CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[Bishopite]

The problem with this claim is that it goes against so many scriptures. Take for example Matt 13:55—which says “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? When brothers or sisters is used in this way it means actual blood brothers and sisters.

No that’s incorrect. The Greek word aldelphos means “kinsman” and brothers are used not specifically as biological, and as in Jewish culture a brother could be a cousin or step brother or
Christian brother. In fact, Jerome admonished by many Protestant theologians as one of the greatest early scholars because he knew the Jews and Hebrew and Greek, gives the list of the different usages of the word “brother.” I’ll look it up and post it for you.

It does not follow that the mother of Jesus is your mother anymore than your mother is my mother. The scriptures also never refer to Mary as the mother of believers. Never.

The scriptures also never say Mary had other children. And Mary is our spiritual mother.

 

[FrankLawrence]

Justasking made this quote.
“It does not follow that the mother of Jesus is your mother anymore than your mother is my mother. The scriptures also never refer to Mary as the mother of believers. Never.”
It is time for us to tear this comment to shreds. Let’s go to Revelation 12:17 “Enraged at her escape, the dragon went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep God’s commandments and give witness to Jesus. He took up his position by the shore of the sea.”
So, justasking, maybe in your false theology, “believers” neither need to keep God’s commandments nor give witness to Jesus, but merely need to accept an altar call and make a sinner’s prayer, in which case your comment would make sense from your warped perspective, but realize that true believers keep God’s commandments and give witness to Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

Part 1

You should also reject this since there is not one shred of evidence for this in scripture and history.

Fortunately, Catholics are not limited by what can be found in scripture and secular history. Our faith has been handed down to us by the Apostoles

Are you saying that your church receives revelations from God? If so, should not these revelations be included in the Scriptures themselves since they are on par with Scripture?

Of course God continues to reveal His perfect will! however, the Divine Deposit of faith of which revelation was closed with the death of the last Apostle is contained in the Scripture, and in the Apostolic teachings. You can find these in the Catechism. The scriptures reflect the Apostolic teaching, although they don’t contain all of it.

This is not true. The OT predates the catholic church and for another there is no pope in the NT. No supreme leader like the pope.

Jesus built a church, not a book. The CAtholic church was alive and well for centuries before the NT was drawn together. The church is not dependent upon the scripture, but the other way around. Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven would be like a mustard seed. What we see of the papacy in the NT is mustard seeds. They have grown into a large tree in which the birds (us) can nest.

(the Catholic Church produced the scripture)

What do you mean by this?

That Catholics, inspired by the HS, wrote down the teachings of Jesus. Many centuries later, those writings were gathered and put together (canoninzed) by the Catholic Church. There is nothing taught by the church that contradicts the bible, or vice versa. If it seems that way, it is because the reader is not intepreting correctly.

This is not entirely true. There is much in catholic doctrine that is not in scripture. Mary’s assumption is one such example.

I think you do not see the reflection of catholic doctrine in scripture because you are reading it with protestant glasses on your face!

The fact that we have a Bible at all is Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church decided which books to put into the Bible. The truths about the Teachings of Jesus predated all the New Testament, and existed completely without it for decades prior to a word of it being written.

Let’s asume you are correct. What follows from this?

This is a very good question. It follows that the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and that the scripture reflects what the church believes.

I don’t know any catholics either. You may be the first. Where can i find a list of all the Sacred Traditions so i can study them?

I hope all the rabid Catholics on this board will not discourage you. Most Catholics are not so aggressive. The Catechism is the best place to start. The Sacred Traditions are carefully explained in there, and how the Catholic beliefs relate to the scriptures. You can access it free online.

 

[guanophore]

This is not correct in the sense that the scriptures have their source in God Himself. That is why they are inspired-inerrant.

Both things are true. God inspired the Church, and those inspired persons then wrote down their beliefs. The church also has her source in God Himself. In fact, she is His Body on earth. The Church is inseparable from Christ, just as the Bible is inseparable from the Church. It is difficult for the Sola Scriptura individual to understand any of the teachings of Jesus from the Bible.

Why do you say this?

