(Originally posted on The Catholic Thinker, make sure to share your thoughts on my blog! — https://whysoseriousdotcom.wordpress.com/2017/06/08/blessed-mary-ever-virgin/ )
Many Protestants, in an unhistorical and unbiblical manner, try to prove that Mary, the Mother of God, had other children after Jesus. This argument is most certainly unhistorical, as the Early Christians (otherwise known as first Catholics), believed the same doctrine as the Roman Catholic Church of today does: that Mary was perpetually a virgin, and Jesus Christ was her only child.
The Protoevangelium of James, a document written what is to be considered roughly 60 years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life, near 120 AD, contends for Mary’s virginity. From reading the Protoevangelium, one can conclude that it was believed that Mary had professed a vow of virginity.
“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’”
(Protoevangelium of James 4, 15).
“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’”
(Ibid.)
Origen, in his writings, cites the Protoevangelium:
“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity”
(Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Centuries later, Augustine teaches the same doctrine of Mary’s virginity.
“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave”
(Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
Even the Father of the Protestant Revolt, Martin Luther, believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Luther held this belief even after he left the Catholic Church.
“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)}
“Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)}
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan, a Lutheran, concludes that Luther did in fact, still believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, after leaving the Catholic Church.
“Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.”
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
Protestant “Reformer” Ulrich Zwingli believed the same as Luther:
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”
(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)
How can the majority of Protestants today deny Mary’s perpetual virginity? It was a belief held since the early centuries! Even Luther, the Father of Protestantism, held this belief.
Many Protestants, in light of their tradition of Sola Scriptura, (Latin for by Scripture Alone), tend to ignore and discount historical sources such as the early Church, and instead refer to the Bible alone as the source of their argument.
Dr. Robert Schihl, in his article The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, summarizes the usual arguments Protestant challengers make:
“1) The Bible frequently speaks of the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus.
“First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were children of Mary.
“Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called “a brother (adelphos) of Jesus.” In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)” (1)
The loose usage of the term “brother” in the Scriptures makes it that one cannot conclusively say that Jesus had several “blood” brothers.
“For example, in Gn 13:8 and 14:1416, the word <adelphos> was used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot; however, these two men did not share a brother relationship, but one of uncle and nephew. Another instance is that of Laban, who was an <adelphos> to Jacob, not as a brother, but as an uncle. (In the New American translation, “kinsman” or “relative” will be used in these Old Testament cases; I do not know why this is not true in the English translation of the Gospel.) The same is true for the word sister.
“Actually, the confusion originates in Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages of most of the original Old Testament texts and of Christ. In these languages, no special word existed for cousin, nephew, half-brother, or step-brother; so they used the word brother or a circumlocution, such as in the case of a cousin, “the son of the brother of my father.” When the Old Testament was translated into Greek and the New Testament written in Greek, the word< adelphos> was used to capture all of these meanings. So in each instance, we must examine the context in which the title is used. In all, the confusion arises in English because of the lack of distinct terms for relatives in the Hebrew and Aramaic, and the usage of the Greek <adelphos> to signify all of these relations.” (2)
The supposed blood brothers of Jesus very well could have been mere cousins or friends. It is hard to say that they were certainly His actual brothers. By doing so, one would be ignoring the many possibilities created by the difference of language.
Schihl continues:
“2) A second objection to Mary’s virginity arises from the use of the word heos in Matthew’s gospel. “He (Joseph) had no relations with her at any time before (heos) she bore a son, whom he named Jesus” (Mt 1:25, NAB).
“The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.” (3)
The use of ‘until’ does not mean that after a certain point, Mary and Joseph had marital relations. The same usage is found in 2 Samuel 6:23:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.”
This passage is not to imply that a woman gave birth to a child after her death. The word ‘until’ doesn’t necessarily imply that an action took place after a certain time. The following passages exhibit the same principle.
- I Timothy 4:13: “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.”
Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after St. Paul comes? Certainly not.
- I Corinthians 15:25: “For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.”
Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “[H]e will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
Father James Buckley FSSP (a friend of mine), in his pamphlet Defined Doctrines of Our Lady, focuses on St. Jerome’s rebuttal of the heretic Helvidius, who used the above argument. The ‘Buck’ comments:
“Saint Jerome counters that in Scripture both “to know” and “until” have a double meaning. The saint acknowledges that ‘to know’ can denote sexual relations but points out that it can also denote knowledge (e.g…The child Jesus remained in Jerusalem and his parents knew it not” (Lk 2:43).
