/r/Catholicism is a place to present new developments in the world of Catholicism, discuss theological teachings of the Catholic Church, provide an avenue for reasonable dialogue amongst people of all beliefs, and grow in our own spirituality. Catholic Christianity offers the world the fullness of the Christian Faith.
It's clear to me that at least one thing the church says about Mary contradicts the bible, and from what I have read, the doctrine of the church cannot contradict the bible so whom should I believe?
Take Mary's perpetual Virginity for example:
( Perpetual virginity of Mary', means that Mary was a virgin before, during and after giving birth )
Now let's take a look at the bible.
Matthew 1:25;
"But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus"
Hence the word "until" which indicates to me that Joseph did have sex with Mary after Jesus was born.
Galatians 1:19;
"I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother"
I know many people argue what Paul is referring to here as the "lord's brother" is probably a relative or Paul is calling James a brother of Jesus in a Christian sense or the translation from Aramaic is incorrect because there wasn't a word for brother in that language.
Look at the context of the entire text.
Galatians 1:18:20
"Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Peter and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!"
He is clearly making a distiction between Peter and James here, as James being the brother of the Lord. If Paul was referring to James as the brother of Jesus in the Christian sense, why not call Peter the brother of Jesus too? Also, Paul's letters were written in Greek, and Greek is a very robust language with specific words for everything, so the Aramaic theory does not apply here.
There are other passages in the gospels where we can clearly see that Jesus had siblings, but this post is getting a bit long.
I want to believe what the church says about Mary, but that means I will have to stop believing what I read in the bible.
![r/Catholicism - [Free Friday] My First Icon](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/DnY0_odE5SqbTRefqg662pLgs2QhhCdAy_SzTvL9wbk.jpg)
In English it does. In Ancient greek it indicates no such thing.
This is just patently not the case.
The Church is not "above" the bible. The Church is the God created and inspired interpreter of the bible. If you come to an interpretation of the bible that's contrary to the Church's interpretation, then you are merely incorrect.
I sometimes wonder if people get ideas like this because of the "death of the author" idea in literary analysis. It almost seems too much like a coincidence that the predominant way of looking at literature is not to care about what the author actually intended (even when the author actually explains what a passage "means"), and what a passage actually means is what we think it means, instead of believing that there can be an external authority who can hold the truth of the meaning in a text.
I'll stand incorrect against the church until I meet my creator then. I hope he finds some mercy in my soul.
You stand incorrect against the Creator then, and wilfully so. He has mercy on all who repent.
No, I'm not standing incorrect against the creator, I stand incorrect against the church.
God gave me the faculty of reason also, and is through this faculty that I argue against the church. We can say that God has given me the authority to questions things also, as he gave me reason.
God's Church. The very Church founded by Christ, ordained by the Father and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
Your abuse of the faculty of reason to speak contrary to God's revelation is another issue in itself.
No one cares when you question. We care when you reject Christ's Church.
If what we believe is true, then by standing against the church that God gave us and that God intends to use to teach us, then you are standing against God himself.
Catholics give very high regard to reason. But questions need answers, and if you simply say, "well that doesn't feel like a good answer" then you're not using your reason, you're using your emotions.
Somebody already replied to you that the word "until" does not mean the same in Koine Greek, but you still insist on your readong of the English text...
Out of curiosity, how well do you know Koine Greek?
BibleHub.com is a great place to see how specific greek words are used throughout the Old and New Testamenents
The Greek word in question is "heos"
https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2193.htm Here's the link to "heos" as it's found throughout the bible.
There are a couple of interesting passages where it comes up, one of which is Matthew 22:43 "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool" Will Jesus stop sitting at the right hand of the Father? I don't think so.
Take a look at this article because it explains verses that you mentioned.
Let's say I'm taking a calculus class. I've got a professor and a textbook. I read the textbook and, wow! Look, the calculus textbook says that, unlike what I was told in previous math classe, we actually can divide by zero. I show this to the professor and they say "no, that's not true." Who should I believe, the professor or the textbook? Is the professor above the textbook?
You can see from this example, that there is the possibility that both the professor and the textbook are correct, and what is wrong is my interpretation of what the textbook is saying.
until
In Greek the word for "until" doesn't always mean the subject (action, state, etc) referenced will stop or cease to be after. Like "I am with you until the end of the world". So the point of the passage is to rule out marital relations, that there was no possibility for Joseph to be the biological father.
Then according to Jewish law, Joseph was already legally married when he was "betrothed" or "espoused" to Mary, not like today's engagements. Betrothal was followed by the wedding feast after a period of time, after which a couple would start formally living together. So it was within his legal rights for him to have relations with her all this time and surely after they started living together, but he didn't. Why didn't he? And if he felt it was not "right" then, when and why would it stop not being "right", and -would- it stop not being "right"?
No, because the angel told Joseph God made her pregnant. Joseph as a righteous man would have understood this as meaning Mary was off-limits to him to know in the biblical sense (and she would have already been off-limits according to the law, if she had really been just an adulterer). The angel told him not to be afraid "to lead his wife into his house". The angel didn't say he shouldn't be afraid "to know her" or "to come together" etc. It's clearer in the Greek.
