Mary and her children


#1

Hello!

I am continually coming across statements such as

and think it time to put this to the test :slight_smile:

So, please, can someone explain to me, using the Bible, how Mary could still be a virgin all her life, and not contradict the following passages?

[list=1]
*]Matthew 1:25,
*]Matthew 12:46-47,
*]Matthew 13:55,
*]Mark 3:31-32,
*]Mark 6:3,
*]Luke 8:19-20,
*]John 2:12,
*]John 7:3-10
[/list]

I am sure there are more, but for now, that will do :wink:

Thanks!

-hvg3


#2

Hello,

I’m a little tired and about done for the night, so this will be brief.

Matthew 1:25 - in Biblical times the use of until didn’t have the meaning it does now. It made a statement at a certain time, with absolutely no implications as to afterwards.

The rest all deal with the “brothers of Jesus”. Refer to the link below.

Read these two articles from the Library:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp


#3

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. **

Jesus did not leave us a book that we have to figure out on our own; He left us a Church built upon a group of men commissioned to preach the full Gospel. When the Early Church Fathers—some of whom were disciples of Peter and John—spoke of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, they knew what they were talking about!

Further, by illustrating Protestant misunderstanding on this one issue, we can begin to understand that Protestants have not been told the whole truth and that Protestantism is incomplete, insufficient and incoherent.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:


#4

Brothers and Sisters of Jesus
Q: The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin…how can you reconcile those seemingly different positions?

A: Mk 6:3 says, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?” We need to realize a few things here about these “brothers and sisters”: #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were “brother” or “sister”. An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, is called his brother.

Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother!

Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the “brothers” of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:


#5

You assume this means that Joseph and Mary started having relations after Jesus was born. Did you ever stop to think how the gospel writer could possibly know when Joseph and Mary started having relations? Did they make a point of telling him? Was he there?

On top of all the other arguments against this understanding of the word “until”, that question alone should give you pause.


#6

Thanks for your quick response, Randy! However, I do find it lacking in certain areas…

First, you have assumed (or the author of this, if you copy-and-pasted it) that because two “characters” share the same name, they must be the same person. Could it not be that the “James” in Matthew 13:55 and the “James” in Galatians 1:18-19 are two different people? Now, I can happily accept the possibility that they are the same person - but can you accept the possibility that they are different people?

This question is important - because my belief does not depend on this possibility. Yours, apparently, does.

Now, assuming that it is the same person, can you show me where the “James” in Galatians 1:18-19 has to be one of the 11 disciples who followed Jesus around? The very fact that people use the “James” in Matthew 13:55 as an example of discrediting Jesus would suggest that they are not the same. The question seems to be asking “How can this man be special? His relatives live here with us!” The question looses its meaning if one of the relatives is standing alongside Jesus, and agrees with him…

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

  1. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.
  1. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.**

Additionally - the use of father’s names to differentiate the apostles sounds like they are being differentiated from not only each other (where only one needs to be named by their father), but from other Jameses - such as the one in Galatians 1:18-19.

I do agree with point six, however :slight_smile: I just don’t think it helps at all at showing that the James talked about being Jesus’ brother was not his brother.

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.

Well, you need a lot more evidence to back up this claim!

You have said:

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

Your problems are:

(i) is “begging the question
(ii) fits quite nicely into Matthew 13:55
(ii) is thus no fit conclusion, as the above two points do not lead anywhere near it :frowning:

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

Forgetting here that there may well be more than two people named “Judas” in Judea 2000 years ago.

(wait…there were two just in the twelve, weren’t there? :wink: )

**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. **

I am sorry, but you fail greatly here in any attempt to “prove” the above statement. Largely, because you assume that two people with the same name have to be the same person. Apart from James (and then, only after His death), it is most likely that Jesus’ siblings did not follow Him around in His ministry - else they would be inside with him in Matthew 13:55, and wouldn’t be listed in addition to His disciples in John 2:12, nor acted the way they did in John 7:3 (“that your disciples also may see the works you are doing” - not “other disciples”). But most of all, John would not have claimed that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Jesus! (John7:5). If they were part of the disciples, if any were in the 12, surely they would have believed!

