Can someone go through all the evidence for the perpetual virginity of mary for me?

[FCEGM]

This is a ‘splitting hairs’ argument. The focus should be on Christ. Does Mary being ever-virgin change , at all, what Christ did for us on the cross?
Absolutely not.
Then, I ask, why all the fuss? Her virginity would be her business and none of ours as it would be with any woman. Seriously, people leave the Blessed Mother alone. Were I her, I would be embarrassed that my children went about arguing about my virginity. Really. Can we back to Christ?

“All the fuss” is because each doctrine of the Church is connected to the others. Thus contemplating the mystery of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary reveals not so much her prerogatives and her glorious role in Salvation History, but more reveals Who it is Who was born to such a mother. God does nothing for no reason, thus the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has a great significance, pointing to the unique identity of her Son. Thus, we cannot isolate the Incarnation of Christ from other factors (i.e., His being born a Jew; His being born of a particular woman; that particular woman being a virgin before His birth and remaining a virgin after; that particular woman remaining virginal in the midst of a marriage.)

How would you would react if someone made unfounded claims against your mother? THAT’S how Catholics respond when the graces and prerogatives that God has bestowed on her because of her unique relationship with the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, and as Mother of God Incarnate come under attack - and THIS because it is essentially (though often unwittingly) an attack on the Divinity of her Son.

“Mary Most Holy is thus the “ever virgin.” Her prerogative is the consequence of her divine motherhood which totally consecrated her to Christ’s mission of redemption.” (From a catechesis of Pope John Paul II on the Blessed Virgin Mary given August 28, 1996.)

 

[Mommy2Five]

I have just begun my journey into the Catholic Church. Please forgive my ignorance. I am coming out of the Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist realm. I want to tread respectfully, here. This discussion is important to me and I would not dare disrespect my Catholic brethren. Please bear with me.

I read recently that the title “Mother Of God” came about because the early church fathers were attempting to deflect an uprising that called into question the divinity of Christ. By referring to Mary as the “Mother of God” this cemented the unique identity of her Son (as was earlier pointed out) and quashed the heresy that Jesus was not God incarnate. Is this correct?

Thank you for your time. BTW, the explanations on Jesus’ “brothers” was very helpful to me. Esp. the idea that Mary had 105 children from Acts 1:13-25. Also, I did not know that Mary Ever Virgin was a doctrine held by Martin Luther and Zwingli! Thank you for that!

In Christ’s Peace,
Mommy2Five

 

[AMDGtoo]

I read recently that the title “Mother Of God” came about because the early church fathers were attempting to deflect an uprising that called into question the divinity of Christ. By referring to Mary as the “Mother of God” this cemented the unique identity of her Son (as was earlier pointed out) and quashed the heresy that Jesus was not God incarnate. Is this correct?

Yes, every one of the four Marian Dogmas speak to and “guard” who Jesus is (Jesus is God, Jesus is unique, Jesus deserves the “best”, and Jesus as King, is a righteous good Son)–nothing more than that.

 

[Mailman]

Hi! Here’s an article by J. W. Robinson that explains why Mary could not have been a perpetual virgin:

WHEN Jesus came to His own hometown synagogue to preach, he astonished the people with His teachings. In their amazement, they asked, “Whence hath THIS man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not ALL with us?” (Matt. 13:54-56).

Notice it! This scripture clearly states that Christ had FOUR brothers, all of them being personally named. The added question, “And his sisters, are they not ALL with us?” implies that He had AT LEAST THREE SISTERS. If He had only two, they would have used the term, “both,” instead of “all.” Some claim that these were not really brothers and sisters, only cousins. But Scripture reveals this is NOT TRUE.

Here is the proof.

The word “brethren” is translated from the Greek word for “brother” – “adelphos.” This word may mean a spiritual brother, but it does not mean “cousin.” The English word “cousin” in Luke 1:36 and 58 is translated from “suggenes” in the original Greek. This clearly shows that the New Testament, when referring to Jesus’ family, makes them brothers and not cousins.