” ‘Until’ can indicate either a definite time or an indefinite time. Therefore, it does not always mean that something that did not take place up to a prescribed time took place afterwards. One of his many examples comes from God’s address to His prophets: ‘I am, I am, and I am till you grow old’ (Is. 46:14). He then asks, ‘Will God cease to be after they grow old?’ “
Schihl concludes with:
“3) A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated ‘first-born’ in Luke’s gospel.
“But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ’s relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.
“The term “first-born” was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the “first-born” of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.” (4)
Personally, I can’t wrap my head around this particular argument. So what if the text says that Christ was Mary’s ‘firstborn’? That doesn’t mean she had other kids. As the eldest child of my family, I am the firstborn. I would still have been the firstborn even if the birth of my siblings didn’t follow. It is as simple as that.
I will add an argument that I ran into a while ago, in conversation with a Protestant. He cited Psalm 69:8 as a prophecy proof that Mary had other children than Jesus. The psalm, he said, was referring to Christ. The text reads:
“I have been a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother’s sons.”
Now, a literal interpretation of this verse leads to problems. A few verses earlier reads:
“O God, thou knowest my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee”
Jesus did not sin, and so the passage cannot be taken literally. Verse 8 appears to refer to how Christ’s brethren, the Jews, did not accept Him.
Now, having looked at the usual objections, let’s look at why Catholics believe in Mary’s perpetual Virginity. Catholic Apologist Tim Staples summarizes it quite neatly.
“1. In Luke 1:34, when the angel Gabriel told Mary that she was chosen to be the mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, “How shall this be, since I know not man?” This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.
“When we consider Mary and Joseph were already “espoused,” according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph to then have had what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married! That would mean St. Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed at that point. Normally, after the espousal the husband would prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why St. Joseph intended to “divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19) when he discovered she was pregnant.
“This background is significant, because a newly married woman would not ask the question, “How shall this be?” She would know! Unless, of course, that woman had a vow of virginity! Mary believed the message but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with St. Joseph.” (5)
The next reason has always been a most interesting one for me.
“2. In John 19:26, Jesus gave his mother to the care of St. John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable to believe that Jesus would take his mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.
“Some will claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there. They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his mother to St. John, who was faithful and present at the foot of the cross.
“This claim reveals a low and unbiblical Christology. As St. John tells us, Jesus “knew all men” (John 2:25). If St. James were his blood brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his “brother” Jude. The fact is, Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his mother.” (6)
If Jesus actually did have blood brothers, why did He place Mary in John’s care? It wouldn’t make any sense to give His mother to a non-relative when He had siblings. It almost seems selfish.
Staples closes with:
“3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. When Mary asked the angel how she was going to conceive a child in Luke 1:34, the angel responded:
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
“This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz “spread your skirt over me” when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary then came up pregnant, St. Joseph would have been required to divorce her, because she would then belong to another (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Jeremiah 3:1). When St. Joseph found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit, the idea of St. Joseph having conjugal relations with Mary would not have been a consideration for a “just man” like St. Joseph.” (7)
Joseph was not just any random fool. He knew that Mary was special. He knew that Jesus was special. He knew that she had conceived Christ through the Holy Spirit. Would he dare to defile the Spirit’s sacred vessel?? I think not.
Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, God, the Second Person of the Trinity. After giving birth to Him, would she just go about having children with Joseph, disregarding the fact that her womb had bore God? Why would she want to disfigure it by allowing another child, under the curse of Original Sin, do take shape there? Not exactly logical.
That about sums it up. I hope this has been a decent explanation for the belief of the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary.
Dios este contigo
— Patrick E. Devens
(1) https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm
(2) http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/brosis.htm
(3) https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm
(4) Ibid.
(5) https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-we-know-mary-was-a-perpetual-virgin-0
(6) Ibid.
(7) Ibid.
All Along the Watchtower 
“How shall this be, since I know not man?” This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.
Everyone a virgin, until they have sex. Does this make any sense?
