A Mature Catholic Response Needed

[Cluny]

It seems this question gets asked in some form about every week or so.

First, let’s confine ourselves to the issues raised by Matthew 1:25.

Look at Matthew 28:20–the same Gospel, where the same Greek particle EOS is used.

“Lo, I am with you always, even until [EOS] the end of the world.”

If EOS in Matthew 1:25 means that Mary and Joseph had marial relations after the birth of Jesus, then EOS in Matthew 28:20 means that at the end of the world, Jesus will no longer be with us.

Be consistent.

Furthermore, the term “firstborn son” has a technical meaning among Jews to this day.

A Jewish woman has a “firstborn son” if and ONLY if her first pregnancy results in the LIVE BIRTH of a MALE CHILD. This child is sujbect to the Law of Redemption of the Firstborn.

If her first pregnancy ends with abortion, stillbirth, miscarriage, or the birth of a female baby (living or dead), and her second pregnancy ends in the birth of a male child, this is NOT considered her “firstborn son”, and has no need to be redeemed.

BTW–In modern Jewish practice, the father gives five silver dollars to the Cohen (priestly descendant of Aaron) who says the appropriate prayers, and then donates the money to charity.

In other words, in Jewish usage (and Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels, remember) “firstborn son” does NOT mean the mother ever had other children afterwards.

I would also say that there are many places in the Bible where “brother” (or other sibling language) clearly does NOT mean “of the same mother.”

Matthew 1 (again) talks about “Judah and his brothers”–though they actually had four mothers among them.

Abraham refers to Lot as his “brother” at one point, though Lot was actually his nephew.

The lovers in Song of Solomon call themselves brother and sister. I hope you don’t interpret this literally!

In Acts, both St. Stephen and St. Paul addressed gatherings in synagoges as “Men, brothers, and fathers.” Was this claiming genetic or familial relationship?

And so it goes.

 

[Eucharisted]

I forgot to ask, but is this a matter of importance to the point that someone believing one way or the other on this would end up in hell if they were wrong?

If that belief is a heresy, which is a mortal sin. A heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. In laymen terms: Heresy is when a Christian denies a dogma or doctrine of the Church, or is likewise a doubt of some dogma or doctrine which a Christian holds in spite of reason, arguments, or persuation. For example, if a Christian believes Mary was conceived in sin, than he has committed heresy, for he denies the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent, so, if a Christian dose not know about the Immaculate Conception, or, if a Christian denies the Immaculate Conception without complete consent, such as under pain of death, then it is not a mortal sin but a venial sin. Hence, a Christian won’t go to Hell for a belief but for a mortal sin.

 

[ServantofChrist]

Thank you all…I appreciate all the great responses!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here are some thoughts about Mary’s perpetual virginity from the Early Church Fathers:

Athanasius: “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
**
Epiphanius of Salamis:"… the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]). …“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
**
Hilary of Poitiers: “If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4

**Didymus the Blind:

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan: “Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I: “You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Origen: …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]). [A.D. 248], Hilary of Poitiers [A.D. 354],

Augustine: “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]). …“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]). …“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

“That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother.”

Leporius: “We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria: “[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I: “His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

Council of Constantinople II: “… the Word of God … came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her,…” (Anathemas Against the “Three Chapters” 2 [A.D. 553]).

Gabriel of 12;
Greetings Rolltide, what does not get mentioned much about these Early disciples of the Apostles (ECF) is that they were martyred for their complete Catholic Faith Joyfully never denying our blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity. In respect to the OP, what has convinced you personally that Mary remained a vrigin before, during, and after our blessed Mother gave birth to Jesus Christ?

 

[Rolltide]

Gabriel of 12;
Greetings Rolltide, what does not get mentioned much about these Early disciples of the Apostles (ECF) is that they were martyred for their complete Catholic Faith Joyfully never denying our blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity. In respect to the OP, what has convinced you personally that Mary remained a vrigin before, during, and after our blessed Mother gave birth to Jesus Christ?

Personally? Well first, faith in the Catholic Church. I believe, like most Catholics, that the church is protected from error in matters of faith and morals. Secondly, I also recognize that the Catholic Church encompasses 2,000 years worth of the world’s greatest theologians. Now, I’m certainly educated, but what makes me think that my opinion is greater than the combined wisdom of the greatest thinkers of the last two millenia? Finally, I work as a professional historian, so I’m used to searching out evidence. After doing my own research, the evidence seems quite sound and plausible.

 

[rick43235]

This is some f****** Protestants feeble attempt at Catholic baiting…The flag went up,when he asked for mature Catholic response.

