Christianity QA

Question:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 28-SEP-2000 (Last rev. 29-MAY-2001) Sola Scriptura: The Ambiguity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura The Church teaches that the whole Gospel of Christ resides in three elements – the oral tradition, the written tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops. The Church teaches that it is only when these three elements are taken together is the whole gospel of Jesus Christ accurately transmitted and preserved. The Church teaches that:       … sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the       teaching authority of the Church, in accord       with God’s most wise design, are so linked and       joined together that one cannot stand without       the others, and that all together and each in       its own way under the action of the one Holy       Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation       of souls.       Para. 95, "Catechism of the Catholic Church,"       Second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana,       (1997). SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the _supreme_ authority in all matters of faith and morals. Now, this definition of Sola Scriptura is stated in its broadest form. Certain self described "confessional" Protestants hold that there is a very significant role for teaching authority and for oral traditions in understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they also teach that when push comes to shove, scripture holds a supreme place of authority. The other end of the Sola Scriptura spectrum would be that scripture alone and nothing else is to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and morals. Regardless of which "version" of Sola Scriptura is examined, the fact remains that the basic teaching is the supreme authority of scripture. In contrast to this supreme place of authority for scripture, the Church teaches that the three elements (oral tradition, written tradition, and teaching authority), are in a communal relationship, none being greater than the other. THE AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE A discussion came up about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how this teaching balances out against Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Mark 6:3 Is not this … the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 55 …Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?… I raised the following questions recently and have not received an answer yet. If you have answers to these questions, please feel free to write in. When writer asked: …in your opinion, what is the relationship between Mary the wife of Joseph and Mary the wife of Clopas? the response was: Why, what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING. Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus is not the same woman as Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas or Mary-the-mother-of-James-and-Joset, its pretty simple really.  The relationship between them is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I think the relationship between Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph and Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas is very significant. [capitals for emphasis] John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood HIS MOTHER and his MOTHER’S SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. I disagree when the respondent says, "…what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING." I think the identity of the "sister" mentioned in the clause, "and his mother’s sister" is very important. First let us review. Those who believe that Mary had more than one child, assert that when Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 refers to, James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Jude, that the passages are referring to the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph. In Mark 6;3 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon?" It is POSSIBLE, however, that the phrase, "…the brother of etc." does not refer to the children of Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus but, instead, these people are certain cousins, possibly the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas. EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE WORD "COUSIN" According to John 19:25, Clopas is most probably the brother of, Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Also as seen in John 19:25, the least possible meaning is that the two women named Mary are blood sisters, as it is unlikely that two girls in the same family would have the same first name.  In spite of this, they are called sisters, even though they are most likely sisters-in-law or perhaps step-sisters. This indicates the use of the word "sister" in place of the less specific Aramaic word for "kinswomen." Since Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is a scene set in the home town of Jesus, it is very reasonable to assume that the local people originally expressed themselves in an Aramaic idiom, where the word "brother" could actually have the broader meaning of "cousin," or "kinsman." The fact that the Aramaic word "kinsman" ends up in the Greek as "brother" is no guarantee that the more technical Greek word meaning "cousin" would have been used. After all, other passages in Greek use "brother" when another word is meant and the person is not the child of the same parents. Examples include, Mark 6:17-18 where a half-brother is called a brother; in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), Gen 24:48 and Gen 29:12 use the Greek word "brother" when "kinsman" is really more appropriate. Another piece of evidence in favor of the term "brothers" actually being "cousins" is the fact that one of the children cited in in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is named Joseph/Joses. Though on rare occasions a father might name a child after himself, in the time of Jesus this custom was very rare among Jews [p. 9, "The Anchor Bible: Matthew," W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Doubleday, (1971)] Given these various possibilities, the passages Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55-56 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 15:40 we have "…Mary the mother of James the younger, and Joses…" It is very reasonable to conclude that these children are the same James and Joseph/Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56, though I agree that there is room for other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, and Mark 15:40,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 16:1 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is very reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3.  I admit that other interpretations could be placed on this passage. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Luke 24:10 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 13:55-56.  I admit that there could be other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:10,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Jn 19:25 "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdala." If "Mary the wife of Clopas" is an adjectival clause modifying the antecedent "his mother’s sister," then one would reasonably assume that the "Mary" mentioned in relation to these people James, Joseph/Joses, etc, are all children of Mary the wife of Clopas. This would make all those children in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 all cousins of Jesus and would support the assumption that the word "brothers" indeed is a mistranslation of a vague familial expression in Aramaic. But I agree that the matter is open to a variety of interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10 and John 19:25 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Given this ambiguity, we turn to the following definition of Sola Scriptura: The Bible is the supreme authority in matter of faith and morals. My question is: How can the Bible be the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals, when it is so clearly ambiguous about identifying the people involved in the teaching that Mary MUST have given birth to more then one child? Many, many Sola Scriptura Christians teach that Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 MUST be the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph, and therefore the younger brothers of Jesus. But how can Sola Scriptura Christians claim this when their "authority" is so darned ambiguous? Sola Scriptura Christians assert that if something is not in scripture, then it is a teaching of men. If this is so, then one has to ask, why are Sola Scriptura Christians following the teachings of men, since scripture does not say that Mary had other children. If scripture does say this in a clear and unambiguous way, please show me the unambiguous clearly stated passage that names the children and tells me Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph gave birth to them. So far the only evidence cited by Sola Scriptura Christians is several ambiguous passages that could very reasonably be interpreted in several ways. So based on the criteria

… read more »

Response:

Ok. That works for me. I am not a Biblicist. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Actually the Bible proves Scripture alone as false Sola scriptura  Jn 21:25 … not everything is in the Bible.  2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 … Paul speaks of oral tradition.  Acts 2:42 … early Christians followed apostolic tradition.  2 Pet 3:16 … Bible hard to understand, get distorted.  2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 … more oral tradition.  2 Pet 1:20-21 … against personal interpretation.  Acts 8:31 … guidance needed to interpret scriptures. Pax The early Church did not have the ‘Scriptures’. Its history IS the New Testament. Biblicism does not stand up under historical scrutiny. Sola Scriptura is not necessary to disavow Catholic excesses. This excerpt "The value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. The Bible is of God; the Confession is man’s answer to God’s word. The Bible is the norma normans; the Confession the norma normata. The Bible is the rule of faith (regula fidei); the Confession the rule of doctrine (regula doctrina). The Bible has, therefore a divine and absolute, the Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative authority. The Bible regulates the general religious belief and practice of the laity as well as the clergy; the symbols regulate the public teaching of the officers of the Church, as Constitutions and Canons regulate the government, Liturgies and Hymn-books the worship of the Church. Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing. Symbololatry is a species of idolatry, and substitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living pope. It is apt to produce the opposite extreme of a rejection of all creeds, and to promote rationalism and infidelity.[4]" http://capo.org/premise/95/feb/lillbk1.html defines the issues. Scripture is just fine enough for those with enough of a work habit and blessings to achieve the level of skill to be able to understand them. For others: they need one verse Charlie’s and paganistic rituals. In other words, help the dummies. The traditions of the apostles is the tradition of the bible. Anything else is, plainly put, not! No excuses. Sola Scriptura: The Ambiguity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura The Church teaches that the whole Gospel of Christ resides in three elements – the oral tradition, the written tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops. The Church teaches that it is only when these three elements are taken together is the whole gospel of Jesus Christ accurately transmitted and preserved. The Church teaches that:       … sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the       teaching authority of the Church, in accord       with God’s most wise design, are so linked and       joined together that one cannot stand without       the others, and that all together and each in       its own way under the action of the one Holy       Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation       of souls.       Para. 95, "Catechism of the Catholic Church,"       Second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana,       (1997). SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the _supreme_ authority in all matters of faith and morals. Now, this definition of Sola Scriptura is stated in its broadest form. Certain self described "confessional" Protestants hold that there is a very significant role for teaching authority and for oral traditions in understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they also teach that when push comes to shove, scripture holds a supreme place of authority. The other end of the Sola Scriptura spectrum would be that scripture alone and nothing else is to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and morals. Regardless of which "version" of Sola Scriptura is examined, the fact remains that the basic teaching is the supreme authority of scripture. In contrast to this supreme place of authority for scripture, the Church teaches that the three elements (oral tradition, written tradition, and teaching authority), are in a communal relationship, none being greater than the other. THE AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE A discussion came up about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how this teaching balances out against Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Mark 6:3 Is not this … the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 55 …Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?… I raised the following questions recently and have not received an answer yet. If you have answers to these questions, please feel free to write in. When writer asked: …in your opinion, what is the relationship between Mary the wife of Joseph and Mary the wife of Clopas? the response was: Why, what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING. Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus is not the same woman as Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas or Mary-the-mother-of-James-and-Joset, its pretty simple really.  The relationship between them is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I think the relationship between Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph and Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas is very significant. [capitals for emphasis] John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood HIS MOTHER and his MOTHER’S SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. I disagree when the respondent says, "…what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING." I think the identity of the "sister" mentioned in the clause, "and his mother’s sister" is very important. First let us review. Those who believe that Mary had more than one child, assert that when Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 refers to, James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Jude, that the passages are referring to the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph. In Mark 6;3 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon?" It is POSSIBLE, however, that the phrase, "…the brother of etc." does not refer to the children of Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus but, instead, these people are certain cousins, possibly the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas. EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE WORD "COUSIN" According to John 19:25, Clopas is most probably the brother of, Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Also as seen in John 19:25, the least possible meaning is that the two women named Mary are blood sisters, as it is unlikely that two girls in the same family would have the same first name.  In spite of this, they are called sisters, even though they are most likely sisters-in-law or perhaps step-sisters. This indicates the use of the word "sister" in place of the less specific Aramaic word for "kinswomen." Since Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is a scene set in the home town of Jesus, it is very reasonable to assume that the local people originally expressed themselves in an Aramaic idiom, where the word "brother" could actually have the broader meaning of "cousin," or "kinsman." The fact that the Aramaic word "kinsman" ends up in the Greek as "brother" is no guarantee that the more technical Greek word meaning "cousin" would have been used. After all, other passages in Greek use "brother" when another word is meant and the person is not the child of the same parents. Examples include, Mark 6:17-18 where a half-brother is called a brother; in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), Gen 24:48 and Gen 29:12 use the Greek word "brother" when "kinsman" is really more appropriate. Another piece of evidence in favor of the term "brothers" actually being "cousins" is the fact that one of the children cited in in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is named Joseph/Joses. Though on rare occasions a father might name a child after himself, in the time of Jesus this custom was very rare among Jews [p. 9, "The Anchor Bible: Matthew," W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Doubleday, (1971)] Given these various