Because all literature is best understood from the context in which it was written, and since the NT was written by the Catholic church, and the CC does not teach Sola Scriptura, it is a limiting concept. The Bible was never intended to be separated from the Source that produced it.

If that source is God then i agree. If you think its your church i don't for the mere fact is made up of fallen men who have taught falsely on a number of doctrines.

Jesus gave His spirit to the Church and promised that He would preserve her from error. The inerrancy of the Church is what allowed the NT to be written inerrantly, and which books belonged within it without error. Yes, fallen men can teach falsly, but not the Doctrine of the Church, which Jesus has preserved without error.

See Acts 20:35. That to is part of the scriptures.

Yes, but not in the gospel accounts. How do we know it is a saying of Jesus? It is part of the Sacred Oral Tradition preserved by the Apostles. Another one of those traditions is that Jesus meant exactly what He said in John 6 about eating His Body and Drinking His blood.

How about something not recorded in the scriptures?

Another example is the assumption of Moses, mentioned by Jude:

Jude 9
9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”

Nowhere is this found in scripture, yet we accept it on the authority of the Apostle, and that it is part of the Sacred Oral Tradition that Jesus believed.

What do you do when you have a false teacher in your midst that has been “appointed” by God?

We are already at the ragged edge of this topic, so can we move that to another thread?

Huh??? The Trinity doctrine is well grounded in the scriptures. It is there that we find it.

Seeds, yes, but never the word Trinity, which is an invention of the Catholic Church.

All Apostolic Teachings are found in the scriptures. Apostolic teachings can only come from the apostles themselves and nowhere else.

There are no apostolic teachings that contradict the scriptures, but clearly, not all are spelled out there with clarity. For example, the hypostatic nature of Christ is an Apostolic Teaching, but that word is not found in scripture either.

That is not found in scripture.

It is, but that is also another thread!

If this were true then you would have to say all teachers and scholars in protestant churches have never ever interpreted the scriptures correctly. Would you agree with this?

No, one does not equal the other. Truth can be found in protestant communities, and in God’s word, even by those in rebelliion against the authority God appointed for His church. God can even speak through the mouth of a donkey!

(the scripture was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Oral Tradition that produced it. Disputes were to be taken to the Church)

This has nothing to do with understanding what a verse means. What you are referring to has to do with church discipline.

Well, yes, Jesus gave ALL authority to His Apostles. Why would you assume misinterpretation and erroneous teaching is not a matter of church discipline?

 

[guanophore]

When Paul describes the structure and qualifications for church leadership in I Timothy 3:1-13 he never mentions any thing about an apostle. Once the church is established and the apostles have done their work, they are no longer necessary. No one after John died has the authority of an apostle.

While I agree with the rest of your post, about the office of the Apostle, I disagree about Apostolic Authority. This was passed on to the Bishop, and remains with us today.

 

[guanophore]

It does not follow that the mother of Jesus is your mother anymore than your mother is my mother. The scriptures also never refer to Mary as the mother of believers. Never.

If not, then whose mother was He speaking about?

Mark 10:29-30
"Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands,

 

[Bible_Student]

HI, Bible_ Student
My brother in Christ, you seem to be bothered by catholic teaching on Mary; I’m hoping that I can possibly help you with some of my thoughts, so you may further your education on the
subject, with more research in traditions.

Hi brother,
I’m not bothered by Catholic teaching on Mary before the 5th century and I am always very receptive to the faith once delivered unto the Church (which clearly the Roman Church was part of and I for one believe still is), having seen for myself very fine examples of the Fruit of the Spirit, which my Lord told me to look for). But like the Berean’s Luke spoke of I test everything in the light of Holy Scripture, including the Scripture that preceeded the Gospels by 1500 years.
"Luke (Acts 17:10-12):

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

I believed we are ALL called to be diligent in this manner, as Paul inferred “test everything”

Here’s an assumption of mine. [no pun intended]Jesus will return at the end time,presumably in his risen body, for we all will see his glory. Now do you think its possible he will have his mother along with him ?

Yes, I would expect Mary to be among all those who have fallen asleep in Christ.

