 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 661 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 1st, 2007 01:31 pm |
|
Still having a hard time wrapping my brain around this one. Not the fact she reamined one her entire life, but that physically her hyman was in tact. From what has been explained to me, I understand that Mary would have been unable to give birth to Jesus in the way we all as women are familiar with.
Evangeliticals do not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, do they? I know that's not what I was taught growing up. So it was a leap for me to accept that in the first place. Then I get thrown this curve ball! LOL If you grew up outside the Catholic church, how did you first come to hear and accept this piece of the puzzle?
Also, a couple years ago when I accepted the fact of Mary remaining a virgin, like I said - that was a stretch for me at that time. If it had been revealed to me that it also included her physical virginity it would have been to much for me to accept. Now here I am *wanting* to learn more about it and ready to accept it as truth. God knows what I can handle and what I can't. Even when it comes to revealing his Truths to me.
Looking forward to a good discussion!
Ali
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 305 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 1st, 2007 10:07 pm |
|
I have always found this odd too. I mean it doesn't make sense to me that Jesus would have been born in any but the usual way. I mean why become man in every other sense then be teleported out of the womb, even taking into account the absense of original sin which would mean child birth was pretty painless, more like when a cat or dog gives birth? Is intactness of the hymen the church standard for Mary's virginity or is it the lack of sexual contact?
I guess it is one of those things where I say to the church, I don't get it but if you say so, I can't prove you wrong.
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 10 months and 17
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5314 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 1st, 2007 10:40 pm |
|
My apologies for not proof-reading this message. I just re-read it and discovered that half of it disappeared as part of the posting process. I have added the missing portion below:
The Church sees Mary's virginity a sign of her purity and faith. From the Catechism:
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".
It continues:
506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith "unadulterated by any doubt", and of her undivided gift of herself to God's will. It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."
507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse."
Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact on the Perpetual virginity of Mary which you'll find here.
Catholic Answers has a tract here that quotes extensively from the early Fathers, including the Protoevangelium of James, to support the belief.
To the best of my knowledge, whether Mary's physical virginity remained intact is not a dogma of the Church, but has been a constant teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches since the earliest days, and is also proclaimed by Islam. Muslims have a stronger devotion to "Maryam" than many Christians. However, the emphasis has always been on Mary's moral virginity rather than physical, since physical virginity can be compromised in any number of ways.
One of the factors in many of the early Father's teaching that Jesus did not pass normally through the birth canal is the Jewish belief that contact with blood made one "unclean" and their refusal to accept that Jesus or Mary could be considered unclean in any manner. However, we do know from Scripture that Mary and Joseph made the appropriate offering for her purification at the temple. Was this because she was made "unclean" by giving birth, or was it merely a ritual action? We really don't know.Last edited on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 12:05 am by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 1st, 2007 11:06 pm |
|
Ali, I don’t recall that Mary’s virginity was defined by the Church as physical. There are surely people who accept this, but I have never seen it listed as a required belief.
Those who believe that Mary’s virginity has physical implications also tend to believe that Jesus was born in a “spiritual” manner, like light passing through a window, and that it did not involve labor or pain. (This example comes from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, so you see it has some force of tradition. But since the Catechism is not in itself a dogmatic statement, but rather a teaching tool, it is not infallible.)
Evangelicals do not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, do they?
Not usually “perpetual,” but many Evangelicals accept her virginity prior to giving birth to Jesus, because this is a proof that Jesus had no human father, but was God incarnate.
If you grew up outside the Catholic church, how did you first come to hear and accept this piece of the puzzle?
My parents were Protestant, and I was raised Methodist. I had to work hard to accept Mary’s role. In fact, Mary and the saints were the final hurdle in my conversion. But once I got over it, my understanding of God’s plan for mankind increased sevenfold. Strangely, I have never seriously wrestled with the question of how Mary’s perpetual virginity was to be understood; I just accepted the Church’s word for it.
mrsboo wrote:Is intactness of the hymen the church standard for Mary's virginity or is it the lack of sexual contact?