… read more »

Response:

Actually the Bible proves Scripture alone as false Sola scriptura  Jn 21:25 … not everything is in the Bible.  2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 … Paul speaks of oral tradition.  Acts 2:42 … early Christians followed apostolic tradition.  2 Pet 3:16 … Bible hard to understand, get distorted.  2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 … more oral tradition.  2 Pet 1:20-21 … against personal interpretation.  Acts 8:31 … guidance needed to interpret scriptures. Pax

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The early Church did not have the ‘Scriptures’. Its history IS the New Testament. Biblicism does not stand up under historical scrutiny. Sola Scriptura is not necessary to disavow Catholic excesses. This excerpt "The value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. The Bible is of God; the Confession is man’s answer to God’s word. The Bible is the norma normans; the Confession the norma normata. The Bible is the rule of faith (regula fidei); the Confession the rule of doctrine (regula doctrina). The Bible has, therefore a divine and absolute, the Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative authority. The Bible regulates the general religious belief and practice of the laity as well as the clergy; the symbols regulate the public teaching of the officers of the Church, as Constitutions and Canons regulate the government, Liturgies and Hymn-books the worship of the Church. Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing. Symbololatry is a species of idolatry, and substitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living pope. It is apt to produce the opposite extreme of a rejection of all creeds, and to promote rationalism and infidelity.[4]" http://capo.org/premise/95/feb/lillbk1.html defines the issues. Scripture is just fine enough for those with enough of a work habit and blessings to achieve the level of skill to be able to understand them. For others: they need one verse Charlie’s and paganistic rituals. In other words, help the dummies. The traditions of the apostles is the tradition of the bible. Anything else is, plainly put, not! No excuses. Sola Scriptura: The Ambiguity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura The Church teaches that the whole Gospel of Christ resides in three elements – the oral tradition, the written tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops. The Church teaches that it is only when these three elements are taken together is the whole gospel of Jesus Christ accurately transmitted and preserved. The Church teaches that:       … sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the       teaching authority of the Church, in accord       with God’s most wise design, are so linked and       joined together that one cannot stand without       the others, and that all together and each in       its own way under the action of the one Holy       Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation       of souls.       Para. 95, "Catechism of the Catholic Church,"       Second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana,       (1997). SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the _supreme_ authority in all matters of faith and morals. Now, this definition of Sola Scriptura is stated in its broadest form. Certain self described "confessional" Protestants hold that there is a very significant role for teaching authority and for oral traditions in understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they also teach that when push comes to shove, scripture holds a supreme place of authority. The other end of the Sola Scriptura spectrum would be that scripture alone and nothing else is to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and morals. Regardless of which "version" of Sola Scriptura is examined, the fact remains that the basic teaching is the supreme authority of scripture. In contrast to this supreme place of authority for scripture, the Church teaches that the three elements (oral tradition, written tradition, and teaching authority), are in a communal relationship, none being greater than the other. THE AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE A discussion came up about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how this teaching balances out against Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Mark 6:3 Is not this … the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 55 …Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?… I raised the following questions recently and have not received an answer yet. If you have answers to these questions, please feel free to write in. When writer asked: …in your opinion, what is the relationship between Mary the wife of Joseph and Mary the wife of Clopas? the response was: Why, what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING. Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus is not the same woman as Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas or Mary-the-mother-of-James-and-Joset, its pretty simple really.  The relationship between them is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I think the relationship between Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph and Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas is very significant. [capitals for emphasis] John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood HIS MOTHER and his MOTHER’S SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. I disagree when the respondent says, "…what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING." I think the identity of the "sister" mentioned in the clause, "and his mother’s sister" is very important. First let us review. Those who believe that Mary had more than one child, assert that when Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 refers to, James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Jude, that the passages are referring to the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph. In Mark 6;3 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon?" It is POSSIBLE, however, that the phrase, "…the brother of etc." does not refer to the children of Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus but, instead, these people are certain cousins, possibly the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas. EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE WORD "COUSIN" According to John 19:25, Clopas is most probably the brother of, Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Also as seen in John 19:25, the least possible meaning is that the two women named Mary are blood sisters, as it is unlikely that two girls in the same family would have the same first name.  In spite of this, they are called sisters, even though they are most likely sisters-in-law or perhaps step-sisters. This indicates the use of the word "sister" in place of the less specific Aramaic word for "kinswomen." Since Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is a scene set in the home town of Jesus, it is very reasonable to assume that the local people originally expressed themselves in an Aramaic idiom, where the word "brother" could actually have the broader meaning of "cousin," or "kinsman." The fact that the Aramaic word "kinsman" ends up in the Greek as "brother" is no guarantee that the more technical Greek word meaning "cousin" would have been used. After all, other passages in Greek use "brother" when another word is meant and the person is not the child of the same parents. Examples include, Mark 6:17-18 where a half-brother is called a brother; in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), Gen 24:48 and Gen 29:12 use the Greek word "brother" when "kinsman" is really more appropriate. Another piece of evidence in favor of the term "brothers" actually being "cousins" is the fact that one of the children cited in in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is named Joseph/Joses. Though on rare occasions a father might name a child after himself, in the time of Jesus this custom was very rare among Jews [p. 9, "The Anchor Bible: Matthew," W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Doubleday, (1971)] Given these various possibilities, the passages Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55-56 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 15:40 we have "…Mary the mother of James the younger, and Joses…" It is very reasonable to conclude that these children are the same James and Joseph/Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56, though I agree that there is room for other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, and Mark 15:40,  when taken as

… read more »

Response:

Are you saying that Jerome, a man, can’t be wrong?

Oh shutup. BAM

Response:

Read the posting on the newsgroup titled: " (Article) Mary Perpetual virgin? " It might help you understand better. How about the one that was written 1600 years ago by the man who gave you "The Bible"?

Are you saying that Jerome, a man, can’t be wrong? Sean – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY Against Helvidius. By St. Jerome This tract appeared about A.D. 383. 1. I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who,[1] as has been said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him. He would stand as it were on a pedestal, and would publish his views far and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of the scandal caused to the brethren who were disguised at his ravings. The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that Helvidius who has never learnt to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue. 2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith. 3. His first statement was: "Matthew says,[2] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately. But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Notice, he says, that the word used is betrothed, not intrusted as you say, and of course the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And the Evangelist would not have said before they came together if they were not to come together, for no one would use the phrase before he dried of a man who was not going to dine. Then, again, the angel calls her wife and speaks of her as united to Joseph. We are next invited to listen to the declaration of Scripture:[1] "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her son." 4. Let us take the points one by one, and follow the tracks of this impiety that we may show that he has contradicted himself. He admits that she was betrothed, and in the next breath will have her to be a man’s wife whom he has admitted to be his betrothed. Again, he calls her wife, and then says the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And, for fear we might not think that enough, "the word used," he says, "is betrothed and not intrusted, that is to say, not yet a wife, not yet united by the bond of wedlock." But when he continues, "the Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to dine," I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, "Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa," his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, "the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome," or (as I certainly might) "Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death," must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says[2] "In sheol who shall give thee thanks?" Must we not rather understand that the preposition before, although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought? So that there is no necessity, if sufficient cause intervened to prevent it, for our thoughts to be realized. When, then, the Evangelist says before they came together, he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with child. And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this time, almost the privilege, of a husband. Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived. And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, "Fear not to take Mary thy wife "; and again, "Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife," no one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called wife, she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give the title to those who are betrothed. The following evidence from Deuteronomy establishes the point.[1] "If the man," says the writer, "find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, he shall surely die, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife." And in another place,[2] "If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee." Elsewhere also,[3] "And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her." But if anyone feels a doubt as to why the Virgin conceived after she was betrothed rather than when she had no one betrothed to her, or, to use the Scripture phrase, no husband, let me explain that there were three reasons. First, that by the genealogy of Joseph, whose kinswoman Mary was, Mary’s origin might also be shown. Secondly, that she might not in accordance with the law of Moses be stoned as an adulteress. Thirdly, that in her flight to Egypt she might have some solace, though it was that of a guardian rather than a husband. For who at that time would have believed the Virgin’s word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? and would not all have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? for at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue that when Isaiah says,[1] "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son," the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, not a virgin, that is to say, the word is ALMAH, not BETHULAH, a position which, farther on, we shall dispute more in detail. Lastly, excepting Joseph, and Elizabeth, and Mary herself, and some few others who, we may suppose, heard the truth from them, all considered Jesus to be the son of Joseph. And so far was this the case that even the Evangelists, expressing the prevailing opinion, which is the correct rule for a historian, call him the father of the Saviour, as, for instance,[2] "And he (that is, Simeon) came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law;" and elsewhere,[3] "And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the passover." And afterwards,[4] "And when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew not of it." Observe also what Mary herself, who had replied to Gabriel with the words,[5] "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" says concerning Joseph,[6] "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing." We have not here, as many maintain, the utterance of Jews or of mockers. The Evangelists call Joseph father: Mary confesses he was father. Not (as I said before) that Joseph was really the father of the Saviour: but