Don’t worry. Your response will never be mistaken for a mature one.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Personally? Well first, faith in the Catholic Church. I believe, like most Catholics, that the church is protected from error in matters of faith and morals. Secondly, I also recognize that the Catholic Church encompasses 2,000 years worth of the world’s greatest theologians. Now, I’m certainly educated, but what makes me think that my opinion is greater than the combined wisdom of the greatest thinkers of the last two millenia? Finally, I work as a professional historian, so I’m used to searching out evidence. After doing my own research, the evidence seems quite sound and plausible.

Gabriel of 12’

Applause… I knew from your post, "this one has built his house on “Rock”. God bless you. I think you may have silenced our OP here. Maybe next time; take it easy with the “Truth” so as not to injure the little ones with the “Rock”.

God bless you for sharing, I enjoyed your post tremendously. Peace be with you:thumbsup:

 

[Stouts989]

God created Mary, without sin, full of grace, and she was conceived without the stain of original sin.

Even Mary referred to Jesus as her savior…

Luke 1:46-48
46And Mary said:
"My soul exalts the Lord,
47And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48"For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave;
For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.

Blessed? obviously…sinless? I don’t see how we can say that.

 

[Canto]

Jesus is Mary’s firsborn son - this does not imply others

Brothers in Hebrew and Aramaic (and Latin and other ancient languages) could mean cousin or close family friend. When the OT was put in greek cousins etc were still referred to as brothers and this tradition continued into the NT. Most of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Greek. Jesus and those in Israel/Palestine spoke Aramaic as their everyday language.

In Genesis 14:12 (Hebrew and Greek) Lot is referred to as the son of Abram’s brother but two verses later Lot is referred to as Abram’s brother.

adelphos (Mark 6:3) can describe brothers not born of the same parents

Jesus in the temple at age 12 – where are his brothers?

Brothers rebuke Jesus – culturally younger brothers did give advice or rebuke the eldest brother

On the cross Jesus gives Mary to John – Under Jewish Law the oldest brother had to take care of a widowed woman, and should he die, it passed to the next oldest

The son of Mary – the people of Nazareth never referred to him as a son of Mary or one of Mary’s sons

Only Jesus is called the son of Mary – no one else

How can this be says Mary to the angel – why would she say this if she intended to have sex with Joseph, because she made a vow of virginity to the Lord c.f. Numbers 30:3-16

The Ark carried the Word (OT) - Mary carried the Word (NT)
We know what happened to those who touched the ark

Ezekiel 44:2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.

The editors of the Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV) write:

“Since all the authors represented in the New Testament appear to have been either Jews or Jewish proselytes before becoming Christians, it is natural that their use of Koine Greek was colored by their familiarity with the special characteristics of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Septuagint). Here and there the Gospels and the first half of Acts preserve in Greek certain turns of expression which reflect an underlying Aramaic idiom, which was the mother tongue of Jesus and his disciples” (“Introduction to the New Testament,” p. 1168).

 

[Rolltide]

Even Mary referred to Jesus as her savior…

Luke 1:46-48
46And Mary said:
"My soul exalts the Lord,
47And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48"For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave;
For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.

Blessed? obviously…sinless? I don’t see how we can say that.

Please check out Luke 1:28. It is not a proof text by any means, but it is the most important scriptural reference for the Immaculate Conception. The following is from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospel of Luke by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch:

Full of grace: This is the only biblical instance where an angel addresses someone by a title instead of a personal name. Two considerations help to clarify its meaning. (1) The expression full of grace is rooted in Catholic tradition and traced to St. Jerome’s translation of this verse in the Latin Vulgate. Although fundamentally accurate, it lacks some of the depth of the Greek original. Luke could have described her with the words full of grace (Gk. pleres charitos) as he did of Stephen in Acts 6:8, yet here he uses a different expression (Gk. kecharitomene) that is even more revealing than the traditional rendering. It indicates that God has already “graced” Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who “has been” and “is now” filled with divine life. (2) Alternate translations like “favored one” or “highly favored” are possible but inadequate. Because of the unparalleled role that Mary accepts at this turning point in salvation history, the best translation is the most exalted one. For God endowed Mary with an abundance of grace to prepare her for the vocation of divine motherhood and to make her a sterling example of Christian holiness (CCC 490-93, 722).

• Gabriel’s declaration points in the direction of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. According to Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition Ineffabilis Deus, Luke’s Annunciation narrative is an important indicator of Mary’s lifelong holiness. God is her “Savior” (1:47) in the most perfect way possible: he sanctified Mary in the first instance of her conception and preserved her entirely from sin and even from the inclination toward sin that we experience.

You may also want to examine the Catholic idea of Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. Just as the original Ark contained the word of God under the Old Covenant, so Mary physically contained the literal Word, Jesus Christ, within her. As such, she was specially blessed.

