Comon sense will tell you why Virgin Mary had no other Child but Jesus

[ronald_g_w]

When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant with child he did not want anything to do with her. Joseph thinking that Mary was with another man.

But later in a dream an angel came to him and said Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary as wife, for she has concieved by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Protestant, here use your common sense…For Common Sense tells us… if Joseph did not want anything to do with Mary because he thought Mary was with another man, Now even more so now that he Found out that Mary had concieved by the Power of the Holy Spirit… After the Dream Joseph knew his ROLE and that would be one such as a protector of the family as well to stop gossip regarding Virgin Mary having a Child without a Husband in thoses days having a child without being married many were stoned to death.

Let me address it this way…Lets say we were Joseph, a good man waiting for the coming Savior. and we were engaged to Mary.
Now we find out that Mary is with Child Now we don’t want anything to do with her… we want to put her away FOR OBVIOUSLY she was with another Man, we think… but then we have a dream and angel came to us and told us not to be affraid to take Mary as Wife, for Mary has concieved by the Power of the Holy Spirit and will have the Savior of the World…we all would be in AWE of MARY as was Elizabeth and the child John in her womb… I tell you right there and then we would know our ROLE… If we wanted to put her away for thinking she was with another man… Now Joseph finding out that the Child True Father was The HOLY SPIRIT the TRUE SPOUSE of Mary he would never have intercourse with her… Would YOU? …NO WE WOULD NOT …DEFINITELY WE WOULD KNOW OUR ROLE AS JOSEPH DID. Common sense should tell us all this.

Yes the bible does mentioned that Jesus had Brothers and Sisters but the custom of those days Cousins were also considered brothers. But common sense wins here.

As Mary looked for her Son may she look for you and bring you all HOME.

Ufamtobie

Just read the bible as it is, it is not complicated, Matt 1:18-19
“Then Joseph …knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” as the wife of Joseph she was the mother of other sons and daughters. Common sense tells me why would Mary be denied the blessings of having other children.

 

[Roy5]

DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE?

What I still fail to understand is why it is so important to insist that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. The notion that a married woman - whether Mary or anyone else - should remain a virgin is silly. These are grounds for an annulment in our times, and would have been considered as abnormal and perverse among Jews in the time when Jesus walked on earth.
I like to think (and do believe) that Mary and Joseph were not only loving parents who raised Christ but loving spouses who enjoyed the blessed intimacy that married life affords. This seems like such an affront to so many posters while to me it helps the Holy Family serve as a role model for couples today. What, in God's name, is wrong with a married couple, whether Joseph and Mary or anyone else, expressing their love through normal, God-given sexual intimacy? I fear this false notion is a relic of another time and another religion, perpetuated by those who continue to honor celibacy above the beauty and offspring of conjugal love.

 

[GailMac]

Ronald g states:" Common sense tells me why would Mary be denied the blessings of having other children." Simply put she wasn’t denied any of her rights as a Mother at all as she has all of us who call her our Mother! She is the Mother of those of us who live in Christ! The new Eve.

And Roy still persists in claiming her Perpetual Virginity is some how a perversion! God help you man!

And Jon still insists that Lutherans have it all after the fall of Rome! Oi, Lord give me patience…

Peace,

Gail

 

[JonNC]

And Jon still insists that Lutherans have it all after the fall of Rome! Oi, Lord give me patience…

Peace,

Gail

Where did I say that, Gail?

Jon

 

[ufamtobie]

Just read the bible as it is, it is not complicated, Matt 1:18-19
“Then Joseph …knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” as the wife of Joseph she was the mother of other sons and daughters. Common sense tells me why would Mary be denied the blessings of having other children.

Hi there Ronald,

Ronald, I will explain Clear what “Until” meant in the Bible.

(Matt 1: 18-19) And he knew her not UNTIL she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus. HMMMM
what does this truely mean this word “UNTIL”?

Matthew Note 1:25 UNTILL she brought forth her firstborn son. . .From these words Helvidius and other heretics,and you too Ronald most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ;

St. Jerome SHOWS, BY DIVERS EXAMPLES that this expression of the evangelist/Mathew was a **MANNER of SPEAKING USUAL **among the Hebrews, to denote by the word “UNTIL”, only what is done, WITHOUT any regard to the FUTURE.

EXAMPLES OF THE WORD **UNTILL** IN THE BIBLE

God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool. …Ronald, Shall Jesus Christ sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Ronald, of course Jesus Christ will sit at God Right Hand for all eternity.

Ronald However in your Definition since God Used the Word “UNTIL” Above, Jesus Christ sits no longer at in the Kingdom of Heaven?

Ronald, Thus it is said, (Genesis 8: 6 - 7,) that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return **TILL **the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. We all know that the raven never returned however the word “TILL” was used, Ronald, go figure that.