… read more »

Response:

The early Church did not have the ‘Scriptures’. Its history IS the New Testament. Biblicism does not stand up under historical scrutiny. Sola Scriptura is not necessary to disavow Catholic excesses. This excerpt "The value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. The Bible is of God; the Confession is man’s answer to God’s word. The Bible is the norma normans; the Confession the norma normata. The Bible is the rule of faith (regula fidei); the Confession the rule of doctrine (regula doctrina). The Bible has, therefore a divine and absolute, the Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative authority. The Bible regulates the general religious belief and practice of the laity as well as the clergy; the symbols regulate the public teaching of the officers of the Church, as Constitutions and Canons regulate the government, Liturgies and Hymn-books the worship of the Church. Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing. Symbololatry is a species of idolatry, and substitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living pope. It is apt to produce the opposite extreme of a rejection of all creeds, and to promote rationalism and infidelity.[4]" http://capo.org/premise/95/feb/lillbk1.html defines the issues. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scripture is just fine enough for those with enough of a work habit and blessings to achieve the level of skill to be able to understand them. For others: they need one verse Charlie’s and paganistic rituals. In other words, help the dummies. The traditions of the apostles is the tradition of the bible. Anything else is, plainly put, not! No excuses. Sola Scriptura: The Ambiguity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura The Church teaches that the whole Gospel of Christ resides in three elements – the oral tradition, the written tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops. The Church teaches that it is only when these three elements are taken together is the whole gospel of Jesus Christ accurately transmitted and preserved. The Church teaches that:       … sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the       teaching authority of the Church, in accord       with God’s most wise design, are so linked and       joined together that one cannot stand without       the others, and that all together and each in       its own way under the action of the one Holy       Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation       of souls.       Para. 95, "Catechism of the Catholic Church,"       Second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana,       (1997). SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the _supreme_ authority in all matters of faith and morals. Now, this definition of Sola Scriptura is stated in its broadest form. Certain self described "confessional" Protestants hold that there is a very significant role for teaching authority and for oral traditions in understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they also teach that when push comes to shove, scripture holds a supreme place of authority. The other end of the Sola Scriptura spectrum would be that scripture alone and nothing else is to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and morals. Regardless of which "version" of Sola Scriptura is examined, the fact remains that the basic teaching is the supreme authority of scripture. In contrast to this supreme place of authority for scripture, the Church teaches that the three elements (oral tradition, written tradition, and teaching authority), are in a communal relationship, none being greater than the other. THE AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE A discussion came up about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how this teaching balances out against Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Mark 6:3 Is not this … the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 55 …Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?… I raised the following questions recently and have not received an answer yet. If you have answers to these questions, please feel free to write in. When writer asked: …in your opinion, what is the relationship between Mary the wife of Joseph and Mary the wife of Clopas? the response was: Why, what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING. Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus is not the same woman as Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas or Mary-the-mother-of-James-and-Joset, its pretty simple really.  The relationship between them is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I think the relationship between Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph and Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas is very significant. [capitals for emphasis] John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood HIS MOTHER and his MOTHER’S SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. I disagree when the respondent says, "…what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING." I think the identity of the "sister" mentioned in the clause, "and his mother’s sister" is very important. First let us review. Those who believe that Mary had more than one child, assert that when Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 refers to, James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Jude, that the passages are referring to the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph. In Mark 6;3 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon?" It is POSSIBLE, however, that the phrase, "…the brother of etc." does not refer to the children of Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus but, instead, these people are certain cousins, possibly the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas. EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE WORD "COUSIN" According to John 19:25, Clopas is most probably the brother of, Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Also as seen in John 19:25, the least possible meaning is that the two women named Mary are blood sisters, as it is unlikely that two girls in the same family would have the same first name.  In spite of this, they are called sisters, even though they are most likely sisters-in-law or perhaps step-sisters. This indicates the use of the word "sister" in place of the less specific Aramaic word for "kinswomen." Since Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is a scene set in the home town of Jesus, it is very reasonable to assume that the local people originally expressed themselves in an Aramaic idiom, where the word "brother" could actually have the broader meaning of "cousin," or "kinsman." The fact that the Aramaic word "kinsman" ends up in the Greek as "brother" is no guarantee that the more technical Greek word meaning "cousin" would have been used. After all, other passages in Greek use "brother" when another word is meant and the person is not the child of the same parents. Examples include, Mark 6:17-18 where a half-brother is called a brother; in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), Gen 24:48 and Gen 29:12 use the Greek word "brother" when "kinsman" is really more appropriate. Another piece of evidence in favor of the term "brothers" actually being "cousins" is the fact that one of the children cited in in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is named Joseph/Joses. Though on rare occasions a father might name a child after himself, in the time of Jesus this custom was very rare among Jews [p. 9, "The Anchor Bible: Matthew," W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Doubleday, (1971)] Given these various possibilities, the passages Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55-56 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 15:40 we have "…Mary the mother of James the younger, and Joses…" It is very reasonable to conclude that these children are the same James and Joseph/Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56, though I agree that there is room for other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, and Mark 15:40,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 16:1 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is very reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3.  I admit that other interpretations could be placed on this passage. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Luke 24:10 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 13:55-56.  I admit that there could be other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:10,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Jn 19:25

… read more »

Response:

Scripture is just fine enough for those with enough of a work habit and blessings to achieve the level of skill to be able to understand them. For others: they need one verse Charlie’s and paganistic rituals. In other words, help the dummies. The traditions of the apostles is the tradition of the bible.

The Apostle’s did not take their teachings from the Bible,  they put their teachings into the Bible. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anything else is, plainly put, not! No excuses. Sola Scriptura: The Ambiguity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura The Church teaches that the whole Gospel of Christ resides in three elements – the oral tradition, the written tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops. The Church teaches that it is only when these three elements are taken together is the whole gospel of Jesus Christ accurately transmitted and preserved. The Church teaches that:       … sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the       teaching authority of the Church, in accord       with God’s most wise design, are so linked and       joined together that one cannot stand without       the others, and that all together and each in       its own way under the action of the one Holy       Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation       of souls.       Para. 95, "Catechism of the Catholic Church,"       Second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana,       (1997). SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the _supreme_ authority in all matters of faith and morals. Now, this definition of Sola Scriptura is stated in its broadest form. Certain self described "confessional" Protestants hold that there is a very significant role for teaching authority and for oral traditions in understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they also teach that when push comes to shove, scripture holds a supreme place of authority. The other end of the Sola Scriptura spectrum would be that scripture alone and nothing else is to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and morals. Regardless of which "version" of Sola Scriptura is examined, the fact remains that the basic teaching is the supreme authority of scripture. In contrast to this supreme place of authority for scripture, the Church teaches that the three elements (oral tradition, written tradition, and teaching authority), are in a communal relationship, none being greater than the other. THE AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE A discussion came up about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how this teaching balances out against Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55- 56. Mark 6:3 Is not this … the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 55 …Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?… I raised the following questions recently and have not received an answer yet. If you have answers to these questions, please feel free to write in. When writer asked: …in your opinion, what is the relationship between Mary the wife of Joseph and Mary the wife of Clopas? the response was: Why, what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING. Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus is not the same woman as Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas or Mary-the-mother-of-James-and-Joset, its pretty simple really.  The relationship between them is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I think the relationship between Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph and Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas is very significant. [capitals for emphasis] John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood HIS MOTHER and his MOTHER’S SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. I disagree when the respondent says, "…what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING." I think the identity of the "sister" mentioned in the clause, "and his mother’s sister" is very important. First let us review. Those who believe that Mary had more than one child, assert that when Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 refers to, James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Jude, that the passages are referring to the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph. In Mark 6;3 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon?" It is POSSIBLE, however, that the phrase, "…the brother of etc." does not refer to the children of Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus but, instead, these people are certain cousins, possibly the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas. EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE WORD "COUSIN" According to John 19:25, Clopas is most probably the brother of, Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Also as seen in John 19:25, the least possible meaning is that the two women named Mary are blood sisters, as it is unlikely that two girls in the same family would have the same first name.  In spite of this, they are called sisters, even though they are most likely sisters-in-law or perhaps step-sisters. This indicates the use of the word "sister" in place of the less specific Aramaic word for "kinswomen." Since Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is a scene set in the home town of Jesus, it is very reasonable to assume that the local people originally expressed themselves in an Aramaic idiom, where the word "brother" could actually have the broader meaning of "cousin," or "kinsman." The fact that the Aramaic word "kinsman" ends up in the Greek as "brother" is no guarantee that the more technical Greek word meaning "cousin" would have been used. After all, other passages in Greek use "brother" when another word is meant and the person is not the child of the same parents. Examples include, Mark 6:17-18 where a half-brother is called a brother; in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), Gen 24:48 and Gen 29:12 use the Greek word "brother" when "kinsman" is really more appropriate. Another piece of evidence in favor of the term "brothers" actually being "cousins" is the fact that one of the children cited in in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is named Joseph/Joses. Though on rare occasions a father might name a child after himself, in the time of Jesus this custom was very rare among Jews [p. 9, "The Anchor Bible: Matthew," W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Doubleday, (1971)] Given these various possibilities, the passages Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55-56 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 15:40 we have "…Mary the mother of James the younger, and Joses…" It is very reasonable to conclude that these children are the same James and Joseph/Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56, though I agree that there is room for other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, and Mark 15:40,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 16:1 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is very reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3.  I admit that other interpretations could be placed on this passage. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Luke 24:10 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 13:55-56.  I admit that there could be other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:10,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Jn 19:25 "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdala." If "Mary the wife of Clopas" is an adjectival clause modifying the antecedent "his mother’s sister," then one would reasonably assume that the "Mary" mentioned in relation to these people James, Joseph/Joses, etc, are all children of Mary the wife of Clopas. This would make all those children in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 all cousins of Jesus and would support the assumption that the word "brothers" indeed is a mistranslation of a vague familial expression in Aramaic. But I agree that the matter is open to a variety of interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10 and John 19:25 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Given this ambiguity, we turn to the following definition of Sola Scriptura: The Bible is the supreme authority in matter of faith and morals. My question is: How can the Bible be the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals, when it is so clearly ambiguous about identifying the people involved in the teaching that Mary MUST have given birth to