What about the contention that these were Christ’s spiritual brothers and sisters, instead of His blood brothers and sisters – His siblings. We find the answer in John 2:12. Christ went to Capernaum, accompanied by “His mother, and His brethren, AND HIS DISCIPLES.” Here we find a sharp distinction is made between His BRETHREN and His DISCIPLES showing that they WERE NOT the same. His SPIRITUAL brethren WERE His disciples – those who believed His teachings. His flesh and blood brothers did not believe Him (John 7:5). This scripture certainly makes James, Joses, Simon and Judas His blood brothers.

In Mark’s account of Jesus’ visit to His hometown synagogue, we find the people wondering about His great wisdom. They asked, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3). These people, who had known Jesus from childhood, specifically stated that He was the brother of several other young people who had grown up in their midst.

These people were VERY familiar with family relationships throughout the village. Notice that they are not called cousins, but brothers.

In Matthew 1:25 we find that Christ is called the “FIRSTBORN” son of Mary. The word “firstborn” is translated from the Greek word, “prototokon” which means the firstborn among other children – the oldest of several children in a family. If Jesus had been Mary’s ONLY child, the Greek word “monogenes,” meaning “only child,” would have been used in the original Greek text. Jesus was the “only begotten” human son of the Heavenly Father (John 1:18). But He was the “first born” – not an “only child” – of Mary!

Many other New Testament scriptures tell us distinctly that Jesus Christ was not the only child of His mother. In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul mentioned having seen not only Peter, but also James the Lord’s brother in Jerusalem. We know that Paul was speaking of a brother in the flesh. If he had been speaking of a spiritual brother – a brother in the faith – he certainly would have included Peter among Christ’s spiritual brethren. But he did not!

Paul knew that Christ had other brothers. He stated: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the BRETHREN OF THE LORD, and Cephas [Peter]?” (I Cor. 9:5). Notice that the brethren of the Lord are distinct from the twelve apostles. In Acts 1:13-14 we find that THE DISCIPLES “continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, AND WITH HIS BRETHREN.”

Some have, in argument, referred to Matthew 12:46-50. Here Christ said, “Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” They have claimed this scripture as proof that when the Bible speaks of Christ’s brethren, it means spiritual brethren. They claim therefore that He may not have had any brothers in the flesh.

Such an argument is without foundation. If this scripture proved that Christ had no brothers or sisters, IT WORLD ALSO PROVE THAT HE HAD NO MOTHER. What Christ meant in this statement is that those who OBEY THE FATHER are all equally precious in His sight, regardless of blood relationship.

As a final proof that Jesus Christ was not the ONLY CHILD of His mother, let us turn to Psalm 69:8, which all Bible scholars recognize as a prophecy concerning Christ. In this scripture we read, “I am become a stranger unto MY BRETHREN, and an alien unto MY MOTHER’S CHILDREN.” Christ certainly was speaking of His PHYSICAL mother and brethren – blood relatives – in this prophecy. Christ’s spiritual mother is the Church (Rev. 12:1-5) and His spiritual brethren are His followers – those who compose the true Church today (Matt. 12:49-50, Rom. 8:16-17,29).

Christ’s spiritual brethren certainly recognized Him from the beginning of His ministry (John 1:35-49). He WAS a stranger (an alien) to His physical brethren, however. They did not believe in Him during His ministry (John 7:2-5), although some of them were converted after His resurrection.

Anyone who earnestly believes that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God, CANNOT fail to see these facts. These scriptures definitely PROVE – absolutely – that Jesus Christ did have brothers and sisters who were the children of His mother. Their father was Joseph. Joseph was the legal, not actual, father of Jesus. This means that Jesus and His brothers and sisters had the same mother, but not the same father.

According to the Bible, Jesus’ physical mother led a normal married life and bore Joseph, her husband, several children after the birth of Jesus Christ.

 

[YADA]

I’ve got myself a bit confused about this doctrine…

Where it says that Mary and Joseph had no relations ‘until’ she gave birth to Jesus, it’s not the kind of ‘until’ that implies that anything went on afterwards (I have trouble getting my head
around that I must admit).

