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.
Apostolic Tradition is just that. A tradition. Not a valid basis for any doctrine. There is no evidence that it predates the writing of the Gospels. That is a claim by the Catholic church that is not supported by any evidence.
We don't "know" that Mary was perpetually a virgin. Nor do we "know" that she had no other children. That is your claim, but it isn't knowledge.
Saying something is true because the Vatican says it is true is quite naive.
That's really dicey. You are basing an entire doctrine on one possible translation of one word, written by somebody that didn't even witness the event being described. We don't know when Joseph and Mary were planning to marry, nor do we know exactly what was said in the conversation Mary had with the angel, so the "how could it be" comment can't be placed in context. We do know that Jesus had brothers. We have no information indicating they were step-brothers or half-brothers. The most straightforward explanation is that Jesus was simply the oldest of the children borne by Mary.
Cousins, nephews, even followers of Jesus were all called 'brother' back then:
Abram's nephew, Lot, is termed "brother" (Genesis 14:14);
Moses' fellow-countrymen are "brethren" (Exodus 2:11; Acts 3:22; compare Hebrews 7:5);
even just a member of the same tribe (2 Samuel 19:12).
Peter addresses the 120 brothers; are these all Mary's kids too? (Acts 1 :15-16)
But note than NONE that you propose are named 'son of Mary' or 'son of Joseph' ,
terminology which the bible scripture clearly uses when it wants to indicate patrilineal or matrilineal lineage in that timeframe.
Simply using modern language construct onto biblical scripture to ascertain an invalid conclusion.
Furthermore, Jesus would not, could not, give Mary to John, as He was dying on the cross if there were other (male) children.
The duty of her care, would have rightly and automatically fallen on the next-oldest male sibling according to Jewish law & tradition,
except if there were NONE that would have kinda created a crisis for Mary, necessitating Jesus's assignment of that duty to John, a non-blood relative.
If there were any other supposed (male) siblings next in line, Jesus doing that without explanation would have been scandalous to the next in line,
suggesting somehow that they were not 'fit' or 'worthy'.
But of course there was no explanation given because none was needed as clearly there were no other male children in the position to fulfil the responsibly.
Furthermore, the precedent set by this singular act, can clearly be seen, written in scripture, in the life and working of the early church - the importance of caring for widows, who have no other means to support themselves.
Of course, the above just addresses the physical/blood relationship.
Spiritually, Jesus followers ARE His brothers (& sisters),
and spiritual offspring of Mary, as we're show in Rev 12:17 :
"...the rest of her offspring, [that is] those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus."
These things aren't written in the NT but they are found in Tradition. Since you don't have access to that tradition you aren't going to understand.
BTW, I never heard of this birth by teleportation. We say "blessed is the fruit of thy womb". That implies a traditional birth. I do believe Theotokos could have had an easy birth as some women do. Especially since she was favored by God and chosen to give birth to Christ. This is a very special and extraordinary situation so it wouldn't surprise me if she didn't suffer and the birth happened quickly. I don't know where you got the idea of teleportation. That's bizarre.
You haven't heard that Jesus's birth was "like light passing through glass"? Don't worry, I hadn't either, until this thread. I did a very minimum amount of reading about RC beliefs about Jesus's birth just to get the background, and the official position is that Jesus was born by such magical means that there was no pain, no blood, it happened in a moment, and Mary's body thereafter showed no signs of ever having given birth (by which the old men who claimed this meant that she still had an intact hymen, as though that is the foolproof sign of a virgin.)
It sounds like teleportation to me.
Word-of-mouth "tradition" all too easily becomes "believe whatever I tell you and don't ask questions." Certainly don't attempt to find the truth in the Bible for yourself because you won't understand it anyway unless you have "us" and our traditions interpreting it for you.
I don't understand why you would mock this particular pious and historically Christian belief as "magical".
If you don't believe it, that's fine; but to me it seems like you're being hypocritical to mock it as "magical".
I wonder what your thoughts are when unbelievers mock other Christian claims such as the virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection of Jesus as "magical"; or blaspheme God by referring to Him as a "magic sky daddy" or whatever nonsense.
Christianity makes supernatural claims that the unbelieving world rejects as "magical". That's just a fact. I don't think it serves Christianity well when mainstream, historically-grounded beliefs are mocked by other Christian sects with terms like "magical".
I don't understand why you would mock this particular pious and historically Christian belief as "magical".
If you don't believe it, that's fine; but to me it seems like you're being hypocritical to mock it as "magical".
I wonder what your thoughts are when unbelievers mock other Christian claims such as the virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection of Jesus as "magical"; or blaspheme God by referring to Him as a "magic sky daddy" or whatever nonsense.
Christianity makes supernatural claims that the unbelieving world rejects as "magical". That's just a fact. I don't think it serves Christianity well when mainstream, historically-grounded beliefs are mocked by other Christian sects with terms like "magical".
Just something you should think about.
I'm sorry; you're right, that does come across as rude. If I could edit, I would.
As a Christian, I do believe in miracles, of course. Where you and I perhaps part ways is in my belief that the miracles which are recorded in Scripture are the only specific ones that Christians are obliged to believe. The Scripture says Jesus turned water into wine: he did it, no question. We know he did other miracles not recorded in Scripture, but from my point of view, we have no way to know what they were. If someone tells me that Jesus made little clay birds come alive and fly away, I'm not obliged to believe that, even though it's an old tradition.