… read more »

Response:

Read the posting on the newsgroup titled: " (Article) Mary Perpetual virgin? " It might help you understand better.

How about the one that was written 1600 years ago by the man who gave you "The Bible"? THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY Against Helvidius. By St. Jerome This tract appeared about A.D. 383. 1. I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who,[1] as has been said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him. He would stand as it were on a pedestal, and would publish his views far and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of the scandal caused to the brethren who were disguised at his ravings. The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that Helvidius who has never learnt to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue. 2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith. 3. His first statement was: "Matthew says,[2] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately. But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Notice, he says, that the word used is betrothed, not intrusted as you say, and of course the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And the Evangelist would not have said before they came together if they were not to come together, for no one would use the phrase before he dried of a man who was not going to dine. Then, again, the angel calls her wife and speaks of her as united to Joseph. We are next invited to listen to the declaration of Scripture:[1] "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her son." 4. Let us take the points one by one, and follow the tracks of this impiety that we may show that he has contradicted himself. He admits that she was betrothed, and in the next breath will have her to be a man’s wife whom he has admitted to be his betrothed. Again, he calls her wife, and then says the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And, for fear we might not think that enough, "the word used," he says, "is betrothed and not intrusted, that is to say, not yet a wife, not yet united by the bond of wedlock." But when he continues, "the Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to dine," I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, "Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa," his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, "the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome," or (as I certainly might) "Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death," must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says[2] "In sheol who shall give thee thanks?" Must we not rather understand that the preposition before, although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought? So that there is no necessity, if sufficient cause intervened to prevent it, for our thoughts to be realized. When, then, the Evangelist says before they came together, he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with child. And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this time, almost the privilege, of a husband. Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived. And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, "Fear not to take Mary thy wife "; and again, "Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife," no one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called wife, she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give the title to those who are betrothed. The following evidence from Deuteronomy establishes the point.[1] "If the man," says the writer, "find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, he shall surely die, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife." And in another place,[2] "If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee." Elsewhere also,[3] "And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her." But if anyone feels a doubt as to why the Virgin conceived after she was betrothed rather than when she had no one betrothed to her, or, to use the Scripture phrase, no husband, let me explain that there were three reasons. First, that by the genealogy of Joseph, whose kinswoman Mary was, Mary’s origin might also be shown. Secondly, that she might not in accordance with the law of Moses be stoned as an adulteress. Thirdly, that in her flight to Egypt she might have some solace, though it was that of a guardian rather than a husband. For who at that time would have believed the Virgin’s word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? and would not all have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? for at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue that when Isaiah says,[1] "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son," the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, not a virgin, that is to say, the word is ALMAH, not BETHULAH, a position which, farther on, we shall dispute more in detail. Lastly, excepting Joseph, and Elizabeth, and Mary herself, and some few others who, we may suppose, heard the truth from them, all considered Jesus to be the son of Joseph. And so far was this the case that even the Evangelists, expressing the prevailing opinion, which is the correct rule for a historian, call him the father of the Saviour, as, for instance,[2] "And he (that is, Simeon) came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law;" and elsewhere,[3] "And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the passover." And afterwards,[4] "And when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew not of it." Observe also what Mary herself, who had replied to Gabriel with the words,[5] "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" says concerning Joseph,[6] "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing." We have not here, as many maintain, the utterance of Jews or of mockers. The Evangelists call Joseph father: Mary confesses he was father. Not (as I said before) that Joseph was really the father of the Saviour: but that, to preserve the reputation of Mary, he was regarded by all as his father, although, before he heard the admonition of the angel,[7] "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost," he had … read more »

Response:

Read the posting on the newsgroup titled: " (Article) Mary Perpetual virgin? " It might help you understand better. Sean – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -THE AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE A discussion came up about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how this teaching balances out against Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Mark 6:3 Is not this … the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 55 …Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?… I raised the following questions recently and have not received an answer yet. If you have answers to these questions, please feel free to write in. When writer asked: …in your opinion, what is the relationship between Mary the wife of Joseph and Mary the wife of Clopas? the response was: Why, what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING. Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus is not the same woman as Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas or Mary-the-mother-of-James-and-Joset, its pretty simple really.  The relationship between them is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I think the relationship between Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph and Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas is very significant. [capitals for emphasis] John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood HIS MOTHER and his MOTHER’S SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. I disagree when the respondent says, "…what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING." I think the identity of the "sister" mentioned in the clause, "and his mother’s sister" is very important. First let us review. Those who believe that Mary had more than one child, assert that when Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 refers to, James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Jude, that the passages are referring to the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph. In Mark 6;3 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon?" It is POSSIBLE, however, that the phrase, "…the brother of etc." does not refer to the children of Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus but, instead, these people are certain cousins, possibly the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas.   EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE WORD "COUSIN" According to John 19:25, Clopas is most probably the brother of, Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Also as seen in John 19:25, the least possible meaning is that the two women named Mary are blood sisters, as it is unlikely that two girls in the same family would have the same first name.  In spite of this, they are called sisters, even though they are most likely sisters-in-law or perhaps step-sisters. This indicates the use of the word "sister" in place of the less specific Aramaic word for "kinswomen." Since Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is a scene set in the home town of Jesus, it is very reasonable to assume that the local people originally expressed themselves in an Aramaic idiom, where the word "brother" could actually have the broader meaning of "cousin," or "kinsman." The fact that the Aramaic word "kinsman" ends up in the Greek as "brother" is no guarantee that the more technical Greek word meaning "cousin" would have been used. After all, other passages in Greek use "brother" when another word is meant and the person is not the child of the same parents. Examples include, Mark 6:17-18 where a half-brother is called a brother; in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), Gen 24:48 and Gen 29:12 use the Greek word "brother" when "kinsman" is really more appropriate. Another piece of evidence in favor of the term "brothers" actually being "cousins" is the fact that one of the children cited in in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is named Joseph/Joses.   Though on rare occasions a father might name a child after himself, in the time of Jesus this custom was very rare among Jews [p. 9, "The Anchor Bible: Matthew," W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Doubleday, (1971)] Given these various possibilities, the passages Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55-56 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 15:40 we have "…Mary the mother of James the younger, and Joses…" It is very reasonable to conclude that these children are the same James and Joseph/Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56, though I agree that there is room for other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, and Mark 15:40,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 16:1 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is very reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3.  I admit that other interpretations could be placed on this passage. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Luke 24:10 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 13:55-56.  I admit that there could be other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:10,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Jn 19:25 "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdala." If "Mary the wife of Clopas" is an adjectival clause modifying the antecedent "his mother’s sister," then one would reasonably assume that the "Mary" mentioned in relation to these people James, Joseph/Joses, etc, are all children of Mary the wife of Clopas. This would make all those children in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 all cousins of Jesus and would support the assumption that the word "brothers" indeed is a mistranslation of a vague familial expression in Aramaic. But I agree that the matter is open to a variety of interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10 and John 19:25 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Given this ambiguity, we turn to the following definition of Sola Scriptura: The Bible is the supreme authority in matter of faith and morals. My question is: How can the Bible be the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals, when it is so clearly ambiguous about identifying the people involved in the teaching that Mary MUST have given birth to more then one child? Many, many Sola Scriptura Christians teach that Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 MUST be the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph, and therefore the younger brothers of Jesus.   But how can Sola Scriptura Christians claim this when their "authority" is so darned ambiguous? Sola Scriptura Christians assert that if something is not in scripture, then it is a teaching of men. If this is so, then one has to ask, why are Sola Scriptura Christians following the teachings of men, since scripture does not say that Mary had other children. If scripture does say this in a clear and unambiguous way, please show me the unambiguous clearly stated passage that names the children and tells me Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph gave birth to them.   So far the only evidence cited by Sola Scriptura Christians is several ambiguous passages that could very reasonably be interpreted in several ways. So based on the criteria of Sola Scriptura, the bible would seem to have nothing at all to say one way or the other about Mary having more than one child. Richard Rust

The Truth Website:   http://au.geocities.com/yahwehstruth/

Response:

Then you have no excuse not to follow their ways in writting.