I will take this one first as it is really the easiest …

SOme will argue that 'in the past" the word ‘until’ or ‘til’ referred only to past events as if this is different today …

In fact, the words ‘until’ or ‘til’ can only regulate past events and not future … it is not a prophetic voice - as it were …

Even today I can say with assurance that “I will not take Blue Skys out to dinner until I meet him/her” … will I take Blue Skys to dinner in the future after that meeting? Maybe … Maybe not …

I can say tha I will not go to the movies until hollywood produces a pro-life movie … Later if Hollywood produces a Pro-Life movie can you use the statement above to say with a certainty that i did in fact go to the movies? and woud you proclaim that I had to have gone because it was said that I would not until they had, they did so ipso facto … I went? No of course not …

It does bind backwards and it leaves open the future …

Scripture uses this word in two other instances - one where the future event could not have happend … “she had no children until her death”… we’ll obviously women do not bear childrn once dead and then in the case of the tomb of Moses … “no one knows until this day the location of it” … well; did they know it in that day [when the passage was written]? No … do we know where it is today? No …

Again I will emphasise … I can tell my daughter that I cannot babysit for her until I get home from work … but that does not mean that I will in actuality babysit … what if my after work plans change? What if I am prevented from babysitting for other reasons? … what if my daughter decides to have another person babysit instead or decides she does not needme to baby sit fter all? …

The evangelist was writing about Jesus. He was answering those who would deny the virgin birth, those who might have argued for the paternity of Joseph “is this not the carpenter’s son?”]. His entire focus was on the past, the circumstances surrounding the conception and birth of the Messiah, the one who fullfilled the prophesies The evangelist was not interested not reporting on [nor speculating on] future events or the future relations of Mary and Joseph - it was not relevant to his Gospel.

 

[Mommy2Five]

AMGDtoo: Thank you. This confirms what I had read on another Catholic answers site as well.

Mailman: Thank you. But I have been thoroughly schooled in the Protestant perspective. I know all the Bible verses you quoted. I’ve read all the commentaries. My goal here is to seek the Catholic perspective, the Catholic answers. I would appreciate answers from solid Catholics.

I hope that is possible.

In Christ’s Peace,
Elizabeth

 

[YADA]

Hi! Here’s an article by J. W. Robinson that explains why Mary could not have been a perpetual virgin:

WHEN Jesus came to His own hometown synagogue to preach, he astonished the people with His teachings. In their amazement, they asked, “Whence hath THIS man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not ALL with us?” (Matt. 13:54-56).

Notice it! This scripture clearly states that Christ had FOUR brothers, all of them being personally named. The added question, “And his sisters, are they not ALL with us?” implies that He had AT LEAST THREE SISTERS. If He had only two, they would have used the term, “both,” instead of “all.” Some claim that these were not really brothers and sisters, only cousins. But Scripture reveals this is NOT TRUE.

The passage also clearly [even more clearly] says that Jesus is the son of the Carpenter … who is the carpenter? Joseph … Jesus is the son of Joseph per this passage …

No where in scripture is any other person identified as the child of Mary - the sme Mary who is the Mother of Jesus … not one single scripture passage identifies another person as the child of Mary … look - it cannot be found…

That Jesus gave his mother into the care of the 'Beloved Disciple" at the foot of the cross is far greater indication that Mary had no other chidren to care for her - especially sons … than any vague reference to brethren …

It is possible that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage theese childrn would have been half siblings to Jesus and not the children Mary …

It is also possible that [even though written in Greek] the use of brother [and brethren] had the jewish connotation of male relative and even a male from the same village …

I have friend from india and one from tanzania … for both of them, their mother tongues [like aramaic] have no term for uncle or cousin even today … brother and sister are used to refer to any close male or female relative, close friends and ven someone from the same clan or village …

 

[grandfather]

I read recently that the title “Mother Of God” came about because the early church fathers were attempting to deflect an uprising that called into question the divinity of Christ. By referring to Mary as the “Mother of God” this cemented the unique identity of her Son (as was earlier pointed out) and quashed the heresy that Jesus was not God incarnate. Is this correct?

