The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[Invincibly Ignorant]

where is says "brothers" and "sisters" and "cousin", very clear to me.

[OLD REGGIE]

Reggie, please clear this up for me, did allend actually give you a link that proves the Catholics know Mary had children after Jesus by their own CE website?

You people all amuse me. You can't even read a simple article for comprehension, then you claim it attacks our own position then guffaw over our "stupidity."
------------------------------------------------------------

What is particularly amusing to me is how you immediately jumped to a conclusion as to what I had said in the first place. Wrong! I merely said it was the same tired old argument from "Catholic Answers".

I might guffaw at your "brilliance" though.

Consider this passage from the site:

At the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the earliest days of the Church, as the Fathers interpreted this passage of the Bible, we see that Mary's question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of life-long virginity, even in marriage (this was not common, by any means, but neither was it unheard of). If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense at all. We know that some first century Jews took such vows (for example, the Essenes, the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls), and Mary's question indicates that she had done so.

Mary knew the facts of life--she knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn't have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question only makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel's request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I looked in vain for the version of Luke 1:34 quoted in this piece but couldn't find it. I took the liberty of copying several versions.

Luke 1:34

RSV And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"

NASB Mary said to the angel, ""How [22] can this be, since I [23] am a virgin?''

NIV "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

KJV Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Douay-Rheims And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Can you tell me, from these words, how it can be construed "she had made a vow of life-long virginity"?

=====================================================

Probably you should read it for yourself. Come to your own conclusions.

Catholic Answers - Perpetual Virginity

[SoothingDave]

From your link Chapter 37 [XXII.] -The Eternal Reward.

Now this eternal life, as I have just mentioned, has been defined to be, that they may know the one true God.168 Accordingly John again says: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is."169 This likeness begins even now to be reformed in us, while the inward man is being renewed from day to day, according to the image of Him that created him.170

I don't know your exact beliefs on being "saved" but this quote show to me a Catholic understanding of sanctification as being throuhg God's grace and being a true inward renewal being accomplished slowly day-by-day. This certainly stands in contrast to those who take being saved as a one time transformation.

More if I have time to wade through. The stuff on grace and law seems very good to me as well.

SD

[JHavard]

From allend. More important, if Mary had other natural sons and daughters too at the time of the cross, it would be strange for Jesus to ask John to take care of her. Especially, James the "brother of the Lord" was alive in 49 AD (Gal 1:19). He should have taken care of her.

From angelo
Gotta agree with you on this allend. The commandment to "honor your mother and father" specifically was interpreted to include providing for them in their old age.

This really makes a lot of common sense, when you state the situation as you did, that it would be James who would now be responsible for his mothers well being, except for one thing you didn't allow for.

James was not a Christian!

John was, Jesus knew John inside and out, he trusted him because of this love and trust.

Where had James, or any of the other brothers been?
Since after the resurrection and Christ had appeared to all of the disciples plus the 500, he made a special point to visit James.

1 Cor 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Why did Christ make this visit to James, then even have Paul tell us about it, when this is the only time it is mentioned?

Could it be, that James had left the family, he could have left his faith if he ever had any, he could have been as we say now, living in sin, sewing his wild oats, as the prodigal son had done.

When he saw what had been done to his older brother, could he have broken down because he hadn’t been there for him or even the family?

Could the reason Christ came to him be, because he had repented and asked Christ to come into his life?

Could it be the reason there is no more mention of the apostle John and Mary as a family be because after James found Christ, he then realized his responsibility to his mother, and then took her in to himself?

Unless you can say that none of these things could have happened, then this seems to me to perfectly explain the reason Jesus chose John and not James.

[SoothingDave]

What is particularly amusing to me is how you immediately jumped to a conclusion as to what I had said in the first place. Wrong! I merely said it was the same tired old argument from "Catholic Answers".

I apologize for lumping you in with the other guys, who were having a ball last night talking about how Catholic Answers shot themselves in the foot, or some such nonsense. I am always willing to discuss with people who have actual arguments.

I looked in vain for the version of Luke 1:34 quoted in this piece but couldn't find it. I took the liberty of copying several versions.

It's from the New American Bible, the newest modern Catholic translation. Go to newadvent.org and they have it and Douay Rheims there.

NAB But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" 12

Douay-Rheims And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Can you tell me, from these words, how it can be construed "she had made a vow of life-long virginity"?

Sure. Mary says not that "this can't be, I haven't been with a man." She says "this can't be I do not have relations with men." The tense of the word seems to imply a continuing state. Not "I knew not a man" but "I know not man" Not "I haven't had relations" but "I have not relations"

Maybe a Greek guy can speak to this.

SD

[Havoc]

You'll notice that while Jesus is said to have brothers and sisters, no one ever says Mary is their mother. (Joseph might be their father...)

You just stretch for every concievable possibility to say well it might be true. Maybe Joseph was actually a woman. Or maybe he was a man mid sexchange pretending to be a man still. Maybe it's a Bug dressed up in a Joseph suit - without the bad attitude? Maybe Joseph was really a metaphor for herpes? The Bible doesn't say any of these things aren't true - and who's to say what's reasonable?