I do, you should try it.  It’s called the Catholic Church. Bruce – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scripture is just fine enough for those with enough of a work habit and blessings to achieve the level of skill to be able to understand them. For others: they need one verse Charlie’s and paganistic rituals. In other words, help the dummies. The traditions of the apostles is the tradition of the bible. Anything else is, plainly put, not! No excuses. All of the Apostles were dead long before all of the books of the New Testament were written and centuries before the Bible was canonized. How could it have been their tradition? — Bruce "Soli Deo gloria"

Response:

Then you have no excuse not to follow their ways in writting.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scripture is just fine enough for those with enough of a work habit and blessings to achieve the level of skill to be able to understand them. For others: they need one verse Charlie’s and paganistic rituals. In other words, help the dummies. The traditions of the apostles is the tradition of the bible. Anything else is, plainly put, not! No excuses. All of the Apostles were dead long before all of the books of the New Testament were written and centuries before the Bible was canonized.  How could it have been their tradition? — Bruce "Soli Deo gloria"

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scripture is just fine enough for those with enough of a work habit and blessings to achieve the level of skill to be able to understand them. For others: they need one verse Charlie’s and paganistic rituals. In other words, help the dummies. The traditions of the apostles is the tradition of the bible. Anything else is, plainly put, not! No excuses.

All of the Apostles were dead long before all of the books of the New Testament were written and centuries before the Bible was canonized.  How could it have been their tradition? — Bruce "Soli Deo gloria"

Response:

Scripture is just fine enough for those with enough of a work habit and blessings to achieve the level of skill to be able to understand them. For others: they need one verse Charlie’s and paganistic rituals. In other words, help the dummies. The traditions of the apostles is the tradition of the bible. Anything else is, plainly put, not! No excuses.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sola Scriptura: The Ambiguity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura The Church teaches that the whole Gospel of Christ resides in three elements – the oral tradition, the written tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops. The Church teaches that it is only when these three elements are taken together is the whole gospel of Jesus Christ accurately transmitted and preserved. The Church teaches that:       … sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the       teaching authority of the Church, in accord       with God’s most wise design, are so linked and       joined together that one cannot stand without       the others, and that all together and each in       its own way under the action of the one Holy       Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation       of souls.       Para. 95, "Catechism of the Catholic Church,"       Second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana,       (1997). SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the _supreme_ authority in all matters of faith and morals. Now, this definition of Sola Scriptura is stated in its broadest form. Certain self described "confessional" Protestants hold that there is a very significant role for teaching authority and for oral traditions in understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they also teach that when push comes to shove, scripture holds a supreme place of authority. The other end of the Sola Scriptura spectrum would be that scripture alone and nothing else is to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and morals. Regardless of which "version" of Sola Scriptura is examined, the fact remains that the basic teaching is the supreme authority of scripture. In contrast to this supreme place of authority for scripture, the Church teaches that the three elements (oral tradition, written tradition, and teaching authority), are in a communal relationship, none being greater than the other. THE AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE A discussion came up about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how this teaching balances out against Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Mark 6:3 Is not this … the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 55 …Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?… I raised the following questions recently and have not received an answer yet. If you have answers to these questions, please feel free to write in. When writer asked: …in your opinion, what is the relationship between Mary the wife of Joseph and Mary the wife of Clopas? the response was: Why, what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING. Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus is not the same woman as Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas or Mary-the-mother-of-James-and-Joset, its pretty simple really.  The relationship between them is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I think the relationship between Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph and Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas is very significant. [capitals for emphasis] John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood HIS MOTHER and his MOTHER’S SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. I disagree when the respondent says, "…what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING." I think the identity of the "sister" mentioned in the clause, "and his mother’s sister" is very important. First let us review. Those who believe that Mary had more than one child, assert that when Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 refers to, James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Jude, that the passages are referring to the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph. In Mark 6;3 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon?" It is POSSIBLE, however, that the phrase, "…the brother of etc." does not refer to the children of Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus but, instead, these people are certain cousins, possibly the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas. EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE WORD "COUSIN" According to John 19:25, Clopas is most probably the brother of, Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Also as seen in John 19:25, the least possible meaning is that the two women named Mary are blood sisters, as it is unlikely that two girls in the same family would have the same first name.  In spite of this, they are called sisters, even though they are most likely sisters-in-law or perhaps step-sisters. This indicates the use of the word "sister" in place of the less specific Aramaic word for "kinswomen." Since Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is a scene set in the home town of Jesus, it is very reasonable to assume that the local people originally expressed themselves in an Aramaic idiom, where the word "brother" could actually have the broader meaning of "cousin," or "kinsman." The fact that the Aramaic word "kinsman" ends up in the Greek as "brother" is no guarantee that the more technical Greek word meaning "cousin" would have been used. After all, other passages in Greek use "brother" when another word is meant and the person is not the child of the same parents. Examples include, Mark 6:17-18 where a half-brother is called a brother; in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), Gen 24:48 and Gen 29:12 use the Greek word "brother" when "kinsman" is really more appropriate. Another piece of evidence in favor of the term "brothers" actually being "cousins" is the fact that one of the children cited in in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is named Joseph/Joses. Though on rare occasions a father might name a child after himself, in the time of Jesus this custom was very rare among Jews [p. 9, "The Anchor Bible: Matthew," W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Doubleday, (1971)] Given these various possibilities, the passages Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55-56 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 15:40 we have "…Mary the mother of James the younger, and Joses…" It is very reasonable to conclude that these children are the same James and Joseph/Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56, though I agree that there is room for other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, and Mark 15:40,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 16:1 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is very reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3.  I admit that other interpretations could be placed on this passage. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Luke 24:10 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 13:55-56.  I admit that there could be other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:10,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Jn 19:25 "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdala." If "Mary the wife of Clopas" is an adjectival clause modifying the antecedent "his mother’s sister," then one would reasonably assume that the "Mary" mentioned in relation to these people James, Joseph/Joses, etc, are all children of Mary the wife of Clopas. This would make all those children in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 all cousins of Jesus and would support the assumption that the word "brothers" indeed is a mistranslation of a vague familial expression in Aramaic. But I agree that the matter is open to a variety of interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10 and John 19:25 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Given this ambiguity, we turn to the following definition of Sola Scriptura: The Bible is the supreme authority in matter of faith and morals. My question is: How can the Bible be the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals, when it is so clearly ambiguous about identifying the people involved in the teaching that Mary MUST have given birth to more then one child? Many, many Sola Scriptura Christians teach that Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 MUST be the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph, and therefore the younger brothers of Jesus. But how can Sola Scriptura Christians claim this when their "authority" is so darned ambiguous? Sola Scriptura Christians assert that if something is not in scripture, then it is a teaching of men. If this is so, then one has to ask, why are Sola Scriptura Christians following the teachings of men, since scripture does not say that Mary had other children. If scripture does say this in a clear and unambiguous way, please show me the unambiguous

… read more »

Response:

Try truth Stooge: Bible and Tradition: Maintain the Tradition . . . Introduction and Definitions Catholicism and Protestantism differ fundamentally with regard to the relationship of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition: the Bible on the one hand, and the historical doctrines and dogmas of the Christian Church on the other. Protestantism tends to see a certain dichotomy, or divide, between the pure Word of God in the Bible and the Tradition of the Catholic Church, which is considered to be too often corrupted by "arbitrary traditions of men" (in this vein Matthew 15:3-6, Mark 7:8-13, and Colossians 2:8 are cited).(1) For Protestants, Scripture alone (or, sola Scriptura, as the Reformers cried) is the source and rule of the Christian faith. As such, it is superior to, and judges all Tradition. It is sufficient in and of itself for a full exposition of Christianity and for the attainment of salvation.(2) The concept of sola Scriptura, it must be noted, is not in principle opposed to the importance and validity of Church history, Tradition, ecumenical Councils, or the authority of Church Fathers and prominent theologians. The difference lies in the relative position of authority held by Scripture and Church institutions and proclamations. In theory, the Bible judges all of these, since, for the evangelical Protestant, it alone is infallible and the Church and popes and Councils are not. (3) In actuality, however, this belief has not led to doctrinal uniformity, as the history of Protestant sectarianism abundantly testifies. The prevalence of sola Scriptura, according to Catholic thinking, has facilitated a widespread ignorance and disregard of Church history among the Protestants in the pews. (4) Protestantism is clearly much less historically-oriented than Catholicism, largely for the above reasons. Recently, several evangelical scholars have frankly critiqued the weakness of either sola Scriptura itself, (5) or else the extreme version of it which might be called Bible only (a virtually total exclusion of Church history and authority).(6) Whereas Protestantism takes an either/or approach on this issue and many other theological ideas, Catholicism has a both/and perspective. Thus, Scripture and Tradition are inextricably linked: twin fonts of the one spring of revelation.(7) Tradition is defined as the handing on of beliefs and practices by written as well as oral means.(8) The Bible is part of a Tradition larger than itself, of which it is an encapsulation or crystallization, so to speak.(9) The first Christians preached; they didn’t hand out New Testaments (most of which was not yet written, much less established in its final form). Catholicism claims that its Tradition is neither more nor less than the preserved teaching of Christ as revealed to, and proclaimed by, the Apostles. Development occurs, but only in increased understanding, not in the essence of this apostolic Tradition. Catholicism claims to be the guardian or custodian of the original deposit of faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).(10) It must also be pointed out that the written word and mass literacy have only been widespread since the invention of the movable-type printing press around 1440. Thus it could not have been the primary carrier of the gospel for at least fourteen centuries. Christians before the time of the Protestant Reformation learned mostly from homilies, sacraments, the liturgy and its year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional practices, family instruction, church architecture, and other sacred art which reflected biblical themes. For all these Christian believers, sola Scriptura would have appeared as an absurd abstraction and practical impossibility. New Testament Evidence For Tradition Tradition, even in the extensive Catholic sense, permeates Scripture. Only an antecedent prejudice against such a notion or an undue concentration on Jesus’ rejection of corrupt, human pharisaical traditions, could blind one to the considerable force of the scriptural data. Put another way, Scripture does not teach sola Scriptura, a concept which constitutes the use of a document (the Bible) contrary to the same document’s explicit and implicit testimony. Or, to express it in yet another form, Scripture alone should lead the impartial seeker to Tradition and the Church, rather than to a disdain of Tradition. G.K. Chesterton called tradition the "democracy of the dead." It’s foolish for any Christian to disregard what God has taught millions of other Christians throughout the centuries. We must all do our best to avoid approaching Scripture with a philosophy itself not at all biblical, and to not force Scripture (and Christianity) into our own mold. The Bible itself has plenty to say about its own authority vis-a-vis that of Tradition and the Church. The Bible is Not All-Inclusive In the New Testament, first of all, we find clear-cut testimony to the effect that Scripture does not contain the whole of Christ’s teaching. Probably no one would deny this, but Protestants usually deny that any of His teachings not recorded in Scripture could possibly be faithfully transmitted orally by primitive apostolic Tradition. Reflection upon the closeness of Jesus to His disciples, and on the nature of human interaction and memory makes quite dubious any such fancy. Who could make the claim that the Apostles remembered (and communicated to others) absolutely nothing except what we have in the four Gospels? One might compare the Bible to the U.S. Constitution, which is not coterminous with the constitutional law that derives from it (and ultimately from the natural law alluded to in the Declaration of Independence). Nor is the Constitution workable in practice apart from judges who interpret it. The analogy is not perfect but close enough to make the point. None of the commentary in this chapter, it should be emphasized, is intended to denigrate Scripture in the least, but rather to set it in its proper context within the living Christian community (the Church), and to accept it on its own terms. It seems that whenever the Catholic argues that the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of the Christian faith, he is accused of disrespecting God’s Word, etc. This is one of many unfortunate Protestant false dichotomies which will be dispelled in the course of our examination of Scripture. Mark 4:33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them . . . In other words, by implication, many parables are not recorded in Scripture. Mark 6:34 . . . he began to teach them many things. None of these many things are recorded here. John 16:12 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. Perhaps these many things were spoken during His post-Resurrection appearances alluded to in Acts 1:2-3 (see below). Very few of these teachings are recorded, and those which are contain only minimal detail. John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book. John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Acts 1:2-3 . . . the apostles . . . To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. {see also Luke 24:15-16,25-27} Paradosis ("Tradition") The most important Greek word in the New Testament for the subject under consideration, is paradosis, or literally, "tradition." It is used four times of Christian tradition. We shall examine each of these passages. 1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. Paradosis simply means something handed on or passed down from one person to another. This "tradition" might be bad (Matthew 15:2 ff., Colossians 2:8) or opposed to the will of God (Mark 7:8 ff.), or entirely good as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and many other passages below. This distinction must be constantly kept in mind in the debate over the utility and propriety of Tradition. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. Tradition in the Bible may be either written or oral. It implies that the writer (in the above instances St. Paul) is not expressing his own peculiar viewpoints, but is delivering a message received from someone else (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 11:23). The importance of the tradition does not rest in its form but in its content. "Word of God" / "Word of the Lord" When the phrases word of God or word of the Lord appear in Acts and the Epistles, they are almost always referring to oral preaching, not to Scripture. The Greek word usually used is logos, which is the title of Jesus Himself in John 1:1 (. . . the Word was God). Indeed, this holds true for the entire Bible, as a general rule. Protestants, unfortunately, tend to think "written word" whenever they see word in Scripture, but even common sense tells us that the English "word" refers also to spoken utterances. The latter is a more common and dominant motif in Scripture than the former. Much of scripture is a recording of what was originally oral proclamation (for example, the Ten Commandments, Jesus’ entire teaching – since He wrote nothing Himself, St. Peter’s sermon at Pentecost). Thus there is no avoiding the oral component of Christianity, and a position which attempts to do so is self-defeating from the outset. Tradition … read more »

Response:

http://aomin.org/SANTRAN.html — Learn what the Pope/Catholic Church teach and how is OPPOSITE of the bibles clear teaching:  http://home.hawaii.rr.com/bibletruths/catholic.htm Rome’s perversion of the 10 Commandments?! http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=tencommandments Find out more about the Heretical Teachings of Steve Winter at: http://www.stevewinter.com http://www.enteract.com/~sadams/winfaq.html "What a strange kind of salvation do they possess that care not for holiness…They would be saved by Christ…They would have their sins forgiven, Not that they may walk with God in love, but they they may practice their ENMITY against Him without ANY fear of eternal punishment!" (One of the Reformers!)

Response:

Sola Scriptura: The Ambiguity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura The Church teaches that the whole Gospel of Christ resides in three elements – the oral tradition, the written tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops. The Church teaches that it is only when these three elements are taken together is the whole gospel of Jesus Christ accurately transmitted and preserved. The Church teaches that:       … sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the       teaching authority of the Church, in accord       with God’s most wise design, are so linked and       joined together that one cannot stand without       the others, and that all together and each in       its own way under the action of the one Holy       Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation       of souls.       Para. 95, "Catechism of the Catholic Church,"       Second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana,       (1997). SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the _supreme_ authority in all matters of faith and morals. Now, this definition of Sola Scriptura is stated in its broadest form. Certain self described "confessional" Protestants hold that there is a very significant role for teaching authority and for oral traditions in understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they also teach that when push comes to shove, scripture holds a supreme place of authority. The other end of the Sola Scriptura spectrum would be that scripture alone and nothing else is to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and morals. Regardless of which "version" of Sola Scriptura is examined, the fact remains that the basic teaching is the supreme authority of scripture. In contrast to this supreme place of authority for scripture, the Church teaches that the three elements (oral tradition, written tradition, and teaching authority), are in a communal relationship, none being greater than the other. THE AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE A discussion came up about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how this teaching balances out against Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Mark 6:3 Is not this … the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 55 …Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?… I raised the following questions recently and have not received an answer yet. If you have answers to these questions, please feel free to write in. When writer asked: …in your opinion, what is the relationship between Mary the wife of Joseph and Mary the wife of Clopas?

the response was: Why, what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING. Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus is not the same woman as Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas or Mary-the-mother-of-James-and-Joset, its pretty simple really.  The relationship between them is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I think the relationship between Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph and Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas is very significant. [capitals for emphasis] John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood HIS MOTHER and his MOTHER’S SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. I disagree when the respondent says, "…what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING." I think the identity of the "sister" mentioned in the clause, "and his mother’s sister" is very important. First let us review. Those who believe that Mary had more than one child, assert that when Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 refers to, James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Jude, that the passages are referring to the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph. In Mark 6;3 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon?" It is POSSIBLE, however, that the phrase, "…the brother of etc." does not refer to the children of Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus but, instead, these people are certain cousins, possibly the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas.   EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE WORD "COUSIN" According to John 19:25, Clopas is most probably the brother of, Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Also as seen in John 19:25, the least possible meaning is that the two women named Mary are blood sisters, as it is unlikely that two girls in the same family would have the same first name.  In spite of this, they are called sisters, even though they are most likely sisters-in-law or perhaps step-sisters. This indicates the use of the word "sister" in place of the less specific Aramaic word for "kinswomen." Since Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is a scene set in the home town of Jesus, it is very reasonable to assume that the local people originally expressed themselves in an Aramaic idiom, where the word "brother" could actually have the broader meaning of "cousin," or "kinsman." The fact that the Aramaic word "kinsman" ends up in the Greek as "brother" is no guarantee that the more technical Greek word meaning "cousin" would have been used. After all, other passages in Greek use "brother" when another word is meant and the person is not the child of the same parents. Examples include, Mark 6:17-18 where a half-brother is called a brother; in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), Gen 24:48 and Gen 29:12 use the Greek word "brother" when "kinsman" is really more appropriate. Another piece of evidence in favor of the term "brothers" actually being "cousins" is the fact that one of the children cited in in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is named Joseph/Joses.   Though on rare occasions a father might name a child after himself, in the time of Jesus this custom was very rare among Jews [p. 9, "The Anchor Bible: Matthew," W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Doubleday, (1971)] Given these various possibilities, the passages Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55-56 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 15:40 we have "…Mary the mother of James the younger, and Joses…" It is very reasonable to conclude that these children are the same James and Joseph/Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56, though I agree that there is room for other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, and Mark 15:40,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 16:1 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is very reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3.  I admit that other interpretations could be placed on this passage. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Luke 24:10 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 13:55-56.  I admit that there could be other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:10,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Jn 19:25 "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdala." If "Mary the wife of Clopas" is an adjectival clause modifying the antecedent "his mother’s sister," then one would reasonably assume that the "Mary" mentioned in relation to these people James, Joseph/Joses, etc, are all children of Mary the wife of Clopas. This would make all those children in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 all cousins of Jesus and would support the assumption that the word "brothers" indeed is a mistranslation of a vague familial expression in Aramaic. But I agree that the matter is open to a variety of interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10 and John 19:25 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Given this ambiguity, we turn to the following definition of Sola Scriptura: The Bible is the supreme authority in matter of faith and morals. My question is: How can the Bible be the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals, when it is so clearly ambiguous about identifying the people involved in the teaching that Mary MUST have given birth to more then one child? Many, many Sola Scriptura Christians teach that Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 MUST be the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph, and therefore the younger brothers of Jesus.   But how can Sola Scriptura Christians claim this when their "authority" is so darned ambiguous? Sola Scriptura Christians assert that if something is not in scripture, then it is a teaching of men. If this is so, then one has to ask, why are Sola Scriptura Christians following the teachings of men, since scripture does not say that Mary had other children. If scripture does say this in a clear and unambiguous way, please show me the unambiguous clearly stated passage that names the children and tells me Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph gave birth to them.   So far the only evidence cited by Sola Scriptura Christians is several ambiguous passages that could very reasonably be interpreted in several ways. So based on the criteria of Sola Scriptura, the bible would seem to have nothing at all to say one way or the other about Mary having more than one child. Richard Rust