It was always my understanding that lack of sexual contact was the Church’s understanding of virginity. Besides, physical evidence could easily be destroyed by accident or even normal non-sexual activity. Add to that the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s citation of Vatican II, which in turn refers to St. Hieronymus, a Father of the Church, that Jesus’ birth “did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it,” and you have a strong argument against the physical evidence theory.
Regarding your comment about Christ’s humanity being compromised by an “unnatural” manner of birth, I have also considered this over the years. It always seemed to me a good argument, and this is why I have preferred to minimize the “spiritual birth” theory in my own life.
David
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 01:40 am |
|
Hello Again,
Last week after Ash Wed. service, I spoke with one of the parish priests for a while. I mentioned to him that I had been wrestling with the idea of Mary's perpetual viginity and that very week, a thought came to me that I believed was from the Holy Spirit. A few months ago, I learned that the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is the spouse of Mary, since he overshadowed her and immediately afterward, she conceived our Lord. I contemplated this truth for a moment, and then realized that Mary's perpetual virginity is believable since the Holy Spirit was her spouse. Joseph knew then that this was true, and would have respected her virginity for the remainder of their lives together. Father's response was that he agreed that the Holy Spirit had revealed this to me.
However, I cannot believe that Mary's physical virginity was intact. What about the passage in Revelation, that speaks of the woman crying out in pain before the birth of her son? This is specifically referring to Mary.
Any comments?
BTW, David, I am a little confused about your comment that the Catechism is not infallible. How can that be since it is a record of the teachings of the Catholic faith?
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 02:17 am |
|
Darlene, your intuition of Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit is correct. In fact, it is a traditional explanation dating back many centuries. A Father of the Church (St. John Chrysostom?) said that Mary is the daughter of God the Father, mother of God the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit.
You also ask, “I am a little confused about your comment that the Catechism is not infallible. How can that be since it is a record of the teachings of the Catholic faith?”
It’s a technicality. The teachings are infallible, but the Catechism, which is just citing them and explaining them, is not. The Church says that only those statements are infallible which emanate formally from the pope or an ecumenical council (what we call “extraordinary magisterium”). We must distinguish that the Catechism is an instrument of the ordinary magisterium, whereas dogma is established by the extraordinary magisterium. Infallibility is understood to be a function of the extraordinary magisterium.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5314 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 03:00 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: You also ask, “I am a little confused about your comment that the Catechism is not infallible. How can that be since it is a record of the teachings of the Catholic faith?”
It’s a technicality. The teachings are infallible, but the Catechism, which is just citing them and explaining them, is not.
To clarify: The teachings behind the Catechism are infallible; the Catechism, which summarizes those teachings, are not.
Let's pick a random example: The Immaculate Conception. This is certainly an infallible doctrine of the Church. The Catechism summarizes thousands of words of doctrine in a few paragraphs. It is possible that summary could be incomplete, or even in error. The original English edition was found to contain some improper translations, and that's why the second edition was released. The first edition was released quickly. The second edition was prepared more carefully.
It is easy to make a mistake when trying to summarize Church teaching. We've done it here countless times. That doesn't mean our summaries are wrong; but they're incomplete, and if someone wants to pick them apart, they can certainly find the omissions and errors. The errors are usually in the words we have chosen, and someone who wants to parse the words rather than look at the meaning will certainly find mistakes. After all, we're volunteers writing to explain things to those who are not theologians. We don't have hours to spend researching every word.
Well, the Catechism is the same way. It's compiled much more carefully by much better experts, so it's unlikely there are actual errors. But if you want to take a paragraph and compare it to the two thousand years of doctrine behind it, you will certainly find omissions and incomplete statements. That's why it contains so many footnotes, to make it easy to find the actual statements behind the summaries.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5314 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 03:11 pm |
|
Ali wrote: Still having a hard time wrapping my brain around this one. Not the fact she reamined one her entire life, but that physically her hyman was in tact. From what has been explained to me, I understand that Mary would have been unable to give birth to Jesus in the way we all as women are familiar with.
