The Catholic Church holds on to it because Catholic Tradition states it. There is no proof beyond speculation, the Church's being that it's present in all tradition and that it's likely a man who dropped everything he had and moved to Egypt, listened to God for everything, etc. would see that once something has been used to give birth to God himself it is sacred.

Would it matter if she wasn't a Virgin post-Jesus? Probably not, but the Church has a right to believe the word of those that came before rather than after-the-fact speculation. If it is actually proven let me know.

These are the same people who decided that none of the Gospels were written by an apostle based solely on internal evidence.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

Obviously because sex according to the Catholic church for many many moons, is sinful, and for Mary to be pure and worthy of reference she must not have ever had sex, and Jesus must not have been born from a sexual union for him to be righteous and perfect..

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

It's more that she was pregnant when she got married.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Um, no, no it's very much not. The Catholic Church holds the same view of sex as most Christian denominations, which is that it is just fine within wedlock.

------------------
Dark, Darker, Darko

RIP Madaventor: God bless you.

As long as it's to reproduce.

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

I should have said historically at least. Not really currently. A lot of which can be traced back to Augustine, who despite his good points was extremely pessimistic about sex and marriage.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

I wish that were so but unfortunately you're still here posting.

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited March 11, 2004).]

Matthew 13:55 (English)

Mark 6:3

There are a couple of others, some in Luke (I believe), but the locations are noted in one of my other Bibles, I'm afraid.

Some more.

A few more.

A few more.

Additionally, this seems convinced that there's an Aramaic word for brother.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited March 11, 2004).]

My deal is, why do people think that it either has to be Mary had sex and Jesus was born, or Mary never had sex ever and Jesus was born?

Truth is that Mary didn't have sex until after Jesus was born, but then after Jesus's birth, Mary and Joseph consumating the marriage. Jesus is still the one and only male virgin birth.

Also, about Mary being "some other Mary" - come on, how lame an argument is that? If someone was in an argument here, and said some thing like "Um, no, it was the other one with the same name, and everything else is a coincidence!", about 10 people would call B.S.

Look Bounty- I was brought up and raised catholic too, and also go to catholic church regularly. But I do not believe in everything the Catholic church teaches, any more than I believe in any other man-made doctrine post-bible that any other christian denomination teaches. Bible trumps all, and when people have to make a reach when reading the Bible, they are taking it out of context. The Bible was written to be straightforward and to the point, much like God is with us. Thus, to try to give more meaning, or twist things so that you do not have to confront something that makes you uncomfortable, is doing the wrong thing.

Lets be completely honest - the Catholic church throughout history has been mired with politics, bad popes and clergy who wrote doctrine as if it was from their mouth to God's ears - with no credence to the Bible, and so on. Case in point - do you know why we have saints, especially those that serve certain purposes (a saint for selling homes, a saint for lost keys, etc.)? We have them because back when the catholic church began to send missionaries to the Americas, they noticed the polytheistic culture of the people. So saints were created to help ease these people into the transition to Catholocism. No longer were they praying to the tree gods and water gods, now they were praying to St. Joseph and St. Theresa.

And don't get me wrong - all saints are based on real people. But the fact of using the creation of sainthood to extend your political power (which is why it was done) shows that the Catholic doctrine is flawed. If you take a look at catholic doctrine as a whole, it takes the power from God, and from the people who want to learn about God, and makes the clergy responsible for everything, so that they are the gateway to God, and no one gets to God except by them. Not the biblical way Jesus intended it.

Now, don't get me wrong - every other denomination has done the same or similar things; they are just better at hiding it. Nor am I telling you to not be Catholic - part of the reason I still go is because I believe you have to stick out something to help bring positive changes there, and the other because it still feels homey to me.

All I am telling you, is that it is possible to not believe everything verbatum the catholic church teaches, and still be a good catholic, and still take value from the different aspects of the church. Just remember this - it is more important to be a good christian than a good catholic, and there are some things that, when you read the bible in context, that contradict so bad that the only way even the experts can resolve it is to give out circular arguments and try to talk over your head in the hopes to dupe you (I have experienced this first hand - and the priest even believed in what he was saying, despite my points in showing the contradictions.)

Anyway, just remember - Bible first, doctrine second, and if the doctrine can't point to a line IN ITS CONTEXT, then the doctrine should be tossed.

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

HELL YEAH!

I kinda feel like Socrates trying to liberate his fellow prisoners from Plato's cave...