Response:

28-SEP-2000 (Last rev. 29-MAY-2001) Sola Scriptura: The Ambiguity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura The Church teaches that the whole Gospel of Christ resides in three elements – the oral tradition, the written tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops. The Church teaches that it is only when these three elements are taken together is the whole gospel of Jesus Christ accurately transmitted and preserved. The Church teaches that:       … sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the       teaching authority of the Church, in accord       with God’s most wise design, are so linked and       joined together that one cannot stand without       the others, and that all together and each in       its own way under the action of the one Holy       Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation       of souls.       Para. 95, "Catechism of the Catholic Church,"       Second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana,       (1997). SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the _supreme_ authority in all matters of faith and morals. Now, this definition of Sola Scriptura is stated in its broadest form. Certain self described "confessional" Protestants hold that there is a very significant role for teaching authority and for oral traditions in understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they also teach that when push comes to shove, scripture holds a supreme place of authority. The other end of the Sola Scriptura spectrum would be that scripture alone and nothing else is to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and morals. Regardless of which "version" of Sola Scriptura is examined, the fact remains that the basic teaching is the supreme authority of scripture. In contrast to this supreme place of authority for scripture, the Church teaches that the three elements (oral tradition, written tradition, and teaching authority), are in a communal relationship, none being greater than the other. THE AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE A discussion came up about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how this teaching balances out against Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Mark 6:3 Is not this … the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 55 …Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?… I raised the following questions recently and have not received an answer yet. If you have answers to these questions, please feel free to write in. When writer asked: …in your opinion, what is the relationship between Mary the wife of Joseph and Mary the wife of Clopas?

the response was: Why, what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING. Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus is not the same woman as Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas or Mary-the-mother-of-James-and-Joset, its pretty simple really.  The relationship between them is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I think the relationship between Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph and Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas is very significant. [capitals for emphasis] John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood HIS MOTHER and his MOTHER’S SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. I disagree when the respondent says, "…what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING." I think the identity of the "sister" mentioned in the clause, "and his mother’s sister" is very important. First let us review. Those who believe that Mary had more than one child, assert that when Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 refers to, James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Jude, that the passages are referring to the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph. In Mark 6;3 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon?" It is POSSIBLE, however, that the phrase, "…the brother of etc." does not refer to the children of Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus but, instead, these people are certain cousins, possibly the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas.   EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE WORD "COUSIN" According to John 19:25, Clopas is most probably the brother of, Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Also as seen in John 19:25, the least possible meaning is that the two women named Mary are blood sisters, as it is unlikely that two girls in the same family would have the same first name.  In spite of this, they are called sisters, even though they are most likely sisters-in-law or perhaps step-sisters. This indicates the use of the word "sister" in place of the less specific Aramaic word for "kinswomen." Since Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is a scene set in the home town of Jesus, it is very reasonable to assume that the local people originally expressed themselves in an Aramaic idiom, where the word "brother" could actually have the broader meaning of "cousin," or "kinsman." The fact that the Aramaic word "kinsman" ends up in the Greek as "brother" is no guarantee that the more technical Greek word meaning "cousin" would have been used. After all, other passages in Greek use "brother" when another word is meant and the person is not the child of the same parents. Examples include, Mark 6:17-18 where a half-brother is called a brother; in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), Gen 24:48 and Gen 29:12 use the Greek word "brother" when "kinsman" is really more appropriate. Another piece of evidence in favor of the term "brothers" actually being "cousins" is the fact that one of the children cited in in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is named Joseph/Joses.   Though on rare occasions a father might name a child after himself, in the time of Jesus this custom was very rare among Jews [p. 9, "The Anchor Bible: Matthew," W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Doubleday, (1971)] Given these various possibilities, the passages Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55-56 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 15:40 we have "…Mary the mother of James the younger, and Joses…" It is very reasonable to conclude that these children are the same James and Joseph/Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56, though I agree that there is room for other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, and Mark 15:40,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 16:1 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is very reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3.  I admit that other interpretations could be placed on this passage. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Luke 24:10 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 13:55-56.  I admit that there could be other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:10,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Jn 19:25 "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdala." If "Mary the wife of Clopas" is an adjectival clause modifying the antecedent "his mother’s sister," then one would reasonably assume that the "Mary" mentioned in relation to these people James, Joseph/Joses, etc, are all children of Mary the wife of Clopas. This would make all those children in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 all cousins of Jesus and would support the assumption that the word "brothers" indeed is a mistranslation of a vague familial expression in Aramaic. But I agree that the matter is open to a variety of interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10 and John 19:25 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Given this ambiguity, we turn to the following definition of Sola Scriptura: The Bible is the supreme authority in matter of faith and morals. My question is: How can the Bible be the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals, when it is so clearly ambiguous about identifying the people involved in the teaching that Mary MUST have given birth to more then one child? Many, many Sola Scriptura Christians teach that Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 MUST be the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph, and therefore the younger brothers of Jesus.   But how can Sola Scriptura Christians claim this when their "authority" is so darned ambiguous? Sola Scriptura Christians assert that if something is not in scripture, then it is a teaching of men. If this is so, then one has to ask, why are Sola Scriptura Christians following the teachings of men, since scripture does not say that Mary had other children. If scripture does say this in a clear and unambiguous way, please show me the unambiguous clearly stated passage that names the children and tells me Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph gave birth to them.   So far the only evidence cited by Sola Scriptura Christians is several ambiguous passages that could very reasonably be interpreted in several ways. So based on the criteria of Sola Scriptura, the bible would seem to have nothing at all to say one way or the other about Mary having more than one child. Richard Rust — This essay may only be reproduced for personal use or small group discussions.

Response:

Sola Scriptura: The Ambiguity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura The Church teaches that the whole Gospel of Christ resides in three elements – the oral tradition, the written tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops. The Church teaches that it is only when these three elements are taken together is the whole gospel of Jesus Christ accurately transmitted and preserved. The Church teaches that:       … sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the       teaching authority of the Church, in accord       with God’s most wise design, are so linked and       joined together that one cannot stand without       the others, and that all together and each in       its own way under the action of the one Holy       Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation       of souls.       Para. 95, "Catechism of the Catholic Church,"       Second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana,       (1997). SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the _supreme_ authority in all matters of faith and morals. Now, this definition of Sola Scriptura is stated in its broadest form. Certain self described "confessional" Protestants hold that there is a very significant role for teaching authority and for oral traditions in understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they also teach that when push comes to shove, scripture holds a supreme place of authority. The other end of the Sola Scriptura spectrum would be that scripture alone and nothing else is to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and morals. Regardless of which "version" of Sola Scriptura is examined, the fact remains that the basic teaching is the supreme authority of scripture. In contrast to this supreme place of authority for scripture, the Church teaches that the three elements (oral tradition, written tradition, and teaching authority), are in a communal relationship, none being greater than the other. THE AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE A discussion came up about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how this teaching balances out against Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Mark 6:3 Is not this … the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 55 …Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?… I raised the following questions recently and have not received an answer yet. If you have answers to these questions, please feel free to write in. When writer asked: …in your opinion, what is the relationship between Mary the wife of Joseph and Mary the wife of Clopas?