Mommy2Five

Mom,

In the early days of the Church there were controversies about who Jesus is. Think about what it was like back then. Jesus came among the people and taught things that astounded them. He also commanded nature in working many incredible miracles. Then He was crucified and rose from the dead and founded a Church. So people were kind of stunned by all of this and wondered about who and what this person was. It took centuries to work through all the theories and heresies and come up with the words that formulate the doctrines mainline Protestants and Catholics agree on explaining who Jesus is. We take them for granted now, but it was a struggle to get to them.

So we say Jesus is one person with two natures. He is fully God and fully man, but is one person, the God-man. That sounds simple, but it took a lot of effort to get there.

The heresies that denied this were called Christological, because they relate to the person of Christ.

One said Jesus was a created being, the greatest of all of God’s creations and He was not God. This is called Arianism, over the person who began the heresy, a bishop named Arius. In a way Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses and Unitarians believe this heresy.

Another heresy said Jesus was God, but not really man. He was kind of an apparition. That was called Nestorianism.

Back to the definition. Jesus is one person with two natures. The way they got to this understanding of Jesus identity was through Mary. Jesus had a mother. Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus. A mother is the mother of a person not a nature.
So when they gave her the title Mother of God, she is the mother of the person who has divine nature as well as human.

What is the difference between person and nature? Nature is about what a thing is. A bird is a bird, because it has bird nature. It has to do with what the creature does. If someone is a layer, or baseball palyer, or inventor, or violinist, that is what the person does not who he is.

Personhood is about who we are, not what we are. So there are billions of creatures who share human nature, but only one you. Only one being is who you are, but many are what you are, a mother, a woman, a Christian and so on.

Who we are, our identity comes from our origins. You are your mother’s daughter and your father’s. You are a child of God. God made you in cooperation with your parents. Jesus comes from Mary. His human nature comes from her alone. His divine nature comes from the Father. We say He is eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, begotten not made. Those words that tell us who He is took a long time to figure out. We could not know who Jesus is without Mary His mother. She is the mother of the whole person, not just His human nature. She is Mother of God. He did not float down from heaven on a cloud. He took on human nature in her womb miraculously and was born of flesh. So as Adam said of Eve this is flesh of my flesh, we also belong to Jesus this way, through Mary. He is of us. In order to undersatand this better read the Book of Esther. The queen intercedes for her people. His taking on flesh from Mary was not temporary. He ascended into heaven with this body He received from her alone. He is God-man, embodied, forever and you are of the same stuff as He is, thanks to His mother.

 

[distracted]

Mary’s perpetual virginity is such an important dogma in Catholicism, so I don’t understand why these parts of the Bible would be so confusing about it, if that makes sense. After all there aren’t any disputes about the wording of Jesus feeding the five thousand or anything like that, it’s all as clear as day, so you can see why we believe it. The doctrine of Mary’s perptetual virginity isn’t like that which is why I’m having trouble

One reason i believe mary was a perpetual virgin is because the Church Christ established on Earth says so… Jesus speaks through his Church… but you may not accept that as “evidence”…(?)

Maybe this will do (?):

One reason Mary had to be a virgin (she was a consecrated temple vrigin) was to show the world that God really IS the father of Jesus (not an ordinary human). She had been planning on marrying Joseph but she was NOT planning on having sex with him after marriage. They were to have a platonic, sex-less marriage because she had made vows to be a perpetual, life-long virgin…

In the 1st chapter of Luke, the angel tells mary she will be the mother of the savior. She is incredulous at this because she HAD made this decision to be a perpetual virgin. And yet, she had also (by the time the angel appeared) agreed to marry Joseph. She (like all women) couldn’t understand why God would want her to have a baby after taking a vow of perpetual virginity…) In other words, she was planning on marrying joseph AND staying a virgin… and that is why she didn’t understand the angel’s message at first… So St. Luke is the best evidence…

 

[po18guy]

PRIVATE INTERPRETATION ALERT!!!

Hi! Here’s an article by J. W. Robinson that explains why Mary could not have been a perpetual virgin:

Now, which Protestant writer is J. W. Robinson, and what is his authority to privately interpret scripture?