Or Copernicus saying CRAZY stuff about heliocentrism.

Or maybe MORPHEUS trying to convince people they're not living in the REAL world.

But actually, it's your mind that makes it real, right?

Don't worry man... won't distract you anymore from your illusions.

I'm a Protestant, but I admire Catholicism a whole lot. I think there are some choice doctrines that aren't right, but I still have a profound respect for their observance of tradition. Ash Wednesday is a good example of this.

There is absolutely nothing pagan or questionable about the practice of Ash Wednesday. It's really awesome and the purpose behind it is very ingenious. This year, I went to an Ash Wednesday service at the Free Methodist here in town right before me and a group of friends went to see The Passion. I really enjoyed that service. I had wanted to go to a Catholic service for it, but next year, I plan to go to a Catholic service.

I was thinking this morning in the shower about how cool it would be to start a church where you took the best traditions and beliefs of each denomination and put them all into one church. Because I think that the structure of a lot of denominations' doctrines point out a lot of different characteristics about God that other denominations will miss. How cool would it be to just put all those views together into one church (somehow reconciling them to each other or just keeping the parts that don't conflict with each other), and just go with that.

I thought, too, that as a Christian, I should try to make it out to many more different churches than just my own home church. Sure, I should belong to one church and serve it, but I think it'd be nice to get out and see what's out there in the body of Christ.

First off, I should mention I'm not trying to be hostile or anything:
next... I know breaking up posts is frowned upon by the admins, but I think it's necessary.
Not exactly. The Church's doctrine in regard to sex has to do with "the integrity of the person, and the integrality of the gift." You're with the person you love more than anything, they've given you everything you could ever want. In return the best you can give is yourself, and chastity and self-mastery are huge part of the integrity that makes this gift os the self worth so much.

The sex itself has to do with physically giving the self, in a way not out of lust, but purely out of love for the person with whom you've become one. The Church acknowleges the study of one's own body to use infertile periods as fine, and that it can even lead to greater respect for the gift of life. The thing the Church wants to avoid is the fine line between inability to deal with a child at the moment, and use of a pure gift as something to give/take pleasure. Hence why the use of contraception is seen as a grave sin, disrespecting the ability to create that the two posess.

There's a whole lot more, but It would take a while, and I doubt many are interested. Correct, but that had a lot to do with his former way of life. Lust is a powerful vice, and he seemed to want to point out how clearly vile it is, and how easy it is to fall to it, especially when your mind wants to make all sorts of excuses to go along with an inordinate passion. In ways he took it too far, and seems to be overly rough on woman as well. Several of those quotes are mentioned/addressed in earlier posts. It is speculation based upon what other jews did/thought at the time and biblical inferences that could be false.

Your sites make great points, but even they acknowlege other places in the Bible where the brother/cousin mix up was used. They provide several reasons why it may not be true, but they don't refute the Catholic theologian's arguements outright.

Another they don't touch on is John being commisioned to look after Mary at the foot of the cross. If he had brothers, this wouldn't be at all necessary. Take a look in Mathew. The author specifically mentions the "other Mary" by name; see Mt 27:56, "Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." And Mt 28:1, "...Mary Magdalene and the other Marycame to the tomb." In fact, it's mentioned throughout 28, now that I look at it.
Call it what you will, but I beleive that points out that the wording "other Mary" wasn't simply made up to explain it after the fact. Apparently you never learned that the Church doesn't believe the Bible to be the sole source of revelation. It isn't complete, and the closing lines of the Gospel of John point this out clearly.
Beyond Sacred Scripture, the Church also recognizes Sacred Tradition, passed on from the apostles to their successors, and whose uniformity is ensured by the Papacy. Jesus promised the paraclete who would guide us in the truth, and remind them of all that he taught.

Mary being "ever-virgin" is not a dogma of the faith. It is a doctrine. You don't have to believe it, anymore than you have to believe that the declared saints are in heaven (in fact there is evidence that a couple of them may not have even existed). The Apostles were entrusted to pass on the revealed truth in all its purity, and Jesus promised that they would be guided. Nice that all this truth could be encapsulated in the New Testament in its entirety, even though John assures us it wasn't. Yes there have been bad Popes, and clergy, but who says they ever corrupted dogma? Doctrines don't have to be believed, the dogmas they explain and are built off of do.