 

[Canto]

Even Mary referred to Jesus as her savior…

That’s because he is

Blessed? obviously…sinless? I don’t see how we can say that.

Mary was saved from the moment of her conception. God is able to do this right?

If there’s a disease you can get vaccinated (Mary) or catch the disease and then take medicine for it (us).

Stephen is called pleres charitos
Ephesians 1:6 has echaritosen
But only Mary alone is Kecharitomene Lk 1:28
Why did God give Mary a new name? A word never ever used before in the whole entire Bible.

Charitoo means to fill with grace
The King James says much grace
Most of the major Protestant transaltions say endued/endowed with grace in the footnotes/margin

But there is a Ke and a mene - Meaning that not only was Mary filled with grace, but that it occured in the past, she was passive (God filled her v30) and she remained in the state of grace. A fullness is also implied.

The Greek is a perfect passive participle and vocative
Luke 1:42 is another example of a p-p-participle where we see that Jesus (the fruit of Mary’s womb) was blessed and remained blessed.

Full of grace is supported by numerous ancient translations such as the Aramaic (Peshita) and Latin.

Tyndale and Coverdale translate the Greek as full of grace

St Athanasius a Greek father writing 373 (before Jerome’s Vulgate) said that God “…granted you all graces…the Lord God Master who was born of you… you are called Full of Grace…”

So Mary was filled with grace in the past. When did this happen?Unless God just woke up one day and though “hmmm?” her conception seems most logical.

If you were filled with Divine grace from the moment of your conception and remained in the state of grace - could you have ever sinned?

Below from www.scripturecatholic.com

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[Cluny]

Even Mary referred to Jesus as her savior…

Luke 1:46-48
46And Mary said:
"My soul exalts the Lord,
47And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48"For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave;
For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.

Blessed? obviously…sinless? I don’t see how we can say that.

In Jewish thought to this day, one is saved by being a part of the saved people, not by a “personal relationship with YHWH as personal savior.”

You’re looking at the word “Savior” through a pop-evangelical filter.

This is an example of “eisogesis” or “reading something into the text.”

 

[ServantofChrist]

That’s because he is

Mary was saved from the moment of her conception. God is able to do this right?

If there’s a disease you can get vaccinated (Mary) or catch the disease and then take medicine for it (us).

Stephen is called pleres charitos
Ephesians 1:6 has echaritosen
But only Mary alone is Kecharitomene Lk 1:28
Why did God give Mary a new name? A word never ever used before in the whole entire Bible.

Charitoo means to fill with grace
The King James says much grace
Most of the major Protestant transaltions say endued/endowed with grace in the footnotes/margin

But there is a Ke and a mene - Meaning that not only was Mary filled with grace, but that it occured in the past, she was passive (God filled her v30) and she remained in the state of grace. A fullness is also implied.

The Greek is a perfect passive participle and vocative
Luke 1:42 is another example of a p-p-participle where we see that Jesus (the fruit of Mary’s womb) was blessed and remained blessed.

Full of grace is supported by numerous ancient translations such as the Aramaic (Peshita) and Latin.

Tyndale and Coverdale translate the Greek as full of grace

St Athanasius a Greek father writing 373 (before Jerome’s Vulgate) said that God “…granted you all graces…the Lord God Master who was born of you… you are called Full of Grace…”

So Mary was filled with grace in the past. When did this happen?Unless God just woke up one day and though “hmmm?” her conception seems most logical.

If you were filled with Divine grace from the moment of your conception and remained in the state of grace - could you have ever sinned?

Below from www.scripturecatholic.com

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Very nice explanation, however, that is a big stretch. Like stouts said above, you do not need a Savior if you are without sin. Romans 3:23 says ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…Mary and everyone else fall under “ALL”. Mary went through the old testament ritual after giving birth and gave a "sin’ offering…more scripture points to her having sin than do not.

The leaders/people of the Catholic faith have lifted Mary to this high position without her even knowing it. Mary saw her need for a Savior like all of us need and confessed this with her own mouth.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m curious servant of christ,

Why would a person who committed no personal sin, not need a savior? Mary still would have suffered from the effects of the fall which I believe are called temporal effects. She aged, was able to get sick, and other things that would not have happened to humans if not for the fall. And since the bible says getting sick will no longer be in heaven, then I am guessing that Mary still needed a savior.

 

[Rolltide]

Very nice explanation, however, that is a big stretch. Like stouts said above, you do not need a Savior if you are without sin. Romans 3:23 says ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…Mary and everyone else fall under “ALL”. Mary went through the old testament ritual after giving birth and gave a "sin’ offering…more scripture points to her having sin than do not.

The leaders/people of the Catholic faith have lifted Mary to this high position without her even knowing it. Mary saw her need for a Savior like all of us need and confessed this with her own mouth.

