Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is equally plausible that James was Jesus' stepbrother - Joseph's son from prior marriage.
The txt doesn't say that. But it does refer to his brothers in a few places. Why make up a doctrine by arguing from silence while ignoring what is there?
The txt translations say that. But it does refer to his brothers in a few places. Why make up a doctrine by arguing from silence while ignoring what is there?
I know this is tough for a biblical literalist, but the Bible isn't clear on every point. Just because something isn't stated doesn't make it less true. As others have noted, when Mary was suffering at the sight of her son being killed, none of these purported blood siblings were anywhere to be found. Jesus entrusted her care to a non-relative. Maybe these "siblings" did think Jesus was nuts. Did they think Mary was loco, too? So much so that they didn't care to be around her in a time of need? Think.
And just because some English translations use the term "brother" doesn't mean it was in a literal or blood sense. I have sons from two different marriages. They are technically half brothers, but they refer to themselves as brothers. I've known steps to do the same.
I know this is tough for a biblical literalist, but the Bible isn't clear on every point. Just because something isn't stated doesn't make it less true. As others have noted, when Mary was suffering at the sight of her son being killed, none of these purported blood siblings were anywhere to be found. Jesus entrusted her care to a non-relative. Maybe these "siblings" did think Jesus was nuts. Did they think Mary was loco, too? So much so that they didn't care to be around her in a time of need? Think.
And just because some English translations use the term "brother" doesn't mean it was in a literal or blood sense. I have sons from two different marriages. They are technically half brothers, but they refer to themselves as brothers. I've known steps to do the same.
So are you saying that your sons from different mothers are not technically blood brothers? They still do share 25% of each other DNA, meaning they are half brothers instead of whole brothers who share the same DNA from the same mom.
.
Man it told to beware of lie deceptions traditions of men, ! ! !
Col:2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
2Tm:3:1: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2: For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters,
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3: Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4: Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5: Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6: For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women
laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
You have just acknowledged that based on the Bible the case is very strong that Mary did not remain a virgin. And yet, if you choose to disregard the statement of the apostle Matthew who walked with Jesus and who knew Mary, for the sake of the tradition you have been taught, and if you value the word of the Pope over the word of an apostle who walked with Jesus and who personally knew Mary, then you will continue to disregard what is recorded in the Word of God as an historical fact for the sake of that tradition.
Yep Mike. Tradition over what the Word of God says is very dangerous.
So are you saying that your sons from different mothers are not technically blood brothers? They still do share 25% of each other DNA, meaning they are half brothers instead of whole brothers who share the same DNA from the same mom.
Joseph was an old man and likely impotent. He married Mary and did not have sex with her. He even accepted her pregnancy.
That's a man made idea to support a man made idea and not the truth of God. There is no evidence of this and you know it. It's a lie to support a lie. You see when you tell lie's you have to tell more lies to support the first lie.
That's a man made idea to support a man made idea and not the truth of God. There is no evidence of this and you know it. It's a lie to support a lie. You see when you tell lie's you have to tell more lies to support the first lie.
The truth will set you free.
It is not a lie. It is a hypothesis. No different than your hypothesis.
It is religion and not all religions are identical.
And no religion is better than the other.
Protestants pick and choose what to believe. Don't forget that! Nothing wrong by having differences between Catholicism and Protestants. In fact, there are many differences among the different Protestant sects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
It is not a lie. It is a hypothesis. No different than your hypothesis.
As I said (and probably understated): People are welcome to believe what they want. I believe God is merciful and that nobody is going to be cast into some firey hell or purgatory or whatever over being wrong on this issue.
I have offered up my best guess for why Catholicism came to adopt theories about the life of Mary out of thin air and based upon no credible evidence. Many of said theories stand in stark contradiction to the Jewish culture in which it all presumably occurred. I think that pagan converts have a lot to do with the need to turn Mary into something more than what she actually was. Perpetual virginity is part and parcel to all of that. The pagan converts to Christianity were accustomed to a dynamic, constantly evolving polytheistic pantheon of gods and godesses. Elevating Mary and other saints godlike superhuman status -- but just emphaticially stating that they are not in fact gods and godesses -- this seems to have filled some need for these early former pagan converts. The miraculous abilities of saints (both living and dead), the magical properties ascribed to their remains, etc: In any other religion, they are gods and godesses. Catholicism just rejects the use of that particular verbiage. Mary in particular added a feminine figure to worship and revere, something that the early Church was sorely lacking. Every time I hear a woman defending the the RCC position on Mary, they always bring this up with glowing superlatives about how wonderful it is to have Mary, a female figure, to pray to and revere, etc.
Mary remaining a perpetual virgin would have been very controversial. It flies in the face of everything we know about Hebrew culture. The ultimate purpose of any Israelite in any age was to "multipy and replenish the earth" and raise up seed in Israel. Mary and Joseph refusing to even try to raise up seed unto God and Israel? Especially by the fanatical Rabbinical Jewish culture of the day, that would not have been a good thing. It would have been sinful. An act of defiance against God.
But hey, anything is possible. Perhaps Joseph was actually a woman masquerading as a man. Maybe Muslims are right and Jesus never actually died. It's certainly possible that Mary of Magdeline was actually the wife of Jesus. Many theories are possible. All of these theories have something in common with the theory of Mary's perpetual virginity: All of these theories are incredibly unlikely and have no credible evidence supporting them, but I will freely admit they are possible.
So answering the OP's question, "Why do Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?" all we have left us trying to understand why Christians hundreds of years later would invent this theory seemingly out of thin air.
As I said (and probably understated): People are welcome to believe what they want. I believe God is merciful and that nobody is going to be cast into some firey hell or purgatory or whatever over being wrong on this issue.
I have offered up my best guess for why Catholicism came to adopt theories about the life of Mary out of thin air and based upon no credible evidence. Many of said theories stand in stark contradiction to the Jewish culture in which it all presumably occurred. I think that pagan converts have a lot to do with the need to turn Mary into something more than what she actually was. Perpetual virginity is part and parcel to all of that. The pagan converts to Christianity were accustomed to a dynamic, constantly evolving polytheistic pantheon of gods and godesses. Elevating Mary and other saints godlike superhuman status -- but just emphaticially stating that they are not in fact gods and godesses -- this seems to have filled some need for these early former pagan converts. The miraculous abilities of saints (both living and dead), the magical properties ascribed to their remains, etc: In any other religion, they are gods and godesses. Catholicism just rejects the use of that particular verbiage. Mary in particular added a feminine figure to worship and revere, something that the early Church was sorely lacking. Every time I hear a woman defending the the RCC position on Mary, they always bring this up with glowing superlatives about how wonderful it is to have Mary, a female figure, to pray to and revere, etc.
Mary remaining a perpetual virgin would have been very controversial. It flies in the face of everything we know about Hebrew culture. The ultimate purpose of any Israelite in any age was to "multipy and replenish the earth" and raise up seed in Israel. Mary and Joseph refusing to even try to raise up seed unto God and Israel? Especially by the fanatical Rabbinical Jewish culture of the day, that would not have been a good thing. It would have been sinful. An act of defiance against God.
But hey, anything is possible. Perhaps Joseph was actually a woman masquerading as a man. Maybe Muslims are right and Jesus never actually died. It's certainly possible that Mary of Magdeline was actually the wife of Jesus. Many theories are possible. All of these theories have something in common with the theory of Mary's perpetual virginity: All of these theories are incredibly unlikely and have no credible evidence supporting them, but I will freely admit they are possible.
So answering the OP's question, "Why do Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?" all we have left us trying to understand why Christians hundreds of years later would invent this theory seemingly out of thin air.
What a great post!
Ultimately we do not know. And this is religion and many things in Catholicism are based on ancient Christianity which was different as eloquently described above.
Obviously in early Christianity the Virgin and saints were venerated. All you have to do is take a vacation in Europe to see this. Catholicism is OLD and hence keeps all this old traditions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