(part one…too many characters)


#7

((part 2))

No, I feel your answers were less than satisfactory, based upon faulty logic, and an incorrect belief in the rarity of names. And, you seemingly skimmed over the verses you could not answer - such as John 7:3-10, and of course, Matthew 1:25 (“But he had no union with her **until **she gave birth to a son”)

Jesus did not leave us a book that we have to figure out on our own; He left us a Church built upon a group of men commissioned to preach the full Gospel. When the Early Church Fathers—some of whom were disciples of Peter and John—spoke of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, they knew what they were talking about!

If this were true, if Jesus did leave us a church that “knew what they were talking about” when they spoke of the “Perpetual Virginity”, why do your answers rest on such faulty logic, vague assumptions, and ignoring of verses?

Further, by illustrating Protestant misunderstanding on this one issue, we can begin to understand that Protestants have not been told the whole truth and that Protestantism is incomplete, insufficient and incoherent.

Well, were you ever to show such “Protestant misunderstanding”, I for one would be eager to hear it. I do not want to misunderstand anything!

But, after the “argument” you have provided, I cannot help by feel that you are being rather arrogant, rude, and unloving when you make such a claim as “Protestantism is incomplete, insufficient and incoherent”

:frowning:

-hvg3


#8

Chew on this. If the bible had anything that contradicted Catholic teaching, wouldn’t the Catholic Church have removed it sometimes during the fist 1000 years before the Orthodox split off, if not then surely before the Protestant reformation in the 1500’s.

Luther even had enough since to toss out some books that contradicted his views.


#9

Hi! That was very strange, however - the first time I came to this thread, only Randy Carson’s messages showed. This time, yours popped in, before his! :slight_smile:

Matthew 1:25 - in Biblical times the use of until didn’t have the meaning it does now. It made a statement at a certain time, with absolutely no implications as to afterwards.

“Please prove it. You made the assertion, so back it up.”

:wink:

The rest all deal with the “brothers of Jesus”. Refer to the link below.

Read these two articles from the Library:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

I will assume that Randy has summarised these? If he missed anything, please let me know :slight_smile:

I think it is rather safe to assume that many kids means sexual intercourse has occurred. The gospel writer would need to know no more than Jesus had siblings to make this statement. That’s even before we look to God’s inspiration of his writing :wink:

naturally, however, I will turn the question back on you:

Did you ever stop to think how the gospel writer could possibly know that Joseph and Mary didn’t have relations whilst she was pregnant? Did they make a point of telling him? Was he there?

On top of all the other arguments against this understanding of the word “until”, that question alone should give you pause.

No, with the rest of the passages, it makes perfect sense :slight_smile: The only pause I see is when people try to tell me that Mary had no other children. Then I pause - :confused: and wonder what on earth they are basing that on.

-hvg3


#10

What happened to Uzzah when he touched the ark of the covenant? And that one only held a mere glimpse of what was to come. How much greater an infringement upon the domain of God had Joseph breached the perfected ark which held none other than the Lord Almighty!


#11

Until:

It’s argued that Joseph “knew” Mary at some point because Matthew 1:25 reads, “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son…” But, once again, language clouds the issue. “Until” is used to mean “up to that point, and with no intimations that things changed after that point.” Example, 2 Samuel 6:23 reads, “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.” Would Protestants say she had children after the day of her death because the use of the word “unto” proves it? What about 1 Samuel 15:35? “And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.” I really doubt Samuel and Saul hooked up after his death, either! 1 Timothy 6:14 says, “That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” What? After that it’s going to be one big orgy? I don’t think so! And the same goes for:
[LIST]
*]Genesis 8:7: "the raven “did not return *until *the waters were dried up” (the raven never returned even after the waters were dried up);
*]Deuteronomy 34:6: “and no one knows his [Moses’] grave *until *this day.” (Moses’ grave was never found)
*]Luke 1:80: “[St. John the Baptist] was in the deserts *until *the day of his manifestation to Israel.” (St. John stayed in the desert afterwards, too)
*]1 Corinthians 15:25: “For He must reign *until *He has put all enemies under His feet” (Christ will reign forever and ever!)
*]1 Timothy 4:13: “*until *I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine” (Trust me, St. Paul gave a lot of attention to doctrine after he came!)
*]Revelation 2:25-26: “But hold fast what you have *until *I come. And he who overcomes and keeps My works *until *the end, to him I will give power” (we should hold fast and obey even after Jesus returns) [/LIST]And there are more examples. See what Origen (A.D. 185-232) had to say about the use of the word “until” in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. In this work, he refutes those who think “that the promise of the Saviour prescribes a limit of time to their not tasting of death, namely, that they will not taste of death “until” they see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom.” Read also what St. Jerome (A.D. 340-430) wrote on the same topic.