Why do you assume she wasn’t saved? Part of the miracle of the Immaculate Conception is the fact that God is not limited by time. In the same way that when we celebrate Communion, we are not re-sacrificing Jesus, but are present once again at the original sacrifice at Calvary, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus saved Mary retroactively before it even occurred.

 

[ServantofChrist]

I’m curious servant of christ,

Why would a person who committed no personal sin, not need a savior? Mary still would have suffered from the effects of the fall which I believe are called temporal effects. She aged, was able to get sick, and other things that would not have happened to humans if not for the fall. And since the bible says getting sick will no longer be in heaven, then I am guessing that Mary still needed a savior.

The Bible says we all have sinned…Read Romas 5:12-21…sin entered the world through adam and was passed down to everyone. Mary inherited this sin like everyone else did…therefore the need of a savior like all of us. She is not exempt from this. Even is she did not sin in her life…she still inherited sin as the Bible states.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I would first like to say I love you all…and no, I am not buttering you up lol. I am just looking for an honest and mature response from some of you. This is in no way to offend anyone, beat you up or knock your beliefs. My sister and her family are Catholic and I have many friends who are as well.

I have one topic and a question or two I would like to discuss. I have actually seen a similiar topic discussed but I wanted to approach this in a different way. The topic is about Jesus’ mother Mary and if in fact she had other children.

Maybe you all here are different, but most Catholics I have talked to believe Mary was always a virgin and did not have any other children. The questions I have are these:

If you believe that she was a virgin and did not have any other children, I would like to know why you believe this? My other question is this: If your answer to the above is because your church believes this…or something similiar, then I would like to know why you believe your church over what the Bible says?

There may be more, but below are 5 different writers that were there at the time of Jesus…how can you get more reliable than that…not to mention it’s Gods Word and either you believe all of God’s Word or you do not. So please think on this, I would really like to know what you think.

Matthew 12:46+
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Galatians 1:19
Luke 8:19
Luke 24:10
John 2:12

While dying on the cross, Jesus gave his mother to St. John (John 19:27). Why didn’t He give her to one of her other children (as Protestants insist she had) instead? Jewish law would have demanded it. It is simply because Mary had no other children for Him to do so.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Here are some thoughts about Mary’s perpetual virginity from the Early Church Fathers:

Athanasius: “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
**
Epiphanius of Salamis:"… the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]). …“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
**
Hilary of Poitiers: “If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4

**Didymus the Blind:

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan: “Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I: “You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Origen: …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]). [A.D. 248], Hilary of Poitiers [A.D. 354],

Augustine: “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]). …“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]). …“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

“That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother.”
[BLeporius:** “We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

]Cyril of Alexandria: “[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

[Pope Leo I:** “His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

]Council of Constantinople II: “… the Word of God … came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her,…” (Anathemas Against the “Three Chapters” 2 [A.D. 553]).

Mt 13:55-56 and MK 6:3 say, “Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the ‘brother’ of James, and Joseph, and of Jude and Simon? And are not His ‘sisters’ here with us?”

. At first it looks like Jesus had brothers and sisters. These are the main two verses that some say ‘prove’ He did. Lets look at the definitions.

From four different dictionaries, the word ‘brother’ means, sons of the same parents, OR, friend, ally, kinsman, fellow man, member of the same clan, fellow member of a Church etc. Which definition fits the verses?

. Compare Mt 10:2-4, Mk 15:40, Jn 19:25, and Acts 1:13 and you will find that James, Joseph, and Jude were sons of Cleophas (Alphaeus) and ‘the other Mary’, not Mary the Mother of GOD. Simon was the ‘Canaanite’ of Mk 3:18, and the ‘Zealot’.

. NONE of the four ‘brothers’ were sons of Mary

 

[Bill_Pick]

Very nice explanation, however, that is a big stretch. Like stouts said above, you do not need a Savior if you are without sin. Romans 3:23 says ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…Mary and everyone else fall under “ALL”. Mary went through the old testament ritual after giving birth and gave a "sin’ offering…more scripture points to her having sin than do not.

The leaders/people of the Catholic faith have lifted Mary to this high position without her even knowing it. Mary saw her need for a Savior like all of us need and confessed this with her own mouth.

So you think That are Lord Jesus Christ lived in a sinful vessel for ( 9mons )

 

[ServantofChrist]

So you think That are Lord Jesus Christ lived in a sinful vessel for ( 9mons )

As you will see throughout the entire Bible, sin was passed through the man. Even though Eve sinned, the sin is passed through Adam…to Moses and so as the Bible states. Sin was not passed to Jesus because Joseph did not have relations with her…the transfer of sin would have come through Joseph and had nothing to do with Mary.