Virgin Mary

RikuoAmero · 26-02-2015 02:13PM

Daniella Billions T-shirt wrote: »

You've every right not to.

For thoseof us who believe the Bible to be the word of God, the virgin birth is spoken of early on when it says "a virgin shall conceive and he shall be called Emmanuel" .Mary herself asks how it can be as she hadn't known a man. Joseph wanted to put her away only to be told the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
The Jews referred to Jesus as being conceived out of wedlock.
I've no problem believing in the virgin birth but part company with an organization that claims she was always a virgin.
Scripture says she did not know Joseph until Jesus was born. It also refers to his brothers James and Jose's.
His mother and brothers also came to see Him.

Scripture also refers to James the brother of Jesus in the epistles.

I prefer the inspired word of God to a tradition.:)

Can I ask why a virgin birth sounds rational or reasonable to believe when it comes to Jesus specifically...but when his brothers are talked about, suddenly them being born of a virgin mother is preposterous?

Gunney · 26-02-2015 03:07PM

sioux1977 wrote: »

Gunney, I see your point, but all I'm saying is that it's something worth thinking about. After all, as far as I know, nowhere in the bible does it say that they DIDN'T have other children. The bible doesn't contain all of the details of Jesus' life. There are many years missing, from the time he was around 12 to the time he was 30. Also, there ARE references in the bible to him actually having biological brothers. The original Hebrew word for 'brother' was different when talking about a biological brother and a spiritual brother. The former is the word used in the Hebrew Bible, and I have a copy of the translation from Hebrew directly into English. (The references can be found in Matthew 13:55,56, and Mark 6:3).

There is an excellent answer to your comment in this part /library/SCRIPTUR/JESBRS.TXT of ewtn.com

apologies - the powers that be think I'm too young to post a link.

Mt. 13.55 and Mk 6.3 name the following as brothers of Jesus: James, Joseph
(Joses - the manuscripts vary on the spelling), Simon and Judas.

But Mt 27.56 says at the cross were Mary the mother of James and Joseph.
Mark 15,40 says Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses was there.

So, although the proof is not conclusive, it seems that--unless we suppose
these were others with the same names, that the first two, James and Joseph
(Joses) had a mother other than the Mother of Jesus.

Therefore the term brother was used for those who were not sons of Mary the
Mother of Jesus. So the same easily could be the case with the other
two, Simon and Judas.

Further 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.

Lot, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Gen 11.27-31) is called his brother
in Gen 13.8 and 14.14-16.

The Hebrew and Aramaic "ah" was used for various types of relations: Cf.
Michael Sokoloff, "A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic" (Bar Ilan
University Press, Ramat-Gan, Israel, 1990, p. 45.) Hebrew had no word for
cousin.They could say "ben-dod" which means son of a paternal uncle, but
for other kinds of cousins they would need a complex phrase, such as "the
son of the brother of his mother" or, "the son of the sister of his
mother". For complex Aramaic expressions see Sokoloff, p. 111 and 139.

sioux1977 wrote: »

Your comment about the Magisterium ends on quite an stern note - perhaps you didn't mean it to sound that way - but there is nothing in my faith that says I can't ask questions about theology. It's not really a matter of much consequence anyway. I do think it's important, in principle, to ask questions until they are explained to your satisfaction, and make sense to us for the right reasons, instead of blindly following something without questioning it. As a Catholic, I do take guidance from the Church, but as a Christian, I take it from the bible, and that takes precedence over my being a Catholic. Maybe that means I'm not doing it right, but what the hey - I do my best!

Gunney's are frequently stern. Intentionally. and we expect our orders to be followed without question. Lives depend on it.
You are correct though and I believe I answered another poster similarly when Catholics were accused of having blind faith - ironic given the blind faith of the poster.
Yes you must question and explore the theology, not so you can find a loophole to ignore it or weasle a way around it, but to fully understand it.

If you are going to take your guidance from the Bible alone do you not think it is like trying to sit on a stool with only one leg? The Magesterium is the interpretive element and teaching authority and along with scripture and tradition provides us with what we need to know and understand our faith. Ignoring one or more of these elements will leave you exposed.

uck51js9zml2yt · 26-02-2015 04:14PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Can I ask why a virgin birth sounds rational or reasonable to believe when it comes to Jesus specifically...but when his brothers are talked about, suddenly them being born of a virgin mother is preposterous?

matthew 1.25 days Joseph did not "know" Mary until after the birth of her firstborn.