the response was: Why, what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING. Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus is not the same woman as Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas or Mary-the-mother-of-James-and-Joset, its pretty simple really.  The relationship between them is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I think the relationship between Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph and Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas is very significant. [capitals for emphasis] John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood HIS MOTHER and his MOTHER’S SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. I disagree when the respondent says, "…what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING." I think the identity of the "sister" mentioned in the clause, "and his mother’s sister" is very important. First let us review. Those who believe that Mary had more than one child, assert that when Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 refers to, James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Jude, that the passages are referring to the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph. In Mark 6;3 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon?" It is POSSIBLE, however, that the phrase, "…the brother of etc." does not refer to the children of Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus but, instead, these people are certain cousins, possibly the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas.   EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE WORD "COUSIN" According to John 19:25, Clopas is most probably the brother of, Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Also as seen in John 19:25, the least possible meaning is that the two women named Mary are blood sisters, as it is unlikely that two girls in the same family would have the same first name.  In spite of this, they are called sisters, even though they are most likely sisters-in-law or perhaps step-sisters. This indicates the use of the word "sister" in place of the less specific Aramaic word for "kinswomen." Since Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is a scene set in the home town of Jesus, it is very reasonable to assume that the local people originally expressed themselves in an Aramaic idiom, where the word "brother" could actually have the broader meaning of "cousin," or "kinsman." The fact that the Aramaic word "kinsman" ends up in the Greek as "brother" is no guarantee that the more technical Greek word meaning "cousin" would have been used. After all, other passages in Greek use "brother" when another word is meant and the person is not the child of the same parents. Examples include, Mark 6:17-18 where a half-brother is called a brother; in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), Gen 24:48 and Gen 29:12 use the Greek word "brother" when "kinsman" is really more appropriate. Another piece of evidence in favor of the term "brothers" actually being "cousins" is the fact that one of the children cited in in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is named Joseph/Joses.   Though on rare occasions a father might name a child after himself, in the time of Jesus this custom was very rare among Jews [p. 9, "The Anchor Bible: Matthew," W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Doubleday, (1971)] Given these various possibilities, the passages Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55-56 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 15:40 we have "…Mary the mother of James the younger, and Joses…" It is very reasonable to conclude that these children are the same James and Joseph/Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56, though I agree that there is room for other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, and Mark 15:40,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 16:1 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is very reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3.  I admit that other interpretations could be placed on this passage. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Luke 24:10 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 13:55-56.  I admit that there could be other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:10,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Jn 19:25 "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdala." If "Mary the wife of Clopas" is an adjectival clause modifying the antecedent "his mother’s sister," then one would reasonably assume that the "Mary" mentioned in relation to these people James, Joseph/Joses, etc, are all children of Mary the wife of Clopas. This would make all those children in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 all cousins of Jesus and would support the assumption that the word "brothers" indeed is a mistranslation of a vague familial expression in Aramaic. But I agree that the matter is open to a variety of interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10 and John 19:25 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Given this ambiguity, we turn to the following definition of Sola Scriptura: The Bible is the supreme authority in matter of faith and morals. My question is: How can the Bible be the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals, when it is so clearly ambiguous about identifying the people involved in the teaching that Mary MUST have given birth to more then one child? Many, many Sola Scriptura Christians teach that Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 MUST be the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph, and therefore the younger brothers of Jesus.   But how can Sola Scriptura Christians claim this when their "authority" is so darned ambiguous? Sola Scriptura Christians assert that if something is not in scripture, then it is a teaching of men. If this is so, then one has to ask, why are Sola Scriptura Christians following the teachings of men, since scripture does not say that Mary had other children. If scripture does say this in a clear and unambiguous way, please show me the unambiguous clearly stated passage that names the children and tells me Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph gave birth to them.   So far the only evidence cited by Sola Scriptura Christians is several ambiguous passages that could very reasonably be interpreted in several ways. So based on the criteria of Sola Scriptura, the bible would seem to have nothing at all to say one way or the other about Mary having more than one child. Richard Rust — This essay may be reproduced for use in small group discussions only.

Response:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 28-SEP-2000 (Last rev. 29-MAY-2001) Sola Scriptura: The Ambiguity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura The Church teaches that the whole Gospel of Christ resides in three elements – the oral tradition, the written tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops. The Church teaches that it is only when these three elements are taken together is the whole gospel of Jesus Christ accurately transmitted and preserved. The Church teaches that:       … sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the       teaching authority of the Church, in accord       with God’s most wise design, are so linked and       joined together that one cannot stand without       the others, and that all together and each in       its own way under the action of the one Holy       Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation       of souls.       Para. 95, "Catechism of the Catholic Church,"       Second edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana,       (1997). SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the _supreme_ authority in all matters of faith and morals. Now, this definition of Sola Scriptura is stated in its broadest form. Certain self described "confessional" Protestants hold that there is a very significant role for teaching authority and for oral traditions in understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they also teach that when push comes to shove, scripture holds a supreme place of authority. The other end of the Sola Scriptura spectrum would be that scripture alone and nothing else is to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and morals. Regardless of which "version" of Sola Scriptura is examined, the fact remains that the basic teaching is the supreme authority of scripture. In contrast to this supreme place of authority for scripture, the Church teaches that the three elements (oral tradition, written tradition, and teaching authority), are in a communal relationship, none being greater than the other. THE AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE A discussion came up about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how this teaching balances out against Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Mark 6:3 Is not this … the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 55 …Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?… I raised the following questions recently and have not received an answer yet. If you have answers to these questions, please feel free to write in. When writer asked: …in your opinion, what is the relationship between Mary the wife of Joseph and Mary the wife of Clopas? the response was: Why, what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING. Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus is not the same woman as Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas or Mary-the-mother-of-James-and-Joset, its pretty simple really.  The relationship between them is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I think the relationship between Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph and Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas is very significant. [capitals for emphasis] John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood HIS MOTHER and his MOTHER’S SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. I disagree when the respondent says, "…what does the relationship between these two women have to do with the discussion at hand? NOTHING." I think the identity of the "sister" mentioned in the clause, "and his mother’s sister" is very important. First let us review. Those who believe that Mary had more than one child, assert that when Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 refers to, James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Jude, that the passages are referring to the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph. In Mark 6;3 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon?" It is POSSIBLE, however, that the phrase, "…the brother of etc." does not refer to the children of Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus but, instead, these people are certain cousins, possibly the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Clopas. EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE WORD "COUSIN" According to John 19:25, Clopas is most probably the brother of, Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Also as seen in John 19:25, the least possible meaning is that the two women named Mary are blood sisters, as it is unlikely that two girls in the same family would have the same first name.  In spite of this, they are called sisters, even though they are most likely sisters-in-law or perhaps step-sisters. This indicates the use of the word "sister" in place of the less specific Aramaic word for "kinswomen." Since Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is a scene set in the home town of Jesus, it is very reasonable to assume that the local people originally expressed themselves in an Aramaic idiom, where the word "brother" could actually have the broader meaning of "cousin," or "kinsman." The fact that the Aramaic word "kinsman" ends up in the Greek as "brother" is no guarantee that the more technical Greek word meaning "cousin" would have been used. After all, other passages in Greek use "brother" when another word is meant and the person is not the child of the same parents. Examples include, Mark 6:17-18 where a half-brother is called a brother; in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), Gen 24:48 and Gen 29:12 use the Greek word "brother" when "kinsman" is really more appropriate. Another piece of evidence in favor of the term "brothers" actually being "cousins" is the fact that one of the children cited in in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is named Joseph/Joses. Though on rare occasions a father might name a child after himself, in the time of Jesus this custom was very rare among Jews [p. 9, "The Anchor Bible: Matthew," W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Doubleday, (1971)] Given these various possibilities, the passages Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55-56 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 15:40 we have "…Mary the mother of James the younger, and Joses…" It is very reasonable to conclude that these children are the same James and Joseph/Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56, though I agree that there is room for other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, and Mark 15:40,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Mark 16:1 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is very reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3.  I admit that other interpretations could be placed on this passage. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. In Luke 24:10 we have "…Mary the mother of James…" It is reasonable to assume that this is the same James as mentioned in Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 13:55-56.  I admit that there could be other interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:10,  when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Jn 19:25 "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdala." If "Mary the wife of Clopas" is an adjectival clause modifying the antecedent "his mother’s sister," then one would reasonably assume that the "Mary" mentioned in relation to these people James, Joseph/Joses, etc, are all children of Mary the wife of Clopas. This would make all those children in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 all cousins of Jesus and would support the assumption that the word "brothers" indeed is a mistranslation of a vague familial expression in Aramaic. But I agree that the matter is open to a variety of interpretations. The passages Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 15:40, and Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10 and John 19:25 when taken as written, are at best, unintentionally ambiguous as to the identity of the people mentioned. Given this ambiguity, we turn to the following definition of Sola Scriptura: The Bible is the supreme authority in matter of faith and morals. My question is: How can the Bible be the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals, when it is so clearly ambiguous about identifying the people involved in the teaching that Mary MUST have given birth to more then one child? Many, many Sola Scriptura Christians teach that Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 MUST be the children of Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph, and therefore the younger brothers of Jesus. But how can Sola Scriptura Christians claim this when their "authority" is so darned ambiguous? Sola Scriptura Christians assert that if something is not in scripture, then it is a teaching of men. If this is so, then one has to ask, why are Sola Scriptura Christians following the teachings of men, since scripture does not say that Mary had other children. If scripture does say this in a clear and unambiguous way, please show me the unambiguous clearly stated passage that names the children and tells me Mary-the-wife-of-Joseph gave birth to them. So far the only evidence cited by Sola Scriptura Christians is several ambiguous passages that could very reasonably be interpreted in several ways. So based on the criteria

… read more »

Response:

Welcome to my killfile … In the Village …. I am not a number … I am a free man !!!!

Response:

Related Posts