Posted on 06/14/2011 6:53:10 AM PDT by narses
Protestants understand that their leaders' statements/interpretations can be fallible. Catholics don't seem to understand this...it's foreign thinking for them.
Whether or not Mary is “Ever Virgin” may have been important during the Victorian period, but it is not now.
What IS, and always will be, important is that she is the mother of Jesus.
This is the most shallow argument in this pool.
You do know that under the Law, the Jews had to make sacrifices after the first born from each of their animals? Do you think they waited until the cow became pregnant and gave birth a second time to make sure that the other was a "first born"?
Since according to you, a firstborn is only possible when there are more than one?
I think this is less about Mary’s sex life than it is about the authority of the Roman Church. They are the original “slippery slopers”. Reject one doctrine and the whole edifice crumbles. I have more faith in the power of the Holy Spirit than that.
They know the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is one of the weakest doctrines so that means they have to defend it even more fiercely.
Absolutely great article.
Too long to take in all at once, so I’ll comment only on the supposed debunking of “James”.
The problem with the argument is that there is nothing to tie “James the Less” to “James the brother of Jesus”. There is no indication that Jesus’ brothers were disciples. So proving that James the Less wasn’t Mary’s son doesn’t prove anything, because James the Less isn’t named as Jesus’ brother.
**Even if your position is correct, which it seems to be, what difference does it make? How are you defining virginity?**
You need to read the last paragraph above. What did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli say about it. LOL! Check it out with them.
I suggest you might be drawing the wrong conclusions from scripture. Whether Jesus had any blood siblings is unclear, as far as I can make out from the excellent exposition made. It doesn't seem to say one way or the other. But rather than that proving the case either way, it would suggest to me that the writers of the Bible thought the whole issue wasn't all that important. The emphasis in the NT seems to be more on a spiritual brotherhood/sisterhood than blood ties.
“The son of Mary” doesn’t preclude other sons. Heck, in the article itself, it points out “James the son of Alphaeus”, when we know Alphaeus had more than one son.
It’s simply common translation, and the common way of listing lineage, to use “the”, not “a”.
I also have trouble believing that someone named two of their daughters “Mary” — which would be the case if “Mary the wife of Capheus” was actually Mary’s sister. I think “Mary’s sister” was one of 4 people named, but not given a name: His mother, his mother’s sister, Mary Magdelene, and Mary fhe wife of Capheas.
I’m not quite as concerned with getting absolute proof that they were Jesus’ brothers. It seeems we need absolute proof that Mary had no children. Even if there was no mention of children, that wouldn’t prove she was otherwise childless, or a perpetual virgin.
Given that Joseph was her husband, and they lived as husband and wife for at least the 33 years up to Jesus’ death, I think someone needs to provide proof in the form of a positive statement from the Bible or historical records that Joseph was a virgin. Because the bible clearly indicates that husbands and wives are supposed to sleep together, and the bible doesn’t say Joseph had a concubine, another wife, or was an adulterer, so if Mary was a virgin, then Joseph was as well.
And THAT is so impossible to believe that you need proof for it — much more so than any incredulity about younger siblings giving counsel to an older sibling.
Heck, we aren’t even told that Joseph was given some special dispensation such that he could live his life without ever having sex.
So far as I can tell, Luthor is not God, nor do his words have devine inspiration and infallability.
Luthor was raised in the traditions of the Catholic church, so it is of no surprise that at some time in his life, he still held to many of those traditions, and carried some to his deathbed.
Why was my comment removed by the admin mod?
It was pulled due to the reference to a particular body part.
Yes, the body part that the article is directly referring to. The part that, when present, means a woman is a virgin. Are anatomically, medically correct terms now inappropriate? The word weiner has been thrown around quite frequently lately, yet I use a proper term and my comment is pulled?
True. What they seem to have trouble with, is the idea that their own statements/interpretations can be fallible.
But consider this. Sola scriptura is allegedly the sure norm of faith, is it not? Didn't Luther and Calvin follow it?
There are really only three choices:
” I do not consider what the early Church christians to have the same authority as the Scripture. “
/// even if the Scripture was 200 years later? a Bible that was selected by one man choosing which scriptures to include? and the Bible itself refers to important scripture, that is not in the Bible?
and some words in the Bible DO translate differently, in different languages?
(Like the famous painting of Moses with “horns”..)
...and, it’s impossible that Joseph had children from a previous wife?
certainly i revere the collection of scripture we call the Bible. but the early Christians, were closer to Jesus and the Apostles, and if the Bible was so essential for guidance, why did God wait so long to provide it to us?
...were those original Christians, who endured great persecution, less worthy of listening to than ministers today?
finally, if it is so very easy to admit Luther and Calvin are wrong about something they wrote so emphatically
(as per #21),
then why do you refuse to consider they may have been wrong about sola scriptura, etc. ?
especially when he wrote things like his OWN words here:
http://articles.exchristian.net/2002/04/martin-luther-quotes.php
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/luther.htm
WHO, precisely, decides which words of Luther are correct, and are not?
it makes it easy, if you get to select what you wish, to use either way to support your arguments.
(especially when the Bible itself refutes sola scriptura, a Bible that again, didn’t exist for over 200 years after Jesus? ...and 1400 years before Luther was sent to interpret it correctly for us?)
I checked out what Luther and Calvin said about this issue but they didn’t indicate that this issue is important, therefore the questions still remains: What difference does is make? What is the importance of this issue?
“What they seem to have trouble with, is the idea that their own statements/interpretations can be fallible.”
That statement is absolutely false.
Protestants only claim that each person is responsible for their own belief, not that each person claims their belief can’t be fallible.
When protestants consider any issue, they rely on any number of sources to reach their conclusion. They consider the views of previous Christians, such as Luther and Calvin, but they understand that those positions aren’t necessarily correct.
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.