Know in this context was to do with sexual relations. The fact that jesus is also referred to her firstborn points to more children afterwards.
Why use the term firstborn if it wasn't relevant.

uck51js9zml2yt · 26-02-2015 04:20PM

Gunney wrote: »

sioux1977 wrote: »

Further 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.

Not strange at all.
Its safe to assume Jospeph was dead at this stage as he's mentioned last when Jesus was 12.
It was the firstborns position to look after his mother as he got the double portion of the inheritance. Since Jesus was firstborn and "dead" and the rest of the family had no responsibility towards Mary, Jesus gave the responsibility to John to look after her.
Its also reasonable to suggest that as they were unbelievers at this stage, Jesus left it to a believer to look after his mother.

If we believe HE had no siblings it was therefore necessary for Mary to be cared for after His death

keano_afc · 26-02-2015 04:50PM

You're right RikuoAmero, the idea of Mary being born sinless is pretty preposterous and has no scriptural backing.

Luke 1:46-47: And Mary said "My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour."

If Mary was sinless, she would have no call to reference a saviour. Also, Mary followed the ritual for the unclean after she gave birth to Jesus. You can read about it in Luke chapter 2. The ritual referred to is in Leviticus chapter 12. If Mary was sinless, she would have no call to follow this ritual.

The RC church for some reason sees fit to elevate the status of Mary to that of a par with Jesus. Its wrong and blatant idol worship.

Gunney · 26-02-2015 05:19PM

keano_afc wrote: »

The RC church for some reason sees fit to elevate the status of Mary to that of a par with Jesus. Its wrong and blatant idol worship.

Why the sectarianism? Catholics do not worship Mary, we worship God and God alone.

Many Protestant Reformers had no issue with Mary's perpetual virginity - Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, all believed in her perpetual virginity.

JOHN CALVIN --

"There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS!

"For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore NEVER dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....

"And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is NOT because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to FOOLISH SUBTLETIES WOULD BE TO ABUSE HOLY SCRIPTURE...." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)

"We have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called 'brethren.' Still Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself to be IGNORANT of this by stating that Mary had many children just because in several places they are spoken of as 'brethren' of Christ." (Commentary on Matthew 13:55)

"Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel SAYS NOTHING...certainly it is a matter about which NO ONE will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a PIG-HEADED and FATUOUS [i.e. foolish and stupid] person." (Commentary on Matthew 1:25)

MARTIN LUTHER --

"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, AND SHE REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER THAT." (LUTHER'S WORKS 22, 23)

[Luther preached the perpetual virginity of Mary throughout his life]

"...A virgin before the conception and birth, she REMAINED a virgin also AT the birth and AFTER it." (February 2, 1546 Feast of Presentation of Christ in the Temple)

ULRICH ZWINGLI --

"I firmly believe according to the words of the Gospel that a pure virgin brought forth for us the Son of God AND REMAINED A VIRGIN PURE AND INTACT IN CHILDBIRTH AND ALSO AFTER THE BIRTH, FOR ALL ETERNITY. I firmly trust that she has been exalted by God to eternal joy above all creatures, both the blessed and the angels." (from Augustin Bea "Mary and the Protestants" MARIAN STUDIES Apr 61)

"I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize MARY AS EVER VIRGIN AND HOLY." (January 1528 in Berne)

RikuoAmero · 26-02-2015 05:25PM

Daniella Billions T-shirt wrote: »

matthew 1.25 days Joseph did not "know" Mary until after the birth of her firstborn.

Know in this context was to do with sexual relations. The fact that jesus is also referred to her firstborn points to more children afterwards.
Why use the term firstborn if it wasn't relevant.

Thanks but that's not what I meant. Let me try to clarify. For yourself, it is reasonable and rational to think the natural methods of conception can be suspended, but only for this one person. When it comes to people who are not-Jesus, then your natural scepticism comes into play and suddenly the notion of virgin births for these brothers is preposterous.
I must also ask why Mary had to be a virgin in order to bear Jesus. Is the act of intercourse itself a sin (if so why worship a being who declares something necessary to his command to go forth and multiply a sin) or is it because of the prophecy, in that it's one of many boxes to be ticked and seemingly has no deeper meaning other than as a box?

silverharp · 26-02-2015 05:25PM

Romans 3:23 says all have sinned.... not everyone except Mary has sinned.

Gunney · 26-02-2015 06:10PM

silverharp wrote: »

Romans 3:23 says all have sinned.... not everyone except Mary has sinned.

Did Jesus sin? No. Exception number 1

How many babies have sinned... that puts exceptions to this in large numbers arena.

This passage refers to personal sin, to which there are, as outlined above, exceptions - many exceptions.

Add to this the number who cannot sin because they do not have the intellectual capacity to sin.

Does that negate the piece of scripture quoted out of context? No it does not because of the audience it is speaking to - those capable of sin.

Was Mary an exception and is this exception Biblical. Yes and yes - Luke 1:28-30. This passage may read simply in English if you ignore the implications of "full of grace" but when read in Greek it speaks volumes for Mary's status, the one who has found God's favour.
Being "Hailed" by an angel makes Mary an exeptional person, as noted for hundreds and now thousands of years by Catholics and certainly by many Protestants who founded denominations.

silverharp · 26-02-2015 06:46PM

Gunney wrote: »

Did Jesus sin? No. Exception number 1

How many babies have sinned... that puts exceptions to this in large numbers arena.

This passage refers to personal sin, to which there are, as outlined above, exceptions - many exceptions.

Add to this the number who cannot sin because they do not have the intellectual capacity to sin.

Does that negate the piece of scripture quoted out of context? No it does not because of the audience it is speaking to - those capable of sin.

Was Mary an exception and is this exception Biblical. Yes and yes - Luke 1:28-30. This passage may read simply in English if you ignore the implications of "full of grace" but when read in Greek it speaks volumes for Mary's status, the one who has found God's favour.
Being "Hailed" by an angel makes Mary an exeptional person, as noted for hundreds and now thousands of years by Catholics and certainly by many Protestants who founded denominations.

Did Jesus sin? hmmm , he did steal a donkey , was rude to his mother and vandalised a public building ;-) but the bigger picture is that Mary is not that important to the story as a whole , and clearly not important to Paul who specically doesnt seem to have heard of the whole nativity story which is important since he is the first writer so should a closer knowledge than the later gospel writers.

Gunney · 26-02-2015 07:18PM

silverharp wrote: »

Did Jesus sin? hmmm , he did steal a donkey , was rude to his mother and vandalised a public building ;-) but the bigger picture is that Mary is not that important to the story as a whole , and clearly not important to Paul who specically doesnt seem to have heard of the whole nativity story which is important since he is the first writer so should a closer knowledge than the later gospel writers.

So you are saying that women are not that important.

RikuoAmero · 26-02-2015 07:22PM

Gunney wrote: »

So you are saying that women are not that important.

Care to explain how somebody saying "Mary [as an individual] isn't important" is somehow saying "women aren't important"?

silverharp · 26-02-2015 08:12PM

Gunney wrote: »

So you are saying that women are not that important.

of course not , Mary wasnt important. As another poster said way back there isnt a book of Mary , and in the context that catholics revere her now , for it to be a legitimate part of the religion it ought to have been as important to Paul which she obviously wasnt.
the whole nativity part of the bible is probably one of the weaker parts , with conflicting accounts, what appear to be forced details added to make the story fit etc.

keano_afc · 27-02-2015 10:38AM

Gunney wrote: »

Why the sectarianism? Catholics do not worship Mary, we worship God and God alone.

And yet you pray to Mary, the dead, "saints", and dead relatives, none of whom can hear your prayers.

Marian worship in enshrined in Catholicism. Statues in housing estates, pictures on walls, grottos all over the world. Mary is to be revered and respected as the woman chosen to carry Jesus. But that's where it stops. This madness about her being sinless is just that, madness. You didnt address either of the points I raised in my original post. Why did Mary need a saviour if she is sinless?

As for the thoughts of Luther and Calvin, I'm not a Calvinist or a Protestant/Lutheran so I dont really pay too much heed to copied and pasted contributions.

Nick Park · 27-02-2015 10:41AM

silverharp wrote: »

You do know that Isiah quote is a mistranslation of the word "young girl" whoever wrote the Matthew gopsel was desperate to show that Jesus was predicted in the Jewish books so it looks a bit more like embellishment rather than being the actual word of God. I might do a thread on it sometime , Matthew is riddled with such errors

That isn't actually true. The Hebrew word can, on occasion, mean 'maiden'. But it does also mean 'virgin' - so it is not a mistranslation.

(It's amazing how often people who can't read Hebrew or Greek make confident assertions about 'mistranslations' based on something they read on a website.)

The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and used in the Greek speaking world at the time of Christ), certainly understood the prophecy in Isaiah as referring to a virgin.

silverharp · 27-02-2015 11:08AM

Nick Park wrote: »

That isn't actually true. The Hebrew word can, on occasion, mean 'maiden'. But it does also mean 'virgin' - so it is not a mistranslation.

(It's amazing how often people who can't read Hebrew or Greek make confident assertions about 'mistranslations' based on something they read on a website.)

The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and used in the Greek speaking world at the time of Christ), certainly understood the prophecy in Isaiah as referring to a virgin.

Take a step back though , the verse in isiah was not talking about a future god child hundreds of years in the future it was a local event being talked about. The writers of Matthew got themslves into a pickle forcing meanings from the Jewish books, the census which couldn't have historically happened in the way the bible suggests, Jesus riding two donkeys again another mistranslation.

Edit

I checked back to some Jewish sites (after all it is their book) and the word alma has a male and female form , they have a different gender specific word for virgin. But here is the kicker , the Hebrew uses the definite article "the" . isisah in the passage is most likely pointing at the girl as he is saying this. I fail to see how this is any future prophecy.

Gunney · 28-02-2015 01:13PM

silverharp wrote: »

of course not , Mary wasnt important.

If Mary the Mother of God isn't important to you can you tell us who the most important woman in Christian history is IYHO and why?

Gunney · 28-02-2015 01:25PM

keano_afc wrote: »

And yet you pray to Mary,

Yes, but praying to someone is not worshipping them, and our prayer to her is asking for her to pray for us.

keano_afc wrote: »

the dead, "saints", and dead relatives,

We don't pray to the dead, we pray for them (II Maccabees 12:39-45), and through the saints for their intercession, ( Revelation 5:8), not their mediation.

keano_afc wrote: »

none of whom can hear your prayers.

How do you know that? Revelation 5:8 says otherwise

keano_afc · 01-03-2015 12:35PM

Gunney wrote: »

Yes, but praying to someone is not worshipping them, and our prayer to her is asking for her to pray for us.

Why don't you trust God? There is no need to pray to anyone else. Banging my head off a wall here. The unfaithfulness of the Catholic is baffling. Asking Mary to pray for you? Why? Why invoke a mediator that is not God appointed? Idol worship.

We don't pray to the dead, we pray for them (II Maccabees 12:39-45), and through the saints for their intercession, ( Revelation 5:8), not their mediation.

How do you know that? Revelation 5:8 says otherwise

Take these two together. Yet another example of the Catholic interjecting doctrine into the verse rather than taking doctrine from it. Its quite clear this verse speaks of prayer to God. The dead can't hear us. They are not omnipresent. You are elevating dead sinners to the same level as God.

Praying for the dead is pointless as they have already been judged.

"For it has been appointed for a man once to die, and then judgement". Hebrews 9:27.

RikuoAmero · 01-03-2015 06:39PM

keano_afc wrote: »

Why don't you trust God? There is no need to pray to anyone else. Banging my head off a wall here. The unfaithfulness of the Catholic is baffling. Asking Mary to pray for you? Why? Why invoke a mediator that is not God appointed? Idol worship.

Take these two together. Yet another example of the Catholic interjecting doctrine into the verse rather than taking doctrine from it. Its quite clear this verse speaks of prayer to God. The dead can't hear us. They are not omnipresent. You are elevating dead sinners to the same level as God.

Praying for the dead is pointless as they have already been judged.

"For it has been appointed for a man once to die, and then judgement". Hebrews 9:27.

And people here wonder why I'm an atheist. When the believers are this fractured on what the bible says...

keano_afc · 02-03-2015 09:22AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

And people here wonder why I'm an atheist. When the believers are this fractured on what the bible says...

What the bible says is very clear. It gets diluted when people chose to interject their own meaning into scripture and take entire doctrine on the twisting of a verse or even part of a verse.

Its never my intention to turn anyone from God. Far from it. But when you see scripture being misunderstood and misinterpreted its hard to stand by.

RikuoAmero · 02-03-2015 09:48AM

keano_afc wrote: »

What the bible says is very clear. It gets diluted when people chose to interject their own meaning into scripture and take entire doctrine on the twisting of a verse or even part of a verse.

Its never my intention to turn anyone from God. Far from it. But when you see scripture being misunderstood and misinterpreted its hard to stand by.

What do you think the response would be if I asked other people how clear their interpretation of the bible is? What do you think they'll say when I ask them what they think of your interpretation?

keano_afc · 02-03-2015 09:54AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What do you think the response would be if I asked other people how clear their interpretation of the bible is? What do you think they'll say when I ask them what they think of your interpretation?

It all depends on which passage you ask them to interpret to be honest. Clear passages such as those that speak of all having sinned are clear. In the context of a Marian discussion, passages that tell us Mary needed a saviour and took part in the rituals of the unclean are clear. If it walks like a duck etc.

Interpreting clear passages is not rocket science.

silverharp · 02-03-2015 10:22AM

keano_afc wrote: »

It all depends on which passage you ask them to interpret to be honest. Clear passages such as those that speak of all having sinned are clear. In the context of a Marian discussion, passages that tell us Mary needed a saviour and took part in the rituals of the unclean are clear. If it walks like a duck etc.

Interpreting clear passages is not rocket science.

It still doestnt answer that the NT account is muddled with obvious insertions to make the story fit. You can't assume that the NT is an error free document.

Nick Park · 02-03-2015 11:07AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

And people here wonder why I'm an atheist. When the believers are this fractured on what the bible says...

I'd never wondered why you're an atheist. I had assumed that you might have a reasonable basis for your unbelief.

Now I find that it's apparently because you won't believe in any worldview unless its adherents all hold the same dogmatic views and where there is no diversity of opinion.

I understand fully why atheism would be attractive to you.

Nick Park · 02-03-2015 11:09AM

silverharp wrote: »

It still doestnt answer that the NT account is muddled with obvious insertions to make the story fit. You can't assume that the NT is an error free document.

And neither can you start off from the assumption that it is full of errors.

Far better to weigh up the evidence for yourself rather than trying to shoehorn 'contradictions' in where they don't exist and, based on your apparently sketchy understanding of Greek and Hebrew, 'mistranslations' where a translation is perfectly plausible.

RikuoAmero · 02-03-2015 11:15AM

Nick Park wrote: »

I'd never wondered why you're an atheist. I had assumed that you might have a reasonable basis for your unbelief.

Now I find that it's apparently because you won't believe in any worldview unless its adherents all hold the same dogmatic views and where there is no diversity of opinion.

I understand fully why atheism would be attractive to you.

I like diversity of opinion. I just don't respect certain opinions if they are not based on what is demonstrable. Sure, go ahead, express your religious beliefs all you want. Just don't expect me or people like me to let them go unchallenged.
The point I was making with my earlier comment is that I am the outsider to these two other people having a discussion on what the bible says and means. Each thinks the other is clearly wrong, and that him/herself is right. Both use the exact same book to support their arguments.
I'm on the outside looking in. Since both of these people's arguments are equally supported by the exact same evidence, then I am forced to hold to the null hypothesis. I cannot make a clear decision between either one. I must for the moment reject both until an answer becomes clear.

Nick Park · 02-03-2015 11:19AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I like diversity of opinion. I just don't respect certain opinions if they are not based on what is demonstrable. Sure, go ahead, express your religious beliefs all you want. Just don't expect me or people like me to let them go unchallenged.

So what you're saying is that two or more Christians shouldn't expect to be allowed to discuss a Christian issue in the Christianity Forum without 'people like you' challenging them and making it all about the reasons why you're an atheist?

That is revealing.

silverharp · 02-03-2015 11:24AM

Nick Park wrote: »

And neither can you start off from the assumption that it is full of errors.

Far better to weigh up the evidence for yourself rather than trying to shoehorn 'contradictions' in where they don't exist and, based on your apparently sketchy understanding of Greek and Hebrew, 'mistranslations' where a translation is perfectly plausible.

Trying to rubbish the poster isn't very nice now . Stick to what is posted and not make assumptions about what you think i know or dont

Nick Park · 02-03-2015 11:34AM

silverharp wrote: »

Trying to rubbish the poster isn't very nice now . Stick to what is posted and not make assumptions about what you think i know or dont

I'm going by what you posted. It doesn't appear to me that you have a good grasp of Greek or Hebrew. If I have misjudged you, and if you are actually proficient in those languages, then I will gladly apologise.

Since you are confidently posting about 'mistranslations' then it is entirely in order for me to ask how qualified you are to comment on the accuracy of a translation.

Do you think, for example, that your ability to read Hebrew is likely to be better than the Aramaic-speaking Jew who wrote Matthew's Gospel?

Virgin Mary

Comments