I don't know whether Mary's hymen remained intact or not, and as far as I know it's not a doctrinal statement of the Church, but here's a question to ask those who tell you it was impossible:
Are you saying that if God chose to have Jesus born in the ordinary way and still retain Mary's physical virginity, that God who made the heavens and the earth could not have done it? Is this beyond the capability of God? Jesus told us all things are possible with God, but this is impossible? Did Jesus lie? Is there a limit to God's power? Can God be stopped by a tiny film of flesh?
It is certainly within the capabillity of God to have Jesus born any way God desired, with or without affecting Mary's physical virginity. The entire nation of Israel was able to cross a body of water on foot; Jesus walked on water and Peter walked to him. And a woman's hymen is a challenge to God? A tiny little piece of flesh can thwart God's will?
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and rose from the dead himself. God placed a column of fire by night and clouds by day between the Jews and the Egyptians. Moses met God as a burning bush that was not consumed. All of those are much greater miracles than Mary's physical virginity being retained while giving birth. This was not beyond the capability of the All-Powerful God of all creation!
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
K. Ewald
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 27th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| First Name: | Kimberly | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical Covenant, Lutheran |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 03:19 pm |
|
I've been studying Catholicism for quite a while, but I had never heard this idea that Mary might not have actually given birth to Jesus but that he would somehow just have come out of her body in some mysterious fashion so that she would not have had to experience the pain and mess of childbirth and so that her hymen could remain intact.
As others have mentioned, the "physical evidence of virginity" can be broken from something as simple as riding a horse or playing tennis. Doesn't the nativity story always show Mary riding a donkey into Bethlehem?
Virginity isn't defined by whether a person's hymen is in tact; it's about S-E-X, and I'm pretty sure we've all established that as a VIRGIN, Mary wasn't having any of that!
Mostly I just wanted to comment on the birth issue. I suppose it's POSSIBLE that Jesus wasn't born the normal way, but what evidence is there for that? God Himself created the birthing process---it is natural and beautiful and even sacred. Giving birth is NOT the same thing as having sex, so there's no reason to think Mary couldn't have delivered her baby the usual way and still remained a virgin.
Contrary to popular belief, labor and delivery are NOT horrible painful nightmares for every woman. "Labor" just means "work." I would imagine that Mary went through the hard work of labor---which doesn't HAVE to involve immense pain---and the delivery too may have been easy and even relatively clean. Babies are generally only bloody if the mother's water breaks before the birth occurs (or if they're born by C-section, of course). My first son was born looking fresh as a daisy because the bag of waters (amniotic sac) was still perfectly intact as his head was crowning.
Honestly, though, we don't need to know all the details to believe that Mary went through the usual stuff all mothers go through. God's design is God's design; there's nothing wrong with that!
~Kimberly
|
|
|
K. Ewald
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 27th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| First Name: | Kimberly | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical Covenant, Lutheran |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 03:23 pm |
|
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and rose from the dead himself. God placed a column of fire by night and clouds by day between the Jews and the Egyptians. Moses met God as a burning bush that was not consumed. All of those are much greater miracles than Mary's physical virginity being retained while giving birth. This was not beyond the capability of the All-Powerful God of all creation!
Amen, Amen, cajunrick!
|
|
|
Ruthie
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houston, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 99 |
| First Name: | Ruthie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nominal Presbyterian, aetheist, evangelical Christian/Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 03:32 pm |
|
Revelation 12:2 - Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.
I think the Church believes this verse and the ones before it and after it refer to Mary and the birth of Jesus. Is that right?
Then why is it traditional to think that Mary gave birth to Jesus without experiencing labor pains? I know that it is relative to the extension of her being immaculately conceived, free from original sin, and that therefore she would not experience the result of the "fall" where God said women would bring forth their children in pain and men would feed their families only through the sweat of their brows. (Genesis 3:16-19)
But doesn't this verse in Revelation refute that idea? The verse in Revelation referring to Mary seems to contradict the tradition of the Church in this respect.
