Posted on 08/17/2009 9:10:31 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
But your interpretations are not.
If you meet Jesus, you can ask Him why He "accorded" them to her.
Circular logic, as Jesus had no blood brothers yet Scripture seems to refer to them.
I grant that, if ‘brother’ is used differently when referring to the brothers of Jesus than it is anywhere else, then you can be right. However, if a word is used one way every time it is used EXCEPT in the time in dispute, then it is up to the person claiming the exception to show why an exception should be made.
For a Catholic, the answer is (I believe), my doctrine requires it.
And that is a valid answer, since my point is not that you must believe Jesus had brothers to be a Christian. I’m certain a great many true believers have gone to the Lord convinced of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’m not convinced they retain that belief afterward, but I’ll find that answer out for myself someday...and Mr Rogers has been known to be wrong.
It boils down to the same thing many of the disputes between Protestants and Catholics do - does scripture drive your doctrine, or does doctrine ‘interpret’ the scripture?
I assume the former, and Catholics assume the latter - boast of it, in fact. Therefore, we come to different conclusions.
No one knows. For all we know, she never died and is still alive today. That makes just as much sense as proclaiming that she was assumed into heaven. The point is that, in the absence of historical record, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that we do not know. The fact that the Church would excommunicate someone for not buying the assumption dogma is one reason I am no longer a practising Catholic.
Those are your rules.
Where in Scripture does it say this?
False dichotomy.
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture mesh perfectly. It is His will for His Church.
It’s not even necessary to assume “cousin”. Many happily hold to the perpetual virginity and believe that Christ had half-brothers via Joseph.
What would the half-brothers of Jesus be called? Brothers by another previous wife? What is the aramaic word for that?
If you can't point to where, then your question is moot.
Let’s cut to the chase of the article here. If this doctrine is a heresy and a novel invention of the 5th century, then why was it not denied by anyone until the 16th?
1000 years + is a long time for something to go virtually unchallenged, my friends, and even if you think it does contradict Scripture, you are faced with the rather stark problem of why no one else thought so—for 1000 years.
I guess every Christian between 500 and 1500 was a blithering idiot, for not seeing this? Hmm?
“Also, as I pointed out, the NT never says X the brother of Y unless he is.” This is a lie, and you know it.
I was wrong about the Aramaic, there was no word for cousin in Hebrew. When translated to Greek “adelphos” was used, which could mean either brother or relative.
Luke 1:34 still stands, the Blessed Virgin was concerned about her vow, just as any good Carmelite would.
You are insulting St. Joseph, not me. I would not do that to the last of the Patriarchs. And I certainly would not insult the Queen of Heaven.
Faith precedes scriptural interpretation, which allows Catholics to learn and grow in wisdom and grace every time they read the inspired books of the Old and New testament, while their protestant brethren struggle with numerous artifacts left behind by a fallible reason being used as an infallible rule of faith.
Half brothers would make more sense than cousins. It still seems a bit of a stretch to me (silence of scripture on any previous marriage, etc), but a part of sola scriptura is to allow that what isn’t discussed in scripture is open for individual belief.
Frankly, I read scripture as indicating other brothers, and I admire Mary (and Jesus) all the more for it. For most Protestants I’ve known, this isn’t so much a matter of the faith as it is a concern for paying attention to Mary that should be focused on Jesus. But if you don’t stint in the latter, I’m not going to worry too much about the former.
People somehow seem to have time for ‘American Idol’ and worship - don’t ask me how or why - so both respect for Mary and worship of Jesus shouldn’t be beyond possibility.
“You are insulting St. Joseph, not me.”
I dunno - I’m thinking of him more like a patriarch and a ‘man’s man’ that you are. The Patriarchs were not known for avoiding sex.
“And I certainly would not insult the Queen of Heaven.”
I’ll take my chances - I think calling her ‘Queen of Heaven’ takes away from the King. Frankly, it is repulsive to hear someone put her on a level equal to the King of Kings. She wasn’t and isn’t “Mrs Holy Spirit”.
“...allows Catholics to learn and grow in wisdom and grace every time they read the inspired books...”
Sorry. I’ve known too many Catholics.
There are no other historical records concerning Mary's death either. So the Church scholars simply decided that she should have been assumed. But they've been wrong before. Didn't they also at one time proclaim that the earth should be the center of the universe? Evidence proved them wrong. If Mary's grave were to be found, and DNA evidence proved it to be authentic, would the Church then reverse its teaching on the Assumption? What happens then to all the arguments why she should have been assumed into heaven?
My point is that it doesn't make any difference whether her body decomposed or magically dematerialized. She was holy and blessed, and bore a son who was human. In the absence of evidence, and the irrelevance of the outcome, doesn't it make more sense to believe what is believable?
Enough to judge them all? You can't mean that.
Baloney.
Do not use potty language or references to potty language on the Religion Forum.
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.