Did you ever stop to think how the gospel writer could possibly know that Joseph and Mary didn’t have relations whilst she was pregnant? Did they make a point of telling him? Was he there?

You make the Bible out to be a totally human book–the Holy Spirit inspired the authors. The truths they wrote were not all necessarily from natural knowledge.


#12

:confused:
Leviticus 25:49
An **uncle **or a **cousin **or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.

(emphasis mine)

dod dod” - from an unused root meaning properly to ‘boil’, that is, (figuratively) to ‘love’; by implication a ‘love token’, ‘lover’, ‘friend’; specifically an ‘uncle’: - (well-) beloved, father’s brother, love, uncle.

Sure, the term for “cousin” is not a single word (“uncle’s son”), but “uncle” is definitely in there.

The same term is used in Numbers 36:11 and Esther 2:7, amongst other places. They certainly had the word/s to describe the situation of uncles and cousins.

But, after all, the gospels were not written in Hebrew or Aramaic, they were written in Greek, as was:
Colossians 4:10 - My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the **cousin **of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.)

(emphasis mine)

anepsios” - properly ‘akin’, that is, (specifically) a ‘cousin’: - sister’s son.

This argument bears no weight at all. Sorry.

Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother!

:frowning: that is a very poor argument there. I am glad that you only made it a “point to consider”, that is good.

From John 7, we know that Jesus’ brothers did not believe. Mary apparently did. Why could this not simply be looking after her in a Christian setting, as opposed to the Jewish setting her own sons would provide?

Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the “brothers” of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary.

Refuted earlier.

And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15

Ah…do you not recall what Jesus’ response was to people telling his mother and (blood) brothers were outside?

Matthew 12:49
Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.

Acts 1 happens after this. For Christians, the term “brother” was changed from what the Jews used. You cannot confuse a Christian “brother” (care of Acts 1:14) with a Jewish “brother” (care of Matthew 12:47)

-hvg3


#13

The word “brother” or “brethren” is often used in Scripture for relationships other than that of those born of the same parents:

[LEFT]**Verse/****People Involved/**Relationship
Genesis 11:26-28, Genesis 14:14/Lot - Abraham/nephew - uncle
Genesis 29:15/Jacob - Laban/nephew - uncle
1 Chronicles 23:21-22/Children of Kish and Eleazar/cousins
2 Kings 10:13-14/42 “brethren” of King Azariah/kinsmen
Deuteronomy 23:7, Jeremiah 34:9 /All Jews/practitioners of the same religion
Matthew 23:8/all who love Christ/members of the Church
John 20:17-18,Matthew 12:49/Christ - His disciples/Savior - saved
1 Corinthians 15:6/500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ/strangers[/LEFT]


#14

Either that, or kept the Bible in a language most people did not understand (eg…latin?) whilst inventing “Traditions” that (poorly) explained away the errors.

Chew on this: If the Bible had anything that contradicted Roman Catholic teaching, but you had been taught that the Roman Catholic teaching was correct, would you want to cut out the offensive part of the bible, or just say “Ah, but your interpretation isn’t infallible. Ours is!”?

Luther even had enough since to toss out some books that contradicted his views.

His views, and the Bible’s views :wink:

I am sorry, but I see no relevance to the topic at hand here…?