I always felt that Mary was one of those women who did not experience pain with her labor to go along with Church tradition but the verse in Revelation seems to refute that idea too.
Also, why does Mary's giving physical birth to Jesus have anything to do with her perpetual virginity? If she did not have sexual intercourse with a man at any time, that would make her a perpetual virgin, even if she did give birth to Jesus.
I always pictured Mary and Joseph as having taken something similar to a Nazirite vow for life which might have prescribed celibacy as part of their lifelong consecration to God. Even though there is no mention of abstaining from sexual relations in the formula for taking a Nazirite vow, it could be assumed that one would do that. Does the Church elaborate on this anywhere in its teachings? – that Mary and Joseph might have taken a vow of consecration whereby they agreed to remain celibate in their marriage other than what is in the Catechism, which doesn’t really address any such agreement between Joseph and Mary?
Just my thoughts.
Ruthie
Last edited on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 03:37 pm by Ruthie
____________________
Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it. (NRSV, Luke 18:17)
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 305 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 03:46 pm |
|
| That was why I compared it to a pet giving birth. Definitely some work and discomfort but they don't seem to have the same pain most people do(or the mess). I am not sure how much of the labor pains are part of the curse from the garden and how much would have been there anyway. I doubt there is a way to know.
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 10 months and 17
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5314 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 03:48 pm |
|
It has been believed since the earliest days of the Church that Mary was a consecrated temple virgin. It was part of the custom of that day that an older widower would take a temple virgin as his wife to protect her and so she could take care of his household and his children. The Protoevengelium of James gives this interpretation.
Women in those days could not own property or earn a living except through prostitution. If a temple virgin could not be married, there would be no way for her to live. And so she would be taken into the household of an older widower who would respect her vows and provide for her, and in return she would do housework and care for his children.
The only acceptable way a young woman could enter an older man's home was as his wife or his slave, and so he would take her as his wife.
If this is true (and it is not declared as doctrine, or even an infallible part of Scripture, so we are free to believe it or not), it would indicate that Mary had taken sacred vows of chastity, and Joseph, as part of the marriage vows, had taken vows of fidelity to her. So in effect, there were indeed sacred vows of chastity for both of them, and Joseph was well aware at every moment of their relationship that he would never have sexual relations with her. Of course, he also didn't believe she would have a child, but his faith in her (and the vision he received from the angel in a dream) convinced him of her continued chastity even in her pregnancy.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
beachmoss
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Simpsonville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Beth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic (raised Baptist) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 5th, 2007 06:32 pm |
|
In reference to the quote from Revelation. Could it be that Mary cried out because she knew what was coming? It is an established tradition that she was raised in the Temple. Even if she weren't, being a devout Jew, she would have well known the prophecies of the Messiah.
When a child is in the womb a mother knows, or at least feels, that she can protect that child; yet as soon as it is born it is subject to the world. Mary would have known that her son would be scorned and broken. Perhaps she cried out in the pain of knowing she was releasing Him to the world. It was time to share the miraculous gift that she alone had held for 38 weeks.
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2007 03:40 pm |
|
Last night I was thinking about the perpetual virginity of Mary and how to make a defense of this Catholic belief to Protestants. One of the reasons which Protestants give in objection to this belief (as many of you probably know already) are the various places in scripture that refer to Jesus' brothers. Mark 3:31: "And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they to him and called him." (also in Matthew 12:46, & Luke 8:20) John 7:3: "So his brothers said to him..." John 7:5: "For even his brothers did not believe in him." Acts 1:"All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." I know there may be at least one more reference to Jesus having brothers but these references will suffice.
Why didn't the translators just use the phrase "kinsmen" instead of Jesus' brothers? I ask this because in Luke 1:46, Elizabeth is referred to as Mary's "kinswoman." Yet, we all know that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin. I've read that there was no actual word in Hebrew (or is it Aramaic?) for cousin so brother was used instead. Nonetheless, kinswoman is used in this passage to refer to Mary's cousin. The word "sister" was not used. So "kinswoman" makes a distinction from sister. If kinsmen had been used instead of brothers, I think there would be better defense for Mary's perpetual virginity. Can anyone clarify this for me?