LikeLike
But the point was that she made a vow. She could not have marital relations with Joseph if she made a vow of virginity. Use your head.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you hear her make this vow? Where in the world did you come up with that? Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
You aren’t seeing the reasoning behind it. Why would she ask the angel how she could have a child if she wasn’t with a man? It was not ignorance, as if Mary didn’t know what sex was. The only possible conclusion was that she asked it because she had taken a vow of virginity.
LikeLike
Excellent post. We have been here with Bosco many times. He prefers his man-made tradition to the universal voice of the Church. He speaks and reads no Greek, knows nothing about the customs and practices of the ancient Jewish people, but has one essential qualification to make the comments he does – he thinks he knows best 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
The only possible conclusion? Im beginning to appreciate you my brother.Youve got hutzspa, the size of church bells.
LikeLike
Are you insinuating that Mary said this because she was ignorant of what the marital act does? Like I said, illogical.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t speak greek. Just so happens I believe scripture to be the inspired word of GOD, and I believe every word. You Mary worshipers have to do contortions to fit some queen of heaven into the mix. Even though God has already said he hates the notion of a queen of heaven. Seems like, if God hates it, the catholic church loves it. You know….like graven images, which the CC is full to bursting with them.
LikeLike
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:” (Ex. 20:4)
Bosco, if no one is allowed to make a statue, then I hope you do not own any. And, as you can see, the command from God includes the likeness of anything on earth, in Heaven, or the oceans. That would mean photos of earthly things, or pictures. Oh my… you have a clown icon of WordPress….that’s the likeness of something on earth. You image lover you.
LikeLike
I don’t know how many times ive had to go over this with you idolatrous cathols, but here does number 4972. A picture of a human being, not made with human hands, is not a graven image. Its a pic of a human. Taken literal, we should not make images of anything. I can go with that. A statue is not a photo of a real person. But since you church is stuffed to the rafters with graven images, you are duty bound to say its OK. That’s the least of your problems. Your church offers no salvation. Eating a cracker doesn’t save you….just between you and me.
LikeLike
But the text differentiates between graven images and the LIKENESS of anything. It says not make graven images or the LIKENESS of anything on above the earth, or oceans. A photo is the LIKENESS of a person.
LikeLike
The photo is a likeness of a real animal or person. Images made for aids in the worship of god are forbidden. But its not expressed that way. You just have to use your imagination. Is taking a class photo the same as carving a Mary statue for idolaters to bow down befor? If your trying to excuse your religions prolific use of graven images and you idolaters bowing befor them, its not working here. tell it to god why yall bow yourselfs befor the works of your hands.
LikeLike
God never said bowing down to likenesses. He just said don’t make them or have them. You have broken that rule.
LikeLike
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
LikeLike
Something just hit me…..could good brother Patrick be attempting to hail Mary as the first Nun, you know, with this vow of celibacy? That’s hilarious. let me tell you…these nun(females) are way worster about getting their kicks than men. Im here to tell you, they gotta have it. Vows of celibacy….you cant be serious. In many, if not all, convents thru Europe, the nuns would bury their babies under the buildings…the babies they got from the celibate vowed priests.
You guys call me a liar. What do you say to your priest when he tells you he took a oath of celibacy? Do you call him a liar? No. You call him Father.
LikeLike
Bosco, there is much more to being a nun than taking a vow of celibacy. Perhaps you should take a look at what is required to enter different Catholic convents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@chalcedon451 Thanks. I try. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Getting some good comments about your essays on the Twitter feed too 😏
LikeLike
Oh really? I had no idea there was a Twitter feed. Could you send me a link?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here it is: https://twitter.com/ProfJCharmley
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. 😉
LikeLike
Good brother Patrick thinks im stupid. Well, hes right.
LikeLike
There is more to being a nun than just celibacy. No, I was not insinuating that Mary was the 1st nun. Don’t change the subject.
LikeLike
I dunno. I wouldn’t put anything past you. You already made the breathtaking claim that Mary took a oath of celibacy. Youre tripping over your own brain. If Mary was a good bible believing Hebrew, she would be fruitful and multiply. Catholicism is the only “chistian” religion that does everything the bible says not to do.
LikeLike
So you are saying that it was unheard of for the Jews to be unmarried?
LikeLike
Its up to the individual.
LikeLike
So why act like its such an alien idea?
LikeLike
Just because its possible doesn’t mean it is written in stone. Its possible that I, Bosco, am Jesus come back to earth. So therefor, send me your money.