If indeed she is, I think we can presume Queen Mother would be her title according to Jewish tradition. As an end note must I remind you of the verses on Mary, that most sincere catholics adhere to, for nearly 2000 years.Mary the perfect creation of God as once Eve was a pure soul spotless.
Peace, OneNow1

I don’t think we can presume anything; as Jesus said, it is not even up to Him who is to sit on His right and on His left but up to the Father. We have no way of knowing, just as we have no way of knowing the day of Christ’s return. The first Adam was of the earth, the 2nd, as Paul alludes to Christ, is from Heaven (the Word of God). Your question on the symbology associated to Eve really comes down to an exegesis of whether Mary alone is the 2nd Eve, as the Mother of our Lord in the physical realm, or the “Church”, whom we know is the Bride of Christ. Since Eve was married to Adam I believe it much proper to assign that symbology to “the Church” and not Mary.

Luke
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;

And I do call her Blessed I just do not call her ‘Queen of Heaven’, nor did my Lord ask me to, nor can I find any evidence that the Apostles did or the early Church. I think Mary, herself, would be quite jouful to see us give all the glory to God alone. It is not our duty, nor even our right, to give glory to the saints for their glory comes from God alone, and even that only because of His great mercy towards us. Remember the example in Acts, whereby Peter, Paul, Barnabas, when those near saw that God was with them fell down that they all said, paraphrase ‘stand up – for we are just men like you’. Our Salvation and the blessedness of the power to walk with our Lord comes from God alone. Nevertheless Mary was greatly blessed ( and I love her model of obedience) and we (who are in Christ) are blessed as well. May we all be found to be obedient to Him who called us out of darkness into His glorious light!
May God Bless, Pat

 

[justasking4]

FrankLawrence;2653360]Justasking made this quote.
“It does not follow that the mother of Jesus is your mother anymore than your mother is my mother. The scriptures also never refer to Mary as the mother of believers. Never.”
It is time for us to tear this comment to shreds. Let’s go to Revelation 12:17 “Enraged at her escape, the dragon went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep God’s commandments and give witness to Jesus. He took up his position by the shore of the sea.”

If you think this is Mary where in the gospels is she ever referred to in this way?

So, justasking, maybe in your false theology, “believers” neither need to keep God’s commandments nor give witness to Jesus, but merely need to accept an altar call and make a sinner’s prayer, in which case your comment would make sense from your warped perspective, but realize that true believers keep God’s commandments and give witness to Jesus.

Giving devotion to Mary is not keeping the commandments nor giving a witness to Jesus. You will never find such a thing in the scriptures nor will you find such a thing in the early centuries taught this kind of thing.

 

[justasking4]

Bible_Student;2659211]Hi brother,
I’m not bothered by Catholic teaching on Mary before the 5th century and I am always very receptive to the faith once delivered unto the Church (which clearly the Roman Church was part of and I for one believe still is), having seen for myself very fine examples of the Fruit of the Spirit, which my Lord told me to look for). But like the Berean’s Luke spoke of I test everything in the light of Holy Scripture, including the Scripture that preceeded the Gospels by 1500 years.

I believed we are ALL called to be diligent in this manner, as Paul inferred “test everything”

If you are going to “test all things” how can you not be bothered by what the catholic church teaches about Mary? Its not just about what was taught before the 5th century but after that to this present day.

 

[justasking4]

Bishopite;2653300]No that’s incorrect. The Greek word aldelphos means “kinsman” and brothers are used not specifically as biological, and as in Jewish culture a brother could be a cousin or step brother or Christian brother.

That may be but it does not hold up when you look at the contexts throughout scripture. (Matt. 12:46, 47; 13:55; Mark 3:31, 32; 6:3; Luke 8:19, 20; John 2:12; Acts 1:14). The conjoined mention of the mother of Jesus appears to imply that children of the same mother are meant. Secondly, it would go against the very purpose of marriage which is to have children. Thirdly, it would be unnatural for them not to want to have sex and children. To have children was to be blessed in jewish culture.

In fact, Jerome admonished by many Protestant theologians as one of the greatest early scholars because he knew the Jews and Hebrew and Greek, gives the list of the different usages of the word “brother.” I’ll look it up and post it for you.

The scriptures also never say Mary had other children.

Again this is incorrect. There are a number of places in scripture that say she did. See the above references for a sample.