In regards to Mary crying out in pain from the passaage in Revelation, I too, have wondered about that. Women experience pain in child bearing because of the fall. But Mary's sinlessness declared as doctrine in the Catholic Church, would seem to make her an exception to experiencing pain in child birth. So how does one reconcile this teaching with the clear example in scripture of Mary crying out in pain during childbirth in Revelation 12:2? "she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery."
I look forward to all of your responses.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
kimdyuma
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 832 |
| First Name: | Kim | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Anglican, Episcopal /Catholic-04/07/07 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2007 04:52 pm |
|
| I am not answering from a scholarly oint of view- merely a practical one. I lived in Bangladesh and in Somalia for a number of years and people 9 mainly men) always referedd to their "brother" when they actually meant their cousins. Another phrase that I came up with often is My "uncle" brother again referring to a cousin.
____________________
Adopt from your local Humane Society- Please spay or neuter your pets
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 242 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2007 06:33 pm |
|
Darlene:
Do you have this little book? "Catholic Doctrine in Scripture," by Gregory Oatis, available through Coming Home Resources.
It would be helpful as you defend against the various charges that the Church is "unbiblical."
Regards,
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2007 06:35 pm |
|
Darlene, the “brothers of Jesus” argument is easy to refute, the fact that the Protestants don’t “get it” notwithstanding.
In Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic, there is no word for several kinds of familial relations, such as uncle, cousin or in-laws. The word “brother” was used from the most ancient of times to indicate any kind of familial relation. Lot was Abram’s nephew (Genesis 12:5 and 14:12, where Lot is described as Abram’s brother’s son), yet in 14:14 and 14:16 he is referred to as Abram’s brother. Note that this is all within the same context.
Greek has a word for just about every conceivable familial relation. So why did the authors of the Gospels use the word “brother”? Because they were translating texts or traditions from the original Aramaic, and they honored the selection of words given by their sources because they were dealing with a sacred topic. We see many hebraisms in all the Gospels and throughout the New Testament for this reason: to protect the integrity of the source.
In an apparent departure from this, we do see in Luke 1:46 the word “kinswoman” in the Greek. This may have had to do with the fact that Luke himself did not speak Aramaic and had to rely on someone else’s translation. The translation given is, in fact, accurate, because the original Aramaic probably used the word “sister,” whereas in all probability Elizabeth was Mary’s cousin.
Meanwhile, there are several instances in the Gospels where the word “brother” or “sister” is used or implied and we know this is not literally the case. One of them, in fact (Matthew 13:55–56; Mark 6:3), has to do with a “Mary,” whose children were supposedly brothers of Jesus. In fact, by correlation to the different passages (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1; Luke 24:10; compare John 2:1, 3; Acts 1:14) where she is mentioned, it is known that this Mary was not the Mother of Jesus, but an aunt. Her children were Jesus’ cousins.
The standard reference for anyone who doubts the Catholic understanding of Mary in the bible (including the proper interpretation of “brother”) is St. Jerome’s Letter to Helvidius (4th century).
The Woman crying out in pain as she gives birth (Revelation 12:2) has been variously understood. Some scholars say that this is indeed the literal truth; that Mary accepted the pains of childbirth just as she accepted the sorrow of watching her son die on the cross. These same interpreters often go on to affirm that Mary did indeed die at the end of her life instead of being translated directly to heaven. None of these assertions contradicts Catholic dogma. Others, however, say that the idea of travail is a customary one when referring to a woman giving birth and so is an insignificant detail, a “formulary” thing. Mary, then, would have given birth without pain and gone on to be taken up into heaven without first dying. And this may be seen as equally acceptable.
The Navarre Bible Commentary offers this pointer: “The mysterious figure of the woman has been interpreted ever since the time of the Fathers of the Church as referring to the ancient people of Israel, or the Church of Jesus Christ, or the Blessed Virgin. The text supports all of these interpretations but in none do all the details fit.” So no matter how the passage is interpreted, there are going to be difficulties.