LikeLike
If Jesus actually did have blood brothers, why did He place Mary in John’s care?
Because Jesus bros and sis, just like his mother, weren’t followers of him. He wanted her to live with and listen to a follower.
“Many Protestants, in an unhistorical and unbiblical manner, try to prove that Mary, the Mother of God, had other children after Jesus”
The only single solitary historical document of Mary being Jesus mother is the bible. So the protestants are unbiblical when they believe the bible, which states, many times, that Jesus had siblings. Tell me good brother Patrick, since when did unbiblical stuff bother you? Like penance and limbo and purgatory and Mary floating up to heaven. Lets not forget your fellow devotees bowing befor graven images. Im sure you have bowed down befor your fair share of graven images. Now you want to point a finger and cry ….Unbiblical!!!!
LikeLike
Oh yes Bosco, I certainly do. Being nearly as stubborn and arrogant as you, I always enjoy reminding Protestants that their man-made traditions are unbiblical.
I at least, can read, and reason. And I can be kind to those who are reasonable, and who treat people with a sense of respect, like Chalcedon and ClassicMusician. These people are not like you. Classic Musician, while disagreeing with the RCC, can disagree politely. Even when CM and I have gotten into arguments before, we have apologized for taking it too far. Then we attempt to treat each other better from then on. You, on the other hand, do not attempt to merely make known Christ, but take whatever instance you can to bash the RCC, instead of merely disagreeing.
I’ll let you know that it was Jewish custom for a mother to live with the next oldest sibling when the eldest died. On top of that, if Jesus had blood siblings, it would be silly for him to take their mother from them and give her to a non-relative.
Bosco, the bible says that Jesus had brothers, but what kind of brothers were they? I already, in my article, cited the many different usages of the word ‘brother’. It cannot be made certain that they were in fact blood relatives. Logic denies that.
Do you not know what Sheol is? It was another name for the Limbo of the Fathers. Where would the just go when the died before Christ had atoned for sin?
The concept of Purgatory is in Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:59 when Christ is condemning sin and speaks of liberation only after expiation. “Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.”
The Assumption is not recorded in Scripture, but that does not discount its reality. The Bible is not the only form of the Word of God. The Canon of Scripture is not in the Bible — you trust the RCC for the NT Canon you use. If not for the RCC, you would have no clue who wrote which books of the Bible. They didn’t just float from the sky, signed “Divinely Inspired”. Its not as simple as that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paid the last penny. Jesus is referring to, and he says it ,debtors prison, where you pay to the last penny.
LikeLike
Oh, so Christ was merely teaching everyone something they already knew about law enforcement?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t envy you. You have to flesh out catholic false doctrine. You have to twist scripture to fit purgatory and limbo and queen of heaven. And a number of other stuff. If and when you ever meet the Lord, this will all evaporate.
LikeLike
Oh, we shall see what evaporates. But this will be a near endless argument. We are both arguing the same thing: you think you teach the truth, I think I teach the truth.
LikeLike
I don’t teach nothing. Im a watchman. I sound the alarm when danger comes. I warn of false religions.
LikeLike
Protestants tend to ignore and discount historical sources such as the early Church, and instead refer to the Bible alone as the source of their argument.
On the flip side…catholics look everywhere Except the scriptures, because scriptures condemn everything in their cult of personality.
LikeLike
Nice job there, Bosco. You managed this time to lie about not only the Catholics but the Protestants as well. Go and find what passes for your brain.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good brother Neo, the first sentence is good brother Patrick. The second sentence is mine.
LikeLike
Bosco, ol boy, perhaps you should reread the article. Scripture was cited many times. That alone proves you wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I happen to believe what scripture says. You, don’t want scripture to mean what it says. So run along and bow down to your graven images and don’t pay any attention to Bosco.
LikeLike
No, you don’t. You don’t believe Jesus when he said he founded a Church on Peter. You don’t believe him when he said that Church would ensure even against the Gates of Hell. You make up a magic ‘invisible’ church about which Jesus said nothing.
LikeLike
He’s following John Calvin on that invisi-church idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He is indeed – man-made tradition, as ever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I don’t believe a church was built on Peter, and im sure if there was, it wouldn’t be that snake pit on Vaticanus Haunted Hill.
