
Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19:3; 46:3

Moses had a wife by the name of Zipporah, a Cushite, whom he eventually separated from. There is a debate whether she left him because she didn't like his "prophesying".

PAX

[savienu]

Originally Posted by Good Fella

According to Judaic tradition, Moses chose to remain continent for the remainder of his life with God's full approval. The rabbis explain that Moses made this choice because he was aware that he was chosen to personally commune with God, not only on Mount Sinai, but through the forty years of sojournment in the desert. Thus Moses kept himself "apart from woman" in a sanctifying state of separation to devote his undivided entire self to God's service.
Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19:3; 46:3

Moses had a wife by the name of Zipporah, a Cushite, whom he eventually separated from. There is a debate whether she left him because she didn't like his "prophesying".

PAX

Good point. Of course that's "Tradition" so I doubt JA4 will believe it.

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by savienu

Good point. Of course that's "Tradition" so I doubt JA4 will believe it.

No, probably not. He will not even accept the testimony of Scripture itself, as he has demonstrated by avoiding post # 778.

[Good Fella]

Originally Posted by savienu

Good point. Of course that's "Tradition" so I doubt JA4 will believe it.

The only tradition JA4 accepts is his own personal one.

Have you read the Gospel of JA4?

Here's Chapter 1, Verse 1:

In the beginning was the written Word,
and the written Word was with God,
and the written Word was God.

By the way, Mary was a devout Jew who was aware of and observed Judaic Tradition.

PAX

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by Good Fella

The only tradition JA4 accepts is his own personal one.

Have you read the Gospel of JA4?

Here's Chapter 1, Verse 1:

In the beginning was the written Word,
and the written Word was with God,
and the written Word was God.

By the way, Mary was a devout Jew who was aware of and observed Judaic Tradition.

PAX

Do you mean to insinuate that the older women of her community educated her about how women get pregnant!?