According to the Bible, Jesus’ physical mother led a normal married life and bore Joseph, her husband, several children after the birth of Jesus Christ.

Nope. Read on…
Please refer to post 29, 31 and others. Also see www.biblechristiansociety.com. To wit:

"Mk 6:3 says, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?” We need to realize a few things here about these “brothers and sisters”: #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were “brother” or “sister”. An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, is called his brother.

Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother!

Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the “brothers” of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context. (Emphasis mine)

Do the math. Catholics believe that 1,975 years of teaching without error trumps Mr. Robinson’s fallible reading of the Catholic Bible.

You have been greatly mislead.

 

[Mailman]

Do the math. Catholics believe that 1,975 years of teaching without error trumps Mr. Robinson’s fallible reading of the Catholic Bible.

That’s a rather sweeping, but unfounded, claim. For one, didn’t the Catholic Church once wrongly interpret Joshua 10:12 to mean that the earth is the center of the universe and therefore unmoving? Didn’t it wrongly condemn an innocent man named Galileo for teaching the Copernican theory of a moving earth? That innocent man was sentenced to life imprisonment and died without getting an apology. That wrong interpretation of the Bible, coupled with the Vatican’s reliance on men (the philosophers at the time) rather than God caused so much distress to that man.

Because of that blunder, the Catholic Church ever since has been very cautious to issue categorical statements on whether certain teachings of the Bible related to science and history are true or not. Here are a few examples:

1. The CCC never teaches that “Noah and Abraham actually existed” (cf. CCC 56-59).
2. The CCC does not explicitly insist that we are descended from one original couple, Adam and Eve (CCC 404). In other words, “we could have descended from lower creatures” [in plain English, apes] according to Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
3. The RCC teaches that the Genesis account of a six-day creation may not really have been a literal six days. It could be that the writer “was only writing symbolically, and that the scientific view that the world took millions of years to create is not incompatible with a Christian view of creation.”

The RCC has always been ambiguous when teaching about the truthfulness of the many stories in the Bible and is explicit only on matters that cannot be later proven by science. For example, it is clear on the virginal conception of Jesus (CCC 498), and his bodily resurrection (CCC 643). It is clear on the trinity, Mary’s “Assumption,” Mary’s perpetual virginity, Mary’s “Immaculate Conception,” the many saints who have gone to heaven, and its many teachings about salvation.

Is it possible that the true Church of God could teach that Abraham may not be a real person, or that Adam and Eve may not have been our original parents? Jesus Christ spoke about these people! Was Christ lying, or was He kidding when He spoke about them?

The true Church of God would have full trust and confidence in God’s Word – that it speaks the truth on any subject – whether it be about science and history or about faith and morals.

God bless,

 

[AMDGtoo]

That’s a rather sweeping, but unfounded, claim. For one, didn’t the Catholic Church once wrongly interpret Joshua 10:12 to mean that the earth is the center of the universe and therefore unmoving? Didn’t it wrongly condemn an innocent man named Galileo for teaching the Copernican theory of a moving earth? That innocent man was sentenced to life imprisonment and died without getting an apology. That wrong interpretation of the Bible, coupled with the Vatican’s reliance on men (the philosophers at the time) rather than God caused so much distress to that man.

Because of that blunder, the Catholic Church ever since has been very cautious to issue categorical statements on whether certain teachings of the Bible related to science and history are true or not. Here are a few examples:

1. The CCC never teaches that “Noah and Abraham actually existed” (cf. CCC 56-59).
2. The CCC does not explicitly insist that we are descended from one original couple, Adam and Eve (CCC 404). In other words, “we could have descended from lower creatures” [in plain English, apes] according to Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
3. The RCC teaches that the Genesis account of a six-day creation may not really have been a literal six days. It could be that the writer “was only writing symbolically, and that the scientific view that the world took millions of years to create is not incompatible with a Christian view of creation.”