LikeLike
So, please stop telling me you believe everything in the Bible. Jesus said it, Bosco denies it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The supposed blood brothers of Jesus very well could have been mere cousins or friends. It is hard to say that they were certainly His actual brothers”
At least you had the literary decency to be semi honest and use the words “could have been”. But like other Mary worshiper apologists, you say words like maybe and possibly, and then a little down the road, these maybes turn into the gospel truth. Evolutionists use this trick also. You got to do some fancy footwork when you set out to prove the gospels are wrong.
LikeLike
Bosco, the bible says that Jesus had brothers, but what kind of brothers were they?
I hope they were nice brothers. but you know how brothers can be. None of them were his followers. they thought he was out of his mind….going around town, acting like he is god.
LikeLike
Since you want to be funny, I’ll spell it out for you.
The word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called “a brother (adelphos) of Jesus.” In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I call you my brother.
All of that wrangling to try to prove the bible doesn’t mean what it says? Your church has already opend the door for your disbelief of scripture by saying the bible is a dead letter. Your costumed pedophiles pick up the bible and wave it around and then kiss it.
That’s just lip service. They and you don’t believe one gad damned word of it. That’s why cathols aren’t Christians. They are cathols.
LikeLike
Can you answer what you recurring jab about “dead letter” is? I have no idea who in the RCC referred to the Scriptures as such.
LikeLike
Im getting off computer now. Search “bible is dead letter” and maybe add “catholic teaching” to that, and it will come up. Your bible waving church says the bible is a “dead letter”. that’s cause they don’t want their flock reading it. People reading the bible is not good for the CC. People start asking pesky questions, and leaving the CC.
LikeLike
Thanks for the tip. I’ll take a look.
LikeLike
The only searches which show up are mad Jack Chick sites all citing it with no attribution – Bosco’s lyin’ spirit never leads him to sources of truth. Repent, Bosco find a priest and confess your sins and join the Church Jesus founded – never too late, brother.
LikeLike
“The simple fact is that the Bible, like all dead letters, calls for a living interpreter.” (The Faith of Millions, p. 155).
LikeLike
It appears that the point being made is that the Bible is useless if a person is not instructed to read it correctly.
LikeLike
Really Bosco, you think that a church that teaches the following would call the Bible a dead letter –
101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: “Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men.”
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66
104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”.67 “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
How often are there catechisms revised? The catechism seeks to smooth things over that are embarrassments. It says one thing and the priests and early fathers and doctors say another.I know several life long catholic who will swear that they were never encouraged to open a bible, and they never have. Contradictions are rife in such a large and old false religion. Covering up its past is full time work for the Vaticanus on Haunted Hill.
LikeLike
Really Bosco, you think that a church that teaches the following would call the Bible a dead letter –
If your “church” could burn innocent people to death for owning a bible, I don’t see why it couldn’t call the bible a “dead letter”. What does your catechism say about doing no harm to no man? Seems like it fell on deaf ears on Vaticanus Hill.
LikeLike
Who was burned for solely owning the Bible? Who? Name them.
LikeLike
Bosco, I am not Catholic. The CCC is available online for anyone to read. When you made your assertion about the Catholic church calling the Bible a dead letter I decided to read the section on the Bible. That is what I copied and pasted here for you to read. It has to be noted that you do not address the issue that you brought up, that Catholics call the Bible a dead letter, which I believe I have given solid circumstantial evidence is not the case. But you do not respond to that issue, instead you change the subject. How about a link to where the church refers to the Bible as dead letter to bolster your assertion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good sister Celia, being precise in your reading isn’t your forte. Careful reading is a virtue that most don’t seem to have…..you included.
What I said was that the CC calls the bible a dead letter. CC doctrine calls it a dead letter. Most of the laity don’t know this. The sheep don’t know even a half of what their church teaches. The stuff like this is usually buried to keep the peace. Years after the CC says this stuff, they realize that is bad business. You know, false religions have a lot of godless things that they have to live down. The pope has been doing a lot of apologizing lately for things done befor he was born. As if that makes it better. its still the same godless pagan murderous religion.
LikeLike
No link to the dead letter bit I see. Well, anyhoo, pip pip.
LikeLike
The Catholic Catechism For Adults on page 52 says, “Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No, because certain things in the Bible can be misunderstood, and because the Bible does not have everything God taught.”