No one has to believe Mary was "ever-virgin." I do, having faith in Sacred Tradition handed down from the apostles, instead of in experts who determined otherwise with their complete certainty 2,000 years after the fact, based on questionable inferences and stunning assumptions. Apparently you never learned that we don't pray to Saints. We pray with them, hoping for their intercession, and in faith that there is a communion of saints, and that even death can't separate them from us, when we are all united in the body of Christ.

They are declared as such to be examples of faith, and they have specific associations("purposes" as you put it, though you put it as if they were to be used) to help people further identify with them, making them more valid examples, that can more easily try to be like. Patrick, the patron Saint of Ireland, is a great example of forgiveness, and the ability to conquer anger, as he must have done to serve, and to truly love, the Irish who enslaved him. St. Bernard, the patron saint of bees of all things, is so associated because of his unbelievable oratory abilities (called the "Honey-tongued Doctor of the Church) and faith so great that he could even explain it to others, and bring even some of the proudest hertics back to the faith. Nice assumption. The idea of praying to them is a perversion of the original intention, and was never condoned by the Church.

Granted that, while they were not to take the place of pagan gods, many are associated with pagan gods "to help ease...the transition," as you put it. ie: St. Michael's association with Mercury, Anubis, etc. But even this was based off already held beliefs about his conquering the dragon (Mercury being associated with a serpent), and that is why Mercury's temples on hills were often replaced by Churches dedicated to St. Michael, the archangel. And his association with death (Mercury w/ guiding the souls to heaven, and Anubis, the Egyptian God of the dead explains his association with scales).

He doesn't take the place of these pagan gods. That's an assertion, and again, doctrine doesn't have to be believed. Oh, then Jesus didn't handpick 12, and give 1 primacy?
Your wording "through them" sounded very familliar, so I checked. See also John chapter 18, esp. Jn 18:20.

On a related note, in regard to the message of this chapter many Church Fathers consider the Fourth mark of the Church to be persecution (meaning that when the New York Post isn't bashing the Church, the Church probably isn't doing the right thing).

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

[This message has been edited by Bounty Hunter 4 hire (edited March 11, 2004).]

LOTS of them never existed, maybe even the majority. The historical Catholic church at least was all about taking figures [either historical or frequently mythological/traditional] from the regions/cultures they encountered and making those figures as saints so as to have that relevance and connection to the people living in that place/culture.

Currently there are 4816 patron saints for 1688 topics and causes, for quite literally almost /everything/.
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patronnf.htm
With that many saints on your side, needing a supreme deity becomes almost superfluous.

Now if we look at this, there is a 5 year waiting period between a person's death and the beginning of their canonization. Now let's say your average saint lives to 50. Then dies. Then 5 years pass. Then they become a saint.

Multiply that by 4816, and you get a combined saint-year [think man-hour] period of 264880 years for them all to live die and become canonized. Now the Catholic church [tracing to Peter at least] has been around for 1960 years [assuming Peter was 'appointed' by Jesus around AD40]. That works out to no less than 135.14 saint-years per year of the Catholic church's existence. In other words coming out to canonizing a saint on average every 2.7 days to reach the number we have today, or 2.7 Saint-Days per day-of-catholic-history.

[Edit: Though if you want to avoid all those fun calculations and come up with a meaningful result, you divide 4816 saints by 1960 years and get 2.457 saints per year..]

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

[This message has been edited by Dormouse (edited March 11, 2004).]

The Church is really trying to weed out the fake ones. The fake ones came mostly from medievel excesses simillar to Crusade-era relic seeking (There was once a claim to have found the "feather of Gabriel"). The oldest ones they sometimes have trouble verifying, but that's explainable.

It's basically part of the whole excess of the times, too easily taking the word of a mass of people who claim to have seen a miracle, but were probably stirred up in the moment, accepting folklore as fact, etc. And the "devil's advocate" who is supposed to provide a case against canonization rarely did the job at the time.

It was done by the same kind of people who listed tons of angels on the saint calender that were mentioned in gnostic and other apocryphal/psuedocryphal writings as well as in folklore and pagan mythology.

There is even a very convincing case against St. Joan of Arc I read about in this Catholic Book of Saints.

Another more legitimate explaination for the high number would be the hundreds, maybe more, of martyrs across the world from the Americas to Japan.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

Most people who go insane don't stay organized and consistent with their teachings.

------------------
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
- Proverbs 27:17

Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

Nah some can be completely rational, just in a really warped way.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....