And Mary is our spiritual mother.

Where do you see this in scripture? Its not in John 19:26-27 since we have no evidence in the NT iself that Mary was ever referred to as the mother of the church nor that John represents the church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Every single reference of a supposed name of someone called a ‘brother’ of the Lord, when examined IN SCRIPTURE ITSELF, proves that the person named had a parent OTHER THAN MARY, mother of Jesus.

So, how could Jesus have brothers and Mary NOT be their Mother, eh? Either the possibility that St. Joseph was a widower with children. . .or, for us Scripture lovers, the possibility that Scripture says exactly what it does. . .the ‘brothers’ of Christ (a term that Scripture uses quite often to refer to kinsman other than ‘blood’ brothers, or to those to be considered as close in relationship as brothers) are who Scripture say they are. . .children. . .but not children of the blessed Mother. Only Jesus is a child of Mary by blood. . .though all of us are her children by adoption, just as we are children by adoption of God our Father.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2654418]Fortunately, Catholics are not limited by what can be found in scripture and secular history. Our faith has been handed down to us by the Apostoles

But the apostles never say anything about this.

Of course God continues to reveal His perfect will! however, the Divine Deposit of faith of which revelation was closed with the death of the last Apostle is contained in the Scripture, and in the Apostolic teachings. You can find these in the Catechism. The scriptures reflect the Apostolic teaching, although they don’t contain all of it.

Do we agree that the only apostlolic teachings are found only in the scriptures?

Jesus built a church, not a book. The CAtholic church was alive and well for centuries before the NT was drawn together. The church is not dependent upon the scripture, but the other way around.

Huh? Only the scriptures are inspired-inerrant and not the church. No church has the power to make something inspired-inerrant. Secondly the OT was already in place before the birth of the church. Thirdly,the foundation for the church are the apostles (teachings) Eph 3:20. Without Christ and apostolic teaching i.e. the scriptures there would be no church.

Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven would be like a mustard seed. What we see of the papacy in the NT is mustard seeds. They have grown into a large tree in which the birds (us) can nest.

There is aboslutely no support for this in scripture. Look this parable up in context and it doesn’t even come close to what you are saying here.

(the Catholic Church produced the scripture)

God used the church to discover and define the canon. The church itself is not the source of the canon.

That Catholics, inspired by the HS, wrote down the teachings of Jesus. Many centuries later, those writings were gathered and put together (canoninzed) by the Catholic Church. There is nothing taught by the church that contradicts the bible, or vice versa. If it seems that way, it is because the reader is not intepreting correctly.

There are all kinds of teachings that the catholic church either rejects about scripture i.e. celibacy as a requirement for church leadership which is in direct opposition to married men being leaders to teaching doctrines not taught in scripture such as Mary’s assumption.

I think you do not see the reflection of catholic doctrine in scripture because you are reading it with protestant glasses on your face!

Not so. I take the scriptures in context. When you do that, you will not see the catholics doctrines there but a reading into the texts catholic doctrines.

The fact that we have a Bible at all is Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church decided which books to put into the Bible.

What was the criteria used to determine the canon?

The truths about the Teachings of Jesus predated all the New Testament, and existed completely without it for decades prior to a word of it being written.

Even if that is the case how does that help you?

This is a very good question. It follows that the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and that the scripture reflects what the church believes.

This is not entirely true. The doctrines on Mary are not supported by the scriptures.

I hope all the rabid Catholics on this board will not discourage you. Most Catholics are not so aggressive. The Catechism is the best place to start. The Sacred Traditions are carefully explained in there, and how the Catholic beliefs relate to the scriptures. You can access it free online.

I don’t mind catholics being aggressive and passionate about what they believe. What’s important is for catholics to study the scriptures and compare that with catholic doctrines. I think when they do so many will be deeply troubled.

 

[justasking4]

While I agree with the rest of your post, about the office of the Apostle, I disagree about Apostolic Authority. This was passed on to the Bishop, and remains with us today.

Where in the NT do we see this authority being “passed on to the Bishop”?

 

[justasking4]

Every single reference of a supposed name of someone called a ‘brother’ of the Lord, when examined IN SCRIPTURE ITSELF, proves that the person named had a parent OTHER THAN MARY, mother of Jesus.