[SoothingDave]

And this is true for all 6 or so of his brothers?

SD

[malakhi]

1) There seems to be some confusion over Elohim by some commentators. Could you illuminate the difference between the singular and plural endings.

Elohim is as you know only one of the names used for God in the Torah. This is not used as a plural form, even though it superficially resembles one. Evidence for this can be found elsewhere in the Torah. Consider Exodus 7:1:

Vayomer Adonay el-Moshe re'eh netaticha Elohim le-Far'oh ve'Aharon achicha yihyeh nevi'echa.

God said to Moses, 'Observe! I will be making you like a god to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

The passage refers to God making Moses Elohim to Pharaoh. Does this mean that there was a plurality of persons in Moses?

Furthermore, if Elohim is plural, then why would YHWH (by the the most frequently used name for God in the Tanakh) also not be written in a plural form?

That Elohim is singular in meaning is clear from the fact that the verb for "created" (bara) in Genesis 1:1 is singular.

Elohim is not the only word with a 'plural' ending but a singular meaning. Another common word like this is chayim, meaning 'life'. Consider:

You have granted me life (chayim) and favor, and Your care has preserved my spirit. (Job 10:12)

Now clearly Job is not claiming that God granted him multiple lives.

[SoothingDave]

You just stretch for every concievable possibility to say well it might be true.

Did you mean to direct this to JHavard? He's got a post full of wild speculation about what might have happened to James, the brother of Jesus.

The Bible doesn't say any of these things aren't true - and who's to say what's reasonable?

Indeed.

Now is Jesus not God or did he not issue forth from Mary's womb? Or wasn't He God then?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

All modern "approved" versions use "Brother" in Matt 13:55.

Approved by whom?

By the RCC naturally!

[malakhi]

I can see the advantages of monogamy here

I don't think its just a matter of monogamy. Before the advent of modern medicine, many women died in childbirth, and both men and women had a high rate of death due to infectious diseases. There would perforce have been far numerous cases of half-siblings.

[malakhi]

where is says "brothers" and "sisters" and "cousin", very clear to me.

Yes, Steven, but that's the English translation. Unless you wish to argue that the translation itself is protected from error by the Holy Spirit? Otherwise, you have to take into consideration what the original word in the original language means. Or, you can rely on the authority of the translator to render the word correctly.

[malakhi]

Could it be, that James had left the family, he could have left his faith if he ever had any, he could have been as we say now, living in sin, sewing his wild oats, as the prodigal son had done. When he saw what had been done to his older brother, could he have broken down because he hadn’t been there for him or even the family? Could the reason Christ came to him be, because he had repented and asked Christ to come into his life? Could it be the reason there is no more mention of the apostle John and Mary as a family be because after James found Christ, he then realized his responsibility to his mother, and then took her in to himself?

I'm sure you have scriptural references for all of this?

Unless you can say that none of these things could have happened, then this seems to me to perfectly explain the reason Jesus chose John and not James.

You're doing here just what you accuse the Catholics of doing.

[OLD REGGIE]

NAB But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" 12

Douay-Rheims And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Can you tell me, from these words, how it can be construed "she had made a vow of life-long virginity"?

Sure. Mary says not that "this can't be, I haven't been with a man." She says "this can't be I do not have relations with men." The tense of the word seems to imply a continuing state. Not "I knew not a man" but "I know not man" Not "I haven't had relations" but "I have not relations"

Maybe a Greek guy can speak to this.

"I'm 12 years old, I have never had sex with a man, I know nothing about sex. How could I possibly get pregnant?"

Oh! I see now. Any 12 year old who asks the same questions actually means she intends to remain a life-long virgin. Thanks for these words of wisdom.

[malakhi]

Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary gave birth to God.

A => B
B => C
Therefore, A => C

If you accept the two premises, the conclusion logically follows.

[OLD REGGIE]

Are these versions no longer approved?

Luke 1:34

RSV And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"

NASB Mary said to the angel, ""How [22] can this be, since I [23] am a virgin?''

They certainly shed a different light to the "I intend to remain a life-long virgin" question.

[Havoc]

I must be dreaming.

You must be taking an opportunity to try and make me look bad for responding or not responding. If I speak, I am raked. If I don't speak, I am raked. So, I'll let you huff about nothing. Because you need something to take your frustration out on and would rather not do it on those who deserve it most - the ones who filled you so full of men's ideas that you haven't a clue about God's.

[OLD REGGIE]

where is says "brothers" and "sisters" and "cousin", very clear to me.

Yes, Steven, but that's the English translation. Unless you wish to argue that the translation itself is protected from error by the Holy Spirit? Otherwise, you have to take into consideration what the original word in the original language means. Or, you can rely on the authority of the translator to render the word correctly.

There is an amazing cooperation and agreement between RC and Protestant translators in the usage of "brother", "brethren", and "cousin" in recent editions of the Bible. Since I know nothing, and since this agreement is there, I accept the current usage. It's better sometimes to be dumb.