Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
The accounts of Matthew, Luke, and Paul.
So make that Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul.
::eye roll:: stop avoiding the question. The problem is that for 1500 years everyone understood what those books meant, and the majority of Christians still do, and it’s not what you say. Sorry.
The appeal to the ECFs does not work as they are all over the board on a number of topics. They're only consistency is their inconsistency.
Per Dr Robert Schihl the ECFs (at least some) from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin. He specifically lists
Athanasius: 293-373;
Epiphanius: 315?-403;
Jerome: 345-419;
Augustine: 354-430:
Cyril 376-44
.https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm
So unless this catholic apologists has his facts wrong the earliest ECF to believe this was around the third century.
We know false teachings were already creeping into the early church as evidenced by Paul's and John's writings.
With Luke being a doctor, and being as careful as he was in his research for his writings, I think he would have understood the difference between the use of brothers and sisters in the general sense vs as in the family sense.
The Greek and the context of the New Testament along with the testimony of Paul tell us Joseph and Mary had other children.
To continue to believe otherwise shows a rejection of the Word in favor of "Tradition".
For the catholic to continue to insist the Word doesn't say what it says means the Word has to be twisted to make it fit roman catholic theology.
As an example: Finally, there is the doctrine that Mary remained a virgin throughout the rest of her life. In fact, only an original, lifelong commitment on Mary's part to preserve her virginity makes sense of the words that she spoke to the angel Gabriel. After being told by the angel that she would "conceive in her womb and bear a son," Mary replied, "How can this be, since I have no husband?" (Lk 1:34). Catholic Biblical scholar Dr. Scott Hahn explains:
Now this would be an odd question if Mary had planned to have normal marital relations with her husband. The angel told her only that she would conceive a son, which is a commonplace event in marriage. ... Mary should have known exactly "how this shall be." It would happen in the normal course of nature.http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/Part-7-Mary-Ever-Virgin-6371
No, the question is not odd. Mary and Joseph had not engaged in intercourse at this point. She knew about babies and she knew she and Joseph, or her and anyone else for that matter, had not engaged in intercourse.
That's why she's wanting to know how this was going to happen.
Her question makes perfect sense if you read the verse in Luke in context. The angel tells her she's going to have a baby and she knows she hasn't engaged in sex. So how can this be???
There is nothing in this exchange to indicate she was planning on remaining a virgin. It's one of the most convoluted twists of Scripture I've seen.
But Roman Catholicism is not Christianity, so any twist of The Word is allowed so long as it supports the dictates of the magicsteeringthem. The Momrons do the same thing with Scripture, and for the same reasons.
Sadly you are right.
It doesn’t gladden my heart for them ...
Sorry guy that doesn’t fly. The Catholic Church or Rome ad You put it did not control the Oriental and Eastern Church’s position. Even today 500 years after Protestant misinterpretation od history and text, no one other yhan yourselves are buying what your selling.
“Catholics aren’t Christians” - Thats rich. I really can’t take you serious. I know Evangelicals pride themselves in wallowing in intellectualism but that takes the cake. You are not even dealing in the plain of reality. How bout this one - Evangelicals aren’t Christians. There. All better.
Awww shucks im sad your delusion about Catholics doesn’t gladden your heart.
As a dead soul it is not surprising that you missquote what I actually posted. It also means someone is a liar by another name. I posted that Catholicism -note the “ISM”- is not Christianity. There are Christians in catholiciism. We have one or two who exhibit the characteristics of Christians right on this thread. You, however don’t seem able to have that level of discernment.
Distinction without a difference buddy. Done.
Being a Catholic does not give automatic Salvation, ‘buddy’. The basic tenant of catholiciism is that the adherents to that religion must strive to obtain Salvation. That is a direct contradiction to what Jesus taught. Catholicism is not Christianity, yet there are some Christians caught up in the ISM. You’re ‘done’ alright ...
We behold the Lamb of God at every mass. What is not to like?
It is amazing when the Sacred Scripture explicitly names two of them as sons of another man and it falls on deaf ears. James the son of Alpheus must have been with Jesus all the time, like peas in a pod. He was Jesus “brother in Christ”.
I feel at times that I have many, many brothers and sisters in Christ. According the protestant logic/bias/pride, that would make me a natural son of Mary. I am okay with that, I really am.
Or maybe you know more about Joseph's life and death than non-Catholics and would like to show why this is not a possibility?
It does nothing to take away that James was the brother of Christ as Paul, Matthew, and Mark noted.
1 woman or two??
In John 19:25 we read, "Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala."
3 women or 4??
Cross reference this with Matthew 27:56: "Among them [at the cross] were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."
3 women?
Why leave out ---> Matthew 27:55
Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs.
his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala." <-same; obviously -> Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."
3 women?3-4 women or 5-6??
Why do you have to come up with these wild theories based upon nothing but post 1500 protestant conjecture? It is really sad. The Catholic Church has the history of the Holy Family from day one. It is an unbroken tradition. Why invent new stuff that does not simultaneously jive with sacred scriptures (your welcome), tradition, the early church fathers, the councils, the teachings of the Holy Father?
I think maybe the satanic desire to diminish the role of Mary the Mother of Jesus in our salvation and in the Church is the motivating factor here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.