So, how could Jesus have brothers and Mary NOT be their Mother, eh? Either the possibility that St. Joseph was a widower with children. . .or, for us Scripture lovers, the possibility that Scripture says exactly what it does. . .the ‘brothers’ of Christ (a term that Scripture uses quite often to refer to kinsman other than ‘blood’ brothers, or to those to be considered as close in relationship as brothers) are who Scripture say they are. . .children. . .but not children of the blessed Mother. Only Jesus is a child of Mary by blood. . .though all of us are her children by adoption, just as we are children by adoption of God our Father.

The plain reading of the text in regards to Mary having other children is by far the preferred understanding. Question: what would be wrong if Mary did have other children with Joseph? Would that somehow diminish Christ?

Since Jesus fully identified with humanity in all ways, why would it be a problem for Him to live in a family in which His mother was like all other mothers and wives?

What is to be gained by Mary not having sex with her husband and having other children? Does not God consider such relationships and rights of a married couple a very good thing?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There is absolutely no ‘plain reading of the texts’ that indicates that Mary had ‘other children’.

As has been abundantly proven, all the references to brothers of Christ, with names given, show that the person referred is NOT in fact the ‘son’ of the Virgin Mary. Only Jesus specifically is called “son of Mary.”

And this was the 'PLAIN READING OF THE TEXT" in Christendom for hundreds of years, just.

Not something ‘dreamed up’ in year X.

Christ’s having brothers and sisters of direct blood born of Mary would have been known in apostolic times. Why then, by the time that the Scripture had been assembled, and with all the works by the ECFs which speak of Mary’s perpetual virginity, were there not ‘rebuttals’ made, as the ‘fact’ and the ‘plain reading’ would have been known since apostolic times?

Plainly, your ‘plain reading’ would have been unrecognized by the apostles. …or even by the early ‘reformers’ including Luther.

Your ‘plain reading’ is wrong.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Further, your arguments are illogical.

It does not matter a whit whether YOU THINK that Mary had ‘no need’ to be a perpetual virgin, or that YOU THINK it would have been hunky dory for Jesus to have lots of half sibs, or that YOU THINK it was 'standard procedure for people of that time to have big families".

Those have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with TRUTH.

Because what God DID is what matters. God KNOWS that there was no ‘need’ to have His Son even to be ‘born of a woman’. God KNOWS that there is nothing ‘wrong’ with large families. God KNOWS what 'standard procedure for people of that time was".

But God CHOSE to do not what “you think” but what HE DID.

God isn’t bound by what YOU THINK is ‘reasonable’ or what YOU THINK a passage says (by whose authority, again we ask?)

 

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2662407]Further, your arguments are illogical.

What is illogical of Mary and Joseph having sexual relations that results in children?

It does not matter a whit whether YOU THINK that Mary had ‘no need’ to be a perpetual virgin, or that YOU THINK it would have been hunky dory for Jesus to have lots of half sibs, or that YOU THINK it was 'standard procedure for people of that time to have big families".

Those have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with TRUTH.

Sure it does. It helps us understand how the jewish cultrue looked at marriage and family issues. We also know the OT itself considered those who had children to be blessed.

Because what God DID is what matters.

Your right. The passages clearly support that Mary did indeed have other children. These children came from her and Joseph having sexual relations. There is nothing sinful or wrong with that.

God KNOWS that there was no ‘need’ to have His Son even to be ‘born of a woman’. God KNOWS that there is nothing ‘wrong’ with large families. God KNOWS what 'standard procedure for people of that time was".

But God CHOSE to do not what “you think” but what HE DID.

The problem is that the NT does not support Mary being an ever virgin. That would be absurd in a marriage context and goes against what the intent of marriage is.

God isn’t bound by what YOU THINK is ‘reasonable’ or what YOU THINK a passage says (by whose authority, again we ask?)

I have context, word meanings in my favor. We also know that the writers of the NT never refer to her as being an ever virgin and also make a reference to James as being a brother of Christ. All these support that Mary did indeed have other children.

Now can you answer my questions what is to be gained by Mary not having other children by Joseph?