2) brother (and sister)
According to the earliest church traditions, Joseph had older children of his own so these were Jesus's step-siblings. The cousins explanation is centuries later, from St. Jerome who argued only using both the OT and NT that the words translated as brother/sister was not always used to mean literal uterine sibling. But then this applies to step-siblings too and such people would be much more naturally called "brothers" than if they were cousins or rather relatives in general. Not specifically first degree cousins etc. because we don't know exactly.
Jerome also pointed out there were multiple people named Mary and James. The gospel of John says Mary the mother of Jesus had a "sister" (relative) also named Mary "of Clopas" (wife or daughter, unclear), present at Jesus's crucifixion and burial along with Mary Magdalene and Salome. Then in the synoptics, there is a Mary who is the mother of a James, also present at the crucifixion and burial, but if this Mary was also the mother of Jesus, why not just call her that. There's no hint in the synoptics that his mother was there, the only Marys surely mentioned are this Mary and Mary Magdalene. So Jerome concluded Mary of Clopas and Mary the mother of James were the same.
But regardless, the earliest church historians identify the James Paul met as Joseph's son, but never Mary's. Then these same historians say Clopas was Joseph's brother. Some today say maybe Clopas died young and Joseph adopted his kids. Or maybe Joseph had both sired children of his own and adopted his brother's children before he was betrothed to Mary. The important thing is Mary had no other children physically.
3) Is the Church above the Bible
Others can explain it better but "above" is the wrong word. There's Sacred Scripture, there's Sacred Tradition and there's the Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church. None is "higher" than the rest, and the common analogy is a stool with three legs. The Church produced the New Testament gradually, and only formally defined what belongs in the Bible, the canon of sacred scripture, centuries later using tradition and exercising its authority. Not everything is contained in the Bible and the Bible itself doesn't say it contains everything worth knowing or believing in or that it's the only authority.
No, it just means you have to be open to Church authority.
No place in the Bible makes clear that Jesus had siblings. Some passages can be interpreted that way. In the first century "brother" could be used of other male relations, such as cousins. It was not as "precise" as our term.
Further, if Jesus had physical brothers, then his entrusting his mother to his disciple John form the cross would be scandalous and an insult to his family. It would have been "family business" to look after Mary.
Look at the early Church Fathers, those who came in the generation or two after the Apostles, all of them uphold the perpetual virginity of Mary.
I've never seen church teaching contradicting the bible. We're against sola scriptura but you can still find foundation to catholic traditions on the bible. Also, the bible was put together by catholic intellectuals following very strict criteria, and i'm sure they wouldn't choose books that contradict our own faith
Yeah I have thought about this too, and I'm still learning about the process how the new testament was put together, and it makes sense from your point of view, if the catholic church put together the new testament then why would they include texts that contradict their own faith?
And I'm still reading and trying to understand all of this, but so far what I can see is that many of the catholic beliefs didn't develop overnight, even the gospels and whatever is included in the new testament were selected through a long period of time.
It is obvious that the Marian doctrine that the catholic church teaches is something that was developed after the texts in the new testament was written, otherwise we would have concrete supporting evidence supporting that view in the gospels and the apostle letters.
This video explains it better than i could
https://youtu.be/AT5CoiOyaWo
That's an irrational conclusion, practically on par with the opinion that not many historians said anything at all about Jesus, therefore Jesus never existed. Or if you like a less extreme example, the Bible says nothing about a full 18 years of Jesus' life, but are we to suppose that He had a completely uneventful adolescence? Could it really be that no one knew anything about Him during that time? Of course not.
The New Testament is a set of books with clear purposes, the foremost of these being the preservation of Christ's teaching, attesting to His death and resurrection, teaching the coming forth of the Kingdom of God, establishing the doctrinal foundation of the Church, and inviting all to come to Christ and be saved.
These things, it accomplishes. But the writers also say that the record is not exhaustive, like at the end of the Gospel of John. Additionally, we know that not everything the Apostles taught was written down, both because they taught orally far more frequently and early Christians were exhorted to hold fast to what they read and heard. These teachings are called "traditions" in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
In other words, to argue that "the Bible doesn't explicitly say this, therefore it can't be true" is to deny what the Bible does say and take as an interpretive principle a teaching also not contained in scripture.
This says otherwise https://imgur.com/gallery/3WnGF
The Bible exists by the authority of the Church, but is made authoritative. So in that sense, the Church can't undo the Bible for instance, can't remove its authority becuase that would undermine the very authority the Church had to begin with.
So in that sense, they are "equal". But the understanding of the Bible, is the issue.
Will you promise to never leave the Church until you die?
Does that mean you can start doing that after you die because the word until is in there?
If James was a step brother of Jesus from a previous marriage of Joseph then using the word brother for them even today would be appropriate in many contexts, certainly to show some distinction between James and other non-familial acquaintances.