The RCC has always been ambiguous when teaching about the truthfulness of the many stories in the Bible and is explicit only on matters that cannot be later proven by science. For example, it is clear on the virginal conception of Jesus (CCC 498), and his bodily resurrection (CCC 643). It is clear on the trinity, Mary’s “Assumption,” Mary’s perpetual virginity, Mary’s “Immaculate Conception,” the many saints who have gone to heaven, and its many teachings about salvation.

Is it possible that the true Church of God could teach that Abraham may not be a real person, or that Adam and Eve may not have been our original parents? Jesus Christ spoke about these people! Was Christ lying, or was He kidding when He spoke about them?

The true Church of God would have full trust and confidence in God’s Word – that it speaks the truth on any subject – whether it be about science and history or about faith and morals.

God bless,

Something tells me that you have the wrong thread. We were discussing the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity–not whether the Catholic Church (not the RCC) may have held certain, unrelated to theology claims, or personal interpretations.

 

[unacanta]

But it can’t be denied that God did choose Mary–the “woman” of Genesis 3:15.

Correct, God did choose Mary, but she is not the woman of Gen 3:15

 

[AMDGtoo]

Correct, God did choose Mary, but she is not the woman of Gen 3:15

How can you say that? It is even noted in my KJV that it is the concurrent opinion of scholars and theiologians that the verse embodies a prophetic reference to Christ. And since Christ is the woman’s “seed” (as the Bible says)… Besides that, in the Gospel of John, Jesus refers to his mother as “woman” (John 2:4 and also John 19:26.)

 

[DD2007]

Hi. Below I have included in order all of the passages I know of that provides a base for and sheds light on this topic for me. I posted something similar to this a long time ago on this site under a different name before I went through a time of trouble. So from here to the end of the post is all scripture from the RSV-CE in an order I enjoy relating to this topic. Enjoy

---

[6] Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
[7] If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him.” John 14:6-7 RSV-CE

[23] Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
[24] He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me. John 14:23-24 RSV-CE

[31] but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go hence.
John 14:31 RSV-CE

[48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
[49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
[50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Mathew 12:48-50 RSV-CE

[9] But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.
[10] For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.
[11] For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
[12] saying, “I will proclaim thy name to my brethren,
in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee.”
[13] And again, “I will put my trust in him.”
And again, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.” Hebrews 2:9-13 RSV-CE

[27] As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!”
[28] But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” Luke 11:27-28 RSV-CE

[38] And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. Luke 1:38 RSV-CE

[46] And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
[47] and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
[48] for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
[49] for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name. Luke 1:46-49 RSV-CE

[28] And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” Luke 1:28 RSV-CE

[42] and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! Luke 1:42 RSV-CE

[11] for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11 RSV-CE

[2] And he said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut. Ezekiel 44:2 RSV-CE

[1] And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; Revelation 12:1 RSV-CE

[37] For with God nothing will be impossible." Luke 1:37 RSV-CE

[4] But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
[5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
[6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
[7] So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir. Galatians 4:4-7 RSV-CE

[14] “Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”
Luke 2:14 RSV-CE

 

[po18guy]

That’s a rather sweeping, but unfounded, claim. For one, didn’t the Catholic Church once wrongly interpret Joshua 10:12 to mean that the earth is the center of the universe and therefore unmoving? Didn’t it wrongly condemn an innocent man named Galileo for teaching the Copernican theory of a moving earth? That innocent man was sentenced to life imprisonment and died without getting an apology. That wrong interpretation of the Bible, coupled with the Vatican’s reliance on men (the philosophers at the time) rather than God caused so much distress to that man.

Because of that blunder, the Catholic Church ever since has been very cautious to issue categorical statements on whether certain teachings of the Bible related to science and history are true or not. Here are a few examples:

1. The CCC never teaches that “Noah and Abraham actually existed” (cf. CCC 56-59).
2. The CCC does not explicitly insist that we are descended from one original couple, Adam and Eve (CCC 404). In other words, “we could have descended from lower creatures” [in plain English, apes] according to Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
3. The RCC teaches that the Genesis account of a six-day creation may not really have been a literal six days. It could be that the writer “was only writing symbolically, and that the scientific view that the world took millions of years to create is not incompatible with a Christian view of creation.”