 

[LilyM]

Your right. The passages clearly support that Mary did indeed have other children. These children came from her and Joseph having sexual relations.

Absolutely no such theory is supported by the Gospels. You can’t even name one other person who was a child of Mary. All the so-called ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ are shown elsewhere NOT to be children of Mary or Joseph, but of other people.

Now can you answer my questions what is to be gained by Mary not having other children by Joseph?

What is to be gained is a proper understanding that Christ is in fact GOD and not just an ordinary human being - the womb in which HE dwelt became a Temple, became a Holy of Holies. Became sacred to Him and not to be shared by others.

Just as no-one had automatic right to enter the Holy of Holies. Even the High Priest himself never entered, except the once a year when God Himself specifically required it. No such requirement was placed upon Joseph. If anything the contrary. God Himself had already claimed Mary as His own pure spouse (the Holy Spirit being neither a rapist nor an adulterer nor a fornicator, this must be so). For Joseph to touch her would’ve made HIM sacrilegious, but also an adulterer or fornicator.

To say anything other than that Mary was ever-virgin is to deny that Jesus was truly God and truly equal in power and dignity with the Father. God’s dignity demands that the places He dwells be sacred and set apart to Him. As we consider them to be today - the sites in Jerusalem, Nazareth etc where Jesus trod are considered sacred places. So is Mary’s womb.

God’s dignity also demands that His mother and foster-father became His guardians and custodians as well - and His alone. It would have to be a full-time job. Something about serving two masters comes to mind here.

You think God would be satisfied with less than the whole devotion of Mary and Joseph to Himself? To His guardianship and raising? Who would dare to claim that they could properly care for God Incarnate AND a parcel of half-siblings as well?

The woman who said ‘blessed is the womb that bore you’ understood all this. She knew that there were no other siblings to prove that womb ordinary and unblessed. And Jesus agreed with her totally in his reply - Mary was indeed specially blessed. To say otherwise would be dishonouring her contrary to the commandments, and denying His own special status as God as well.

He did point out that great blessings were also to be had by faithful service to God - but those who do so only become siblings and mothers of Christ by adoption, whereas Mary was biologically His mother. Biology always takes precedence.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

What is illogical of Mary and Joseph having sexual relations that results in children?

Nothing. However, would you want to desicrate the ark which held the word incarnate? Do you think Joseph would?

Sure it does. It helps us understand how the jewish cultrue looked at marriage and family issues. We also know the OT itself considered those who had children to be blessed.

True. However, tradition holds that Joseph was much older then Mary, if he had several children from his first marriage, and was elderly, then it would not seem out of place for Jesus to be the only child born of Mary.

Your right. The passages clearly support that Mary did indeed have other children. These children came from her and Joseph having sexual relations. There is nothing sinful or wrong with that.

No states that Jesus had brothers and sisters. That does not mean they were Mary’s children.

The problem is that the NT does not support Mary being an ever virgin. That would be absurd in a marriage context and goes against what the intent of marriage is.

In a normal marriage, between a normal man and woman. Mary bore the word incarnate. There is a biblical verse about God passing through a gate. The gate is shut before and after he passes through it.

I have context, word meanings in my favor. We also know that the writers of the NT never refer to her as being an ever virgin and also make a reference to James as being a brother of Christ. All these support that Mary did indeed have other children.

Now can you answer my questions what is to be gained by Mary not having other children by Joseph?

Really? Because i’m pretty sure there is no word for cousin or step brother or half brother. The writers of the NT never refur Jesus being one ethier. Again, if Joseph had other children, they would be step-brothers to Jesus but there is no distinct word for such relationship.

You want to talk about jewish culture? If Mary had other children, then Jesus slapped them across the face when he gave Mary into the care of John at the cross.

What is to be gained? The unblemished ark that held the son of Man.

 

[Bible_Student]

If you are going to “test all things” how can you not be bothered by what the catholic church teaches about Mary? Its not just about what was taught before the 5th century but after that to this present day.

Hi Justasking,
What specifically before the 5th century, that is not a pseudo autograph, did they teach that you believe was problematic? I can find nothing that would give me pause.
In Christ, pat