The Catechism For Adults on page 10 says, “How can you get the true meaning of the Bible? You can get it only from God’s official interpreter, the Catholic Church.”
“…A dead and speechless book.” (Question Box, p. 67).
“The simple fact is that the Bible, like all dead letters, calls for a living interpreter.” (The Faith of Millions, p. 155).
The catholic church calls itself gods official interpreter. Cathols lap that stuff up.
Jesus always used to say….ye shall know them by what they say about themselves.
LikeLike
I’m not familiar with the Bible passage where Jesus says ye shall know them by what they say about themselves.
LikeLike
Note the use of the words “force, power, vigor, strength, fount of spiritual live”. Let no one be deceived by Bosco’s misinformation –
131 “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.”109 Hence “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.”110
LikeLike
Don’t be deceived by Boscos words. But you catechism is just words. It isn’t gospel. The CC wants to pose itself as a Lamb. Forget my words…..look at the CCs history on how it felt about the people having the scriptures in their hands. Many people were burned to death because they owned a bible.
LikeLike
Not solely for owning a bible, no. There were other reasons for executions.
LikeLike
You are, I fear, living proof of why the Church was uneasy with poorly-educated people getting hold of Scripture – as St Peter said, the ignorant twist it to their own destruction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yes, there were numerous things the CC burned people alive for. But, there is no good reason to burn someone alive. Im glad the CC doesn’t rule the world anymore.
LikeLike
Ironic for someone living in a country where they still strap people to gurneys and poison them. Not too long ago your country used the electric chair – what’s the excuse for that one, BOsco? People living in glass houses are ill-advised to throw stone – the Church stopped doing this centuries ago – what’s America’s excuse for still doing it?
LikeLike
If a person is dragging people to Hell through unrelenting heresy, then yes, silence the heretic.
LikeLike
If you are trying to equate murder with owning a bible as a capital crime , the US is guilty.
LikeLike
I did not say that a person should be killed for owning a Bible. I do mean to say that if a person is preaching unrelenting heresy, then yes, every measure should be taken to silence him, in order to save the souls he is endangering.
LikeLike
Bosco says “But you catechism is just words. It isn’t gospel.” The same can be said about his assertion about the so-called dead letter. He is dodging and changing the subject but has not provided one whit of proof that the church ever called the Bible what he says. Because what Bosco says is just words. It isn’t gospel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco just seems to accept a lot of bigoted anti-Catholic hogwash at first glance, with looking deeper.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spoken like a true cathol. Heretics leading souls to hell with false doctrines should be silenced. I guess that would mean there should be a religion police. Who determines that the teaching is false? Ever heard of free speech? Oh no. Not in the catholic world. The papal states…the most miserable corrupt god forsaken plots of ground on the planet earth. Thanks but no thanks.
LikeLike
The authority is Christ’s Church.
LikeLike
And yet, on your account, some of those brothers became Christians, such as Jude, so why did they not look after Mary? Your account makes zero sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My account might not make sense, but if and when you get born again, it will.
LikeLike
You mean if I allow myself to be occupied by a lyin’ spirit – no thanks, looking at what it has done to you is warning enough. Oh, and Bosco, look up Gnosticism – that’s your latest heresy, the pretence t secret knowledge which only the initiates can know – that is nothing to do with Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True Christianity should make sense to even non-Christians–why else would some be convinced to convert?
LikeLike
Converting is just joining a religion. Its the work of the holy ghost that makes one born again. You cant make yourself born again.
LikeLike
It the Holy Ghost who does the convincing.
LikeLike
But you make the decision.
LikeLike
All I can say is what happened to me, and many similar experiences of others. zthe holy ghost didn’t convince us of anything. We were changed, in an instant. Those who this hasn’t happened to cannot understand it.
LikeLike
Patrick, I am in agreement with you. A person can make an intellectual decision to join a particular church because they like the music, for example, but it is the Holy Spirit that prompts a person to see the truth of the gospel and fully embrace faith in Jesus Christ. This is what I meant by saying that it is the Holy Spirit that does the convincing through the act of conversion. Bosco said that “converting is just joining a religion”. I disagree completely. Conversion is a life changing event where a person is compelled to preach the gospel. He or she is convinced of the truth of the gospel.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree. The Holy Spirit can show someone the truth, but it is the person who makes the choice to accept it or deny it.
LikeLiked by 1 person