#15

Heh, who could read? And those that did, what language?

Chew on this: If the Bible had anything that contradicted Roman Catholic teaching, but you had been taught that the Roman Catholic teaching was correct, would you want to cut out the offensive part of the bible, or just say “Ah, but your interpretation isn’t infallible. Ours is!”?

No dice. The bible brought me into the Catholic Church. Every other “flavor” of Christianity contradicts themselves to it. And besides, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. Singular, not plural. So only one faith tradition can be right. I’ll go with what He set up, thank you.

I am sorry, but I see no relevance to the topic at hand here…?

You’ve got over 1800 years of thought and teaching against you, the idea that the Blessed Mother wasn’t a perpetual virgin wasn’t common until the 1800’s. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I’d like your thoughts on the typology of Mary and the ark of the covenant.


#16

It is rather bad form to argue the use of a Greek word by the usage of a Hebrew word that translates into the same English word :frowning:

1 Timothy 6:14 says, “That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” What? After that it’s going to be one big orgy? I don’t think so! And the same goes for:

[LIST]
*]Luke 1:80: “[St. John the Baptist] was in the deserts *until *the day of his manifestation to Israel.” (St. John stayed in the desert afterwards, too)
*]1 Corinthians 15:25: “For He must reign *until *He has put all enemies under His feet” (Christ will reign forever and ever!)
*]1 Timothy 4:13: “*until *I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine” (Trust me, St. Paul gave a lot of attention to doctrine after he came!)
*]Revelation 2:25-26: “But hold fast what you have *until *I come. And he who overcomes and keeps My works *until *the end, to him I will give power” (we should hold fast and obey even after Jesus returns) [/LIST]

These examples are better :slight_smile:

However, there is one unanimous difference between them and the Matthew passage.

They are all about positives.

“Keep this commandment”
“was in the desert”
“He must reign”
“Give attention to reading…”
“Hold fast what you have”

compared to the negative

“he had no union with her”

Now, despite the difference of the terms, also note that in each of these situations, there is a change with the “until”.

“Keep this commandment” until Jesus returns. Then there will be no sin, and thus no need to be told to keep commandments.
“was in the desert” until he appeared publicly - and thus was not in the desert as much as he was before. It was also important for the prophecies that he came from the desert.
“He must reign” until all enemies are underfoot - after then he will reign. This is more assurance - it must happen, this must happen first.
“Give attention to reading…” until Paul comes - the direction was to do this in the time until Paul arrived. Then, things would change - Paul would teach them! yes, these things would continue, but in a different way than before.
“Hold fast what you have” until Jesus comes. Again, once we are in heaven, we will not need to hold fast, for the race will be over! We will not suffer under temptation, nor will we fall victim of sin.

So “he had no union with her” until Jesus was born very much sounds like it was a situation that occurred (to fulfil prophesy) until a change happened (Jesus being born). There is no reason for it to have continued, and there is no Biblical evidence that it did continue.

Thus, the conclusion that it did continue needs a heck of a lot of backing up.

You make the Bible out to be a totally human book–the Holy Spirit inspired the authors. The truths they wrote were not all necessarily from natural knowledge.

First, that was pretty much a quote from one of your fellow Roman Catholics, I merely changed a word or two :wink:

Secondly, having this great, inspired book - would it not state, within the book, that Mary were a perpetual virgin, if indeed she was? Would the authors not have been inspired to use unambiguous language to describe these events which, when viewed without the cloud of Tradition, clearly teach that Mary had other children? Why would God inspire His own authors of His own Word to write so poorly and mistakenly, unless that is exactly what he meant?


#17

Uh-oh, you’re beginning to tip you hand here. You’ve been pretty ecumenical to deal with up til now, but your anti-catholic bias (or that of whoever told you this “fact”) is beginning to show.

What makes you think that Latin wasn’t understood among the learned? What makes you think that in any culture, that Latin was not more widely used than their own local vernacular. This ranges from roughly 300-400Ad til somewhere in the 1700’s (give or take a 100 years each way).