The RCC has always been ambiguous when teaching about the truthfulness of the many stories in the Bible and is explicit only on matters that cannot be later proven by science. For example, it is clear on the virginal conception of Jesus (CCC 498), and his bodily resurrection (CCC 643). It is clear on the trinity, Mary’s “Assumption,” Mary’s perpetual virginity, Mary’s “Immaculate Conception,” the many saints who have gone to heaven, and its many teachings about salvation.

Is it possible that the true Church of God could teach that Abraham may not be a real person, or that Adam and Eve may not have been our original parents? Jesus Christ spoke about these people! Was Christ lying, or was He kidding when He spoke about them?

The true Church of God would have full trust and confidence in God’s Word – that it speaks the truth on any subject – whether it be about science and history or about faith and morals.

God bless,

Short answer: No. Do the research. It’s your soul at stake over a false, con-man-made “religion”. I knew a Mormon once that went to prison. So, using your logic, that makes the LDS false.

 

[Erich]

WHEN Jesus came to His own hometown synagogue to preach, he astonished the people with His teachings. In their amazement, they asked, “Whence hath THIS man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not ALL with us?” (Matt. 13:54-56).

We know from Gal 1:18-19 that James the “brother of the Lord” is an apostle. There are two apostles named James. We know from Mark 3:13-19 that one of them is the son of Zebedee, and the other is the son of Alphaeus. So, if James the “brother of the Lord” is an apostle, as St. Paul says, he can’t be the son of either Alphaeus or Zebedee. There is no James the apostle who could also be James the sibling brother of Jesus.

And what about Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John l9:25? From This Rock,

In these James and Joses (Joseph), who are mentioned in Matthew l3:55 with Simon and Judas (Jude) as Jesus’ adelphoi, are called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas, a different Mary from our Blessed Mother. This “other” Mary (Matt. 27:61, 28:1) is called our Lady’s* adelphe* in John 19:25. It is wholly unlikely that two daughters of the same parents were given the same name, “Mary.” Our Lady and the “other Mary” were related only in the wider sense of adelphe. They were relatives, but not sisters. Since Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Judas, and the sisters of Jesus along with James and Joses, calling them all adelphoi (masculine) and adelphai (feminine), these words in the texts at issue must be translated “relatives.”

Indeed, when trying to understand these verses, the first thing to note is that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a very wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that the term “brother” had a very wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”), as well as kinsman such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or law though not related to you by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (1 Sam. 9:13; 20:32; 2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Aran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26-28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1Chron. 23:21-22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives, as in the above examples. Sometimes they meant kinsman (Deut. 23:7, Neh. 5:7, Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kings 10:13-14).

 

[love4mary]

Mary ever virgin. A hard concept indeed unless you understand Why the Church teaches this truth.

Jesus IS the Son of God, now if Mary had other children after His birth, that would bring into question who the father of Jesus was. This Doctrine of the Faith (please others smarter then me point to actual Church teachings on this) was declared Officially by the Church (although always known and believed) because there were people who denied Jesus IS God’s Son–God the Son.

This is really a very Christ-Centered doctrine.

 

[twb1621]

Read “THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY”, by St. Jerome

This pamphlet, which appeared about A.D. 383, contains a rebuttal to the theological innovator Helvidius, who denied the faith of the entire Christian world by suddenly asserting, contrary to virtually all earlier authors, that Mary had children besides Jesus. As the pamphlet reveals, modern anti-virginitists have done little more than reinvent the wheel.

ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PII6-11.TXT

 

[Mailman]

Short answer: No. Do the research. It’s your soul at stake over a false, con-man-made “religion”. I knew a Mormon once that went to prison. So, using your logic, that makes the LDS false.

Of course the LDS is false. It’s worse than the RCC. It teaches that the Bible is full of errors that’s why Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon. The RCC, at least, teaches only that the Bible cannot be trusted on matters other than faith and morals (it doesn’t realize though that the historicity of Abraham is a matter of faith), but even that it has to be according to its private interpretation. I’ve done my research. I hope you will do yours and… be like the Bereans who were admired for their open-mindedness because thay “searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11).