As with the matter of Mary’s physical evidence of her virginity, we just don’t know enough to say anything for sure about her pains of travail. Is this a barrier to belief? I don’t think so. We need not get into specifics where details are lacking.
David
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 528 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12th, 2007 07:26 am |
|
This is the Scripture of the Eastern Church and part of what helped me understand.
Ezekiel
Chapter 44
1
Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east; but it was closed.
2
He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 138 |
| First Name: | abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Non-Denomational Charismatic, Lutheran |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 01:07 am |
|
Hi Ali ....
This is one of the things that I just have a hard time with .... I am very new on this journey, having spent many, many years in non-denominational churches, and I suspect I will struggle with some of these for quite awhile. And, in all honesty, I think some of these things are so foreign to me that only God will be able to open my eyes and heart. If it is His Will, He will do this. I'm just trying to follow the journey that appears to lie before me.
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
beachmoss
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Simpsonville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Beth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic (raised Baptist) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 02:59 am |
|
I just reread this thread, and while reading David's last post about Jesus' "brothers" a thought hit me. Why do many Protestants, especially Evangelicals, it seems, refer to each other as "Brother" or "Sister" even though they share no familial relationship outside their brotherhood in Christ?
Beth
|
|
|
EMarshallBuckles
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rockville (Near Richmond), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 616 |
| First Name: | Marshall | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Christian Church,Episcopal Church,Baptist denomination,learning about RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 03:56 am |
|
One thing that always kind of amuses me, as well as perplexes me, about our society is that people often, to borrow our Lord's words, "swallow camels and strain at gnats". People will believe all sorts of things ranging from believing that they can do magic, flying saucers, various other science fiction, occult and other such things, however, say to them that you believe that Jesus was conceived by God and born of a virgin and - WHOA - well what kind of weirdo are YOU?!! SIGH!!! :? Well, anyway, growing up in a protestant home as I did, I was taught, and I firmly believe, that Jesus WAS born of a human mother, our blessed Mary, who was a virgin when God conceived His preexisting Son Jesus in Mary's blessed womb (and, of course, I could sign under the Athanasian Creed, the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed as a testimony of my beliefs since I am in full agreement with them). Now, of course, protestants tend to assume that after Jesus was born that Mary and Joseph became as a normal husband and wife. What does Marshall think about that? Well, frankly, I don't know. I do leave wide open, so to speak, the possibility that Joseph and Mary lived together in a celibate marriage rasing Jesus. What about those so called brothers and sisters of Jesus. Again, don't know. I leave open the door that they could have been Joseph's children from a previous marriage, could have been adopted children, could have been relatives other than siblings or some such. As I read the Bible, I find that God gives us information which we NEED to have, as well as some we might LIKE to have but other information which we really don't need and is not important we don't get because, frankly, I suspect that God may feel that further information would possibly detract from the main point and lack of certain information may kind of intrigue us and help attract our attention to the scriptures which give us the information which we DO need to have. I think that someday God will take us all into His confidence and explain everything to us and that we will be happily enraptured in wonder and praise and thanksgiving about how WELL, how WONDERFULLY God did all things! Until then, I think that God is telling us, "Trust ME!"
By the way, if Mary remained a perpetual virgin, and if her hymen was left intact, to me how that might have been accomplished is easy to understand. If God created her as the Immaculate Conception, would it not be also be very likely that He might also have given her the physical ability to remain a virgin by retention of her hymen by the simple means of the tissue somehow being stretched to allow our Savior to be born and then returned to it's original state. What was it the scriptures say? "With God ALL things are possible!" And even if the hymen did not remain intact, she was STILL a Virgin. Like she said, she had "not known (had marital relations with) a man and a woman or a man who has never, um, uh, "had relations with someone" is still a virgin no matter what has happened to the hymen in the case of a female.
I think that when we consider what we are taught in the Bible, we need to remember that God is God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, all powerful! W | | |