Chew on this: If the Bible had anything that contradicted Roman Catholic teaching, but you had been taught that the Roman Catholic teaching was correct, would you want to cut out the offensive part of the bible, or just say “Ah, but your interpretation isn’t infallible. Ours is!”?

The difference is, we have an established authority, tracing it back to the Apostles. We have corroborating testimonies for every century of our 2000 year existence.

You have a man in the 15th century, of who you don’t even follow his teachings anymore. HIs fruit has produced 100’s of branches, each with a Holy Spirit guided interpretation that yet conflicts with the next Holy Spirit guided church.


#18

Again, OT = Hebrew language, NT = Greek language.

Genesis 14:14 - “ach” can mean brother, or in the wider sense of a literal relationship or metaphorical affinity or resemblance. Note this is a Hebrew word, not a Greek one.

If your translation has “brother”, a better translation for you might be the NIV or ESV, which give: kinsman or relative.

Matthew 23:8/all who love Christ/members of the Church
John 20:17-18,Matthew 12:49/Christ - His disciples/Savior - saved
1 Corinthians 15:6/500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ/strangers

Yup, this is the new meaning of the greek term “adelphos”, which the Jews used for ‘blood’ relationships (eg Matt 12:47), but Jesus changed to mean “spiritual” relationships (eg Matt 12:48).


#19

I realise that not many people could read - however, they could still listen.

As to what language people who could read could read in, it would depend on what was taught.

But let me ask this - why was Latin continually taught? Why not let the one who wants to learn to read, read in his own language?

And then - for those who couldn’t read, why not let them hear it in their own language?

No dice. The bible brought me into the Catholic Church. Every other “flavor” of Christianity contradicts themselves to it. And besides, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. Singular, not plural. So only one faith tradition can be right. I’ll go with what He set up, thank you.

Well, please, start up a thread that explains how other “flavours” of Christianity contradict themselves to it. I would most like to know.

Yes, Jesus is singular. The churches of Roman Catholicism are not. Else, why would some believe that Mary is a perpetual virgin, whilst others are taught that she is not?

You’ve got over 1800 years of thought and teaching against you, the idea that the Blessed Mother wasn’t a perpetual virgin wasn’t common until the 1800’s. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

OK, you are wrong :wink: The early church did not think so. Look to the above verses in the first post - do they sound like they were written by people who thought Mary was always a virgin?

I’d like your thoughts on the typology of Mary and the ark of the covenant.

…:eek:

You are trying to compare mary and the ark? I have to admit, that is the first time i have heard that! Please, argue your case from the Bible.


#20

No, sorry, you hear me wrong.

I am not arguing for the “learned”, but among the “unlearned”. Those who could not afford to learn Latin (and possibly not to read, either). Those who came along to hear God’s gospel, but could only hear it in a language that was incomprehensible to them. Those who just had to accept what others told them the Bible said, because not only could they not read it for themselves, but they could not even understand it being read to them.

It seems very much against the way the apostles brought the word to others to keep it in one set language, and not try to adapt for the benefit of others.

The difference is, we have an established authority, tracing it back to the Apostles.

So, in essence, you hide behind a sheet, and refuse to face my question? - When faced with the possibility of a contradiction between your Traditions and the Bible, you do not even have an answer :frowning:

As for “tracing it back to the Apostles”, this is another cyclic argument. The Tradition says it is from the Apostles, therefore it is from the Apostles…

We have corroborating testimonies for every century of our 2000 year existence. You have a man in the 15th century, of who you don’t even follow his teachings anymore.

And even then, if that were all we had, I would look at this and say “How can they be so wrong?”.

Fortunately, it isn’t. So the RC took over the earthly church after a few hundred years, and it took close to a thousand years for people to break free again - why should we follow “a man in the 15th century” over Jesus? Why do you follow a man of this century over Jesus?

HIs fruit has produced 100’s of branches, each with a Holy Spirit guided interpretation that yet conflicts with the next Holy Spirit guided church.

If contradiction was the only thing that proved someone wrong, it would not just be the Protestants that were wrong, but RC and the Orthodox church as well!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.