Many old word-of-mouth tales (I'm speaking in general) are NOT true, or they have only a fragment of truth left in them. As we all know, even many old written "gospels" were dubious, unreliable or heretical; there's a reason they were not included in the canon of Scripture.
The Bible says Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born and his conception was miraculous; all Christians believe this. Scripture is silent on the manner of the birth, and so there is every reason to think it was a normal human birth, and no reason to think it was a miraculous birth.
Scripture is at best inconclusive on whether Mary remained a virgin or not. Some Christians say she definitely did; others say she (probably) didn't. And since the difference of opinion comes at a point that can not be reconciled (Scripture + Tradition versus Scripture alone), I think we've said about as much as can usefully be said and maybe it's time to bring the thread to an end.
I'm sorry; you're right, that does come across as rude. If I could edit, I would.
As a Christian, I do believe in miracles, of course. Where you and I perhaps part ways is in my belief that the miracles which are recorded in Scripture are the only specific ones that Christians are obliged to believe. The Scripture says Jesus turned water into wine: he did it, no question. We know he did other miracles not recorded in Scripture, but from my point of view, we have no way to know what they were. If someone tells me that Jesus made little clay birds come alive and fly away, I'm not obliged to believe that, even though it's an old tradition.
Many old word-of-mouth tales (I'm speaking in general) are NOT true, or they have only a fragment of truth left in them. As we all know, even many old written "gospels" were dubious, unreliable or heretical; there's a reason they were not included in the canon of Scripture.
The Bible says Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born and his conception was miraculous; all Christians believe this. Scripture is silent on the manner of the birth, and so there is every reason to think it was a normal human birth, and no reason to think it was a miraculous birth.
Scripture is at best inconclusive on whether Mary remained a virgin or not. Some Christians say she definitely did; others say she (probably) didn't. And since the difference of opinion comes at a point that can not be reconciled (Scripture + Tradition versus Scripture alone), I think we've said about as much as can usefully be said and maybe it's time to bring the thread to an end.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
The angel said "you will conceive", future tense. The angel did not tell her that she was pregnant at that moment.
If she had expected to soon have sexual relations, she would not have wondered "how this could be", as we assume she understood the birds and the bees and knew exactly how it "could be".
Ummmm...no. Matthew 1:18: Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
You haven't heard that Jesus's birth was "like light passing through glass"? Don't worry, I hadn't either, until this thread. I did a very minimum amount of reading about RC beliefs about Jesus's birth just to get the background, and the official position is that Jesus was born by such magical means that there was no pain, no blood, it happened in a moment, and Mary's body thereafter showed no signs of ever having given birth (by which the old men who claimed this meant that she still had an intact hymen, as though that is the foolproof sign of a virgin.)
It sounds like teleportation to me.
Word-of-mouth "tradition" all too easily becomes "believe whatever I tell you and don't ask questions." Certainly don't attempt to find the truth in the Bible for yourself because you won't understand it anyway unless you have "us" and our traditions interpreting it for you.
I never heard of that "light passing through glass" idea. I'm not RC I'm Eastern Orthodox. We have the same early traditions but they like to find an explanation for everything and we are OK with the mystery of not knowing certain things. Things like how the Virgin gave birth. That's nobody's business. Here's a young woman who was so special she was chosen to give birth to God's son and ended up watching Him suffer and die on the cross. So good and so strong and we're talking about how she gave birth. That's not what her life is about.
I'm sorry; you're right, that does come across as rude. If I could edit, I would.
As a Christian, I do believe in miracles, of course. Where you and I perhaps part ways is in my belief that the miracles which are recorded in Scripture are the only specific ones that Christians are obliged to believe. The Scripture says Jesus turned water into wine: he did it, no question. We know he did other miracles not recorded in Scripture, but from my point of view, we have no way to know what they were. If someone tells me that Jesus made little clay birds come alive and fly away, I'm not obliged to believe that, even though it's an old tradition.
Many old word-of-mouth tales (I'm speaking in general) are NOT true, or they have only a fragment of truth left in them. As we all know, even many old written "gospels" were dubious, unreliable or heretical; there's a reason they were not included in the canon of Scripture.
The Bible says Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born and his conception was miraculous; all Christians believe this. Scripture is silent on the manner of the birth, and so there is every reason to think it was a normal human birth, and no reason to think it was a miraculous birth.
Scripture is at best inconclusive on whether Mary remained a virgin or not. Some Christians say she definitely did; others say she (probably) didn't. And since the difference of opinion comes at a point that can not be reconciled (Scripture + Tradition versus Scripture alone), I think we've said about as much as can usefully be said and maybe it's time to bring the thread to an end.
For what it's worth, I very much appreciate your civil and sincere tone throughout this thread and have enjoyed this exchange
The angel said "you will conceive", future tense. The angel did not tell her that she was pregnant at that moment.
If she had expected to soon have sexual relations, she would not have wondered "how this could be", as we assume she understood the birds and the bees and knew exactly how it "could be".
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnazzyB
Ummmm...no. Matthew 1:18: Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Why the snark? I had thought it was clear that I was referring to Luke's account (Luke 1:31), since Matthew does not give an account of the angel appearing to Mary at all.
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.
That's not what her life is about.