Isaias 46: 4, God says: I am UNTILL you grow old. Ronald, Who dare infer that God should then CEASE to be. Ronald, So in your definition then God ceases to be for God used the word UNTIL?

Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain UNTILL they had returned in peace. THAT IS, NOT ONE WAS SLAIN BEFORE OR AFTER THEY HAD RETURNED.

Ronald, St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.

Ronald, your definition of** “Until” **is not the same definition of Gods **“UNTIL” **

Ronald,if you want to believe LITERALLY that Virgin Mary had other Children in Matt 1: 18-19 THEN DO SO, THIS WON’T CASUE YOU TO BE CONDEMEND. **NO, Virgin Mary was not denied of having Children **Since we all are her Children any way.

Since you believe in** Matt 1: 18-19** Ronald, then you SHOULD LITERALLY BELIEVE in ORDER NOT TO BE CONDEMNED and that is ……(John 6: 53) Thereupon Jesus said to them: "Let me SOLEMNLY ASSURE YOU, if you do not eat the FLESH of the SON of MAN and DRINK his blood, you have NO LIFE IN YOU. He who feeds on MY FLESH and drinks MY BLOOD has ETERNAL LIFE and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood is REAL DRINK.

Ronald, if you believe that Jesus Christ meant that his Body and blood was only a SYMBOL AND NOT TO BE TAKE IT LITERALLY Then why did Jesus Christ SOLEMNLY ASSURE us ALL that it is His BODY and His BLOOD and that we MUST EAT and DRINK IN ORDER NOT TO BE CONDEMNED?

Ronald, I hope the Examples of the word UNTIL that has been used in the Bible opens your hearts not only to** Matt 1: 18-19but **also AND MOST IMPORTANTLY I ASSURE YOU so that you amy have life in you and that is (John 6: 53- 60)

God Bless you on your Journey Home

Ufamtobie

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE?…

I think it does make a difference.

We Catholics need to believe that Mary in the spouse of the Holy Spirit because we have always believed that she is the model for The Church. Perhaps that’s why St Joseph wanted to break off the engagement with her.

But St Joseph later learnt that he had a duty to protect the Holy Family. I find it an ugly thought that St Joseph would get it on with the Mother of God.

Protestants like to dismiss the perpetual virginity of Mary because they like to attack the Catholic Church.

:twocents:

 

[rtconstant]

I do not think that monks/nuns/priests are more holy than anyone else. In many cases they are less holy than the mother who stays at home with her children and cares for them, nurtures them and raises them in the Christian faith

And to think that the miraculous event of the incarnation made the holy couple stop marital relations is bizarre and has no warrant from the writings of the apostles. It comes from the unbiblical notion that the marriage bed is somehow defiled by married couples being intimate with each other. Indeed, the marriage bed is holy.

Again, bizarre gnostic notions of the material being tainted.

Has, nothing to do with notions of tainted material gnostic or otherwise. It comes from a rather human appreciation for the events at hand. If I was convinced that God Almighty had incarnated Himself into my wife and was nurtured there in a quite literal fashion similar to His existance within the Holy of Holies I think it would change the way I viewed my wife. I certainly wouldn’t be waiting for my chance to “get back in there”.

I realize to the modern mind sex is everything and the idea of considering ideals that supercede it is just beyond bizarre. Yet I think it a very small leap that a person of faith especially in a time when there was such clear analogy to other sacred areas would no longer sought sexual relations with someone who had in every way existed as the Holy of Holies for 9 months.

The Protestant obsession with this is just strange.

 

[guanophore]

Just read the bible as it is, it is not complicated, Matt 1:18-19
“Then Joseph …knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” as the wife of Joseph she was the mother of other sons and daughters. Common sense tells me why would Mary be denied the blessings of having other children.

It is very dangerous to put one’s own “common sense” above what scripture shows, and what those who were commissioned to teach by Jesus passed on to us.

Why, do you think, when it would be so easy to abrogate to modernism, does the Church steadfastly defend the perpetual virginity of Mary?

 

[guanophore]

I think when you look at marriage as God’s institution, and a parallel with Christ being the bridegroom and the church being the bride, and the command to be fruitful and multiply, and 1 Cor 7 being a husband and a wife in sexual relations, and the revelation that a man is to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and Eve as being the helpmate of Adam, … I think a godly marriage between Mary and Joseph brings much glory to God.
Children are a blessing from the Lord, and I beleive Joseph and Mary received additonal blessings of children from God.

I agree with the preponderance of evidence. All the more reason it is curious that the Church, having received contrary teaching from the Apostles, steadfastly refuses to capitulate in the face of such pressure.

 

[sola_scriptura]

But The Faith, was handed down from the Father, to Christ, to the apostles, to the Church and then to the early Fathers in an unbroken succession!

I can assure you, The Faith, was not handed down to “mainline Protestants!”

And there can be only one Church.

Protestantism, on the other hand, from its very inception, has been nothing but chaos and division! So much so in fact, that Calvin wanted very much to hide this embarrassing fact by attempting to deceive, if possible, the whole world (hmmm, deceive the whole world. Reminds me of another “deceiver of the whole world!” Rev. 12:9)

But I digress.

So now on to the quotes!!!

John Calvin to Philip Melanchthon, November 28, 1552.

Letters of John Calvin, Jules Bonnet, ed., 1857, vol. 2, p. 361.
books.google.com/books?id=tlUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA361&dq=calvin++%22Nor+in+truth+is+it+of+little+importance%22&lr=&ei=z1G0SPmhIYHqiQHhyO3VDA#PPA361,M1

But ironically, having rejected the faith handed down by the Fathers, and seeing the abominable chaos resulting from such a reckless abandonment, the reformers were forced to fall back on a method of transmitting the faith to future generations uncannily similar to that which the Church had used for fifteen hundred years! Read on!

Thomas Cranmer to John Calvin: March 20, 1552:

Letters of John Calvin, Compiled from the Original Manuscripts and Edited with Historical Notes: by Jules Bonnet, ed.,Vol. II, edited by Jules Bonnet and translated from Latin and French by David Constable, Edinburgh: Thomas Constable & Co., 1857, pp. 330-331
archive.org/details/lettersofjohncal00calvuoft

books.google.com/books?id=tlUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA331&dq=%22hand+down+to+posterity,+under+the+weight+of+their+authority%22&lr=

Calvin to Cranmer: April 1552

John Calvin, Ibid., pp. 330-333

And again:

Philip Melanchthon to Elector Frederick (Friedrich) III of the Palatinate,
November 1, 1559:

Melanchthon in English: new translations into English with a registry of previous translations: a memorial to William Hammer (1909-1976) By Lowell C. Green, Charles D. Froehlich, Center for Reformation Research, p. 24.

books.google.com/books?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=one+consenting+form+of+doctrine,+true+and+clear+and+without+any+ambiguity&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22one%20consenting%20form%20of%20doctrine%2C%20true%20and%20clear%20and%20without%20any%20ambiguity%22

Latin letter in Melanchthon’s Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, vol., 9:960
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Reformatorum

books.google.com/books?id=qBERAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA959&lpg=RA2-PA959&dq=%22Friderico+Palatino%22+corpus&source=web&ots=82KYTdevZa&sig=KqH2vvu5Bf0-cqiCURDqJ16M9m4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PRA2-PA959,M1

But oh well, you’ll probably just dismiss all this and / or laugh it off!!

The problem is that you think we (at least thoughtful & knowledgeable protestants) disagree with the ecumenical councils; which did transmit sound doctrine.

Indeed (with perhaps the exception of the use of icons, which was permitted by a council that overturned an earlier decision by a ecumenical council banning the practice) most mainline protestants continue in adherence to those doctrines. We believe the church broke with tradition when they made a unilateral decision to allow one man to enumerate doctrine. Evidence of the folly of Papal infallibility is in the doctrines created by infallible decree (i.e. Marian dogma), which are clearly heretical.

Indeed the EOC has not joined Rome in its theological abyss; and of course they remain in perfect apostolic succession according to Rome’s definition of the term.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Indeed the EOC has not joined Rome in its theological abyss; and of course they remain in perfect apostolic succession according to Rome’s definition of the term.

The EOC and the Catholic Church have been working on making talks for a possible unifications. Many of the Eastern Patriarchs favor it and admit that is a difficult road ahead, and it will take time for unification between East and West Christianity

 

[Good_Fella]

The problem is that you think we (at least thoughtful & knowledgeable protestants) disagree with the ecumenical councils; which did transmit sound doctrine.

We believe the church broke with tradition when they made a unilateral decision to allow one man to enumerate doctrine. Evidence of the folly of Papal infallibility is in the doctrines created by infallible decree (i.e. Marian dogma), which are clearly heretical.

The first and most essential dogma of the Catholic Church was declared and defined by one man: the divinity of Christ, professed by our first Pope, St. Peter.

There are four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church: The first two Marian doctrines - Mary invoked as the Mother of God and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - were declared dogma by the Church at the Council of Ephesus and the Lateran Synod. The latter two doctrines - the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption - were declared and defined as dogma by individual popes (in the Extraordinary Magisterium) exercising the charism of infallibilty in the same capacity Peter had exercised it in his confession of faith. The tradition of papal infallibilty began in apostolic time. It’s clear that it had already existed in Matthew’s church, however rudimentary, before he penned his gospel. :yup:

The Marian dogmas cannot be heretical given the definition of the word heresy. Neither the apostles nor the Episcopacy of the Catholic Church ever taught anything that is contravened by these dogmas. Of course Protestants consider the Church’s Marian dogmas heretical because they contravene the unauthoritative private interpretations of Scripture by non-Catholic Christians who have broken with Sacred Tradition and have severed themselves from the historic Christian faith. Ironically, the concept of Sola Scriptura is in fact heretical, since this notion was never held or taught by the apostles nor by the Church Fathers who validly succeeded them to preserve a unity of faith. Scripture and Tradition have always been the deposit of faith and a teaching of the Church since apostolic time. :grouphug:

PAX

 

[ronald_g_w]

QUOTE=ufamtobie;4174204]Hi there Ronald,

Ronald, I will explain Clear what “Until” meant in the Bible.

(Matt 1: 18-19) And he knew her not UNTIL she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus. HMMMM
what does this truely mean this word “UNTIL”?

Ronald, Thus it is said, (Genesis 8: 6 - 7,) that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return **TILL **the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. We all know that the raven never returned however the word “TILL” was used, Ronald, go figure that.

Isaias 46: 4, God says: I am UNTILL you grow old. Ronald, Who dare infer that God should then CEASE to be. Ronald, So in your definition then God ceases to be for God used the word UNTIL?

I misquoted - it is in Matt 1:24-25 …and knew her not TILL she…

I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to tell me from Genesis 8:6-7 it says nothing about the raven comming back other that it went to and fro, UNTIL the waters were dried up…?

Isaiah 46:4 Where does it say “I am UNTIL you grow old”

The scriptures are simple you are making them complicated

 

[GailMac]

Dear Ronald – you stated:

The scriptures are simple you are making them complicated

Well, if simple is what you need ot get around the till/until argument here’s simple:

Gail quit smoking till/until the day she died! Does this mean I’ll sit up at my funeral, stop the Mass, hop out of my casket and head outside for a smoke break with the Ushers? NOT!

Ummm…does this not shed some light on the ridiculous misuse of the word till/until in some folks “interpretations” of Scripture? it really is a stretch.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. Yippie! Gail figured out how to use the quote feature on the page. Now, if this lunkhead can manage multiple quotes in the same post…

 

[Nickkname]

When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant with child he did not want anything to do with her. Joseph thinking that Mary was with another man.

But later in a dream an angel came to him and said Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary as wife, for she has concieved by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Protestant, here use your common sense…For Common Sense tells us… if Joseph did not want anything to do with Mary because he thought Mary was with another man, Now even more so now that he Found out that Mary had concieved by the Power of the Holy Spirit… After the Dream Joseph knew his ROLE and that would be one such as a protector of the family as well to stop gossip regarding Virgin Mary having a Child without a Husband in thoses days having a child without being married many were stoned to death.

Let me address it this way…Lets say we were Joseph, a good man waiting for the coming Savior. and we were engaged to Mary.
Now we find out that Mary is with Child Now we don’t want anything to do with her… we want to put her away FOR OBVIOUSLY she was with another Man, we think… but then we have a dream and angel came to us and told us not to be affraid to take Mary as Wife, for Mary has concieved by the Power of the Holy Spirit and will have the Savior of the World…we all would be in AWE of MARY as was Elizabeth and the child John in her womb… I tell you right there and then we would know our ROLE… If we wanted to put her away for thinking she was with another man… Now Joseph finding out that the Child True Father was The HOLY SPIRIT the TRUE SPOUSE of Mary he would never have intercourse with her… Would YOU? …NO WE WOULD NOT …DEFINITELY WE WOULD KNOW OUR ROLE AS JOSEPH DID. Common sense should tell us all this.

Yes the bible does mentioned that Jesus had Brothers and Sisters but the custom of those days Cousins were also considered brothers. But common sense wins here.

As Mary looked for her Son may she look for you and bring you all HOME.

Ufamtobie

Actually, it’s much simplier than that to prove Jesus had no siblings.

Jesus is the only Son of God. Mary is the Mother of God. How could she have any other children if Jesus is the only Son?

Furthermore, Joseph was shocked she was pregnant, which obviously shows he had not had sexual relations with her. But to say she had had sexual relations with another man would deny her Perpetual Virginity and her Immaculate Conception.

Finally, if Mary had other children, she would live with them instead of going to live with the Apostle John, in accordance to the customs of the times.

So as we can see from a theological, biological, and historical point of view, Mary was only the Mother of Jesus and He had no other siblings.

 

[John_Goddard]

I think Mary was barren like Sarah and Jesus represents a new Issac. As he does a new David, etc. So this is part of the reason why a birth miracle was required.

 

[Good_Fella]

I think Mary was barren like Sarah and Jesus represents a new Issac. As he does a new David, etc. So this is part of the reason why a birth miracle was required.

Yes, the typology between Sarah and Mary as matriarchs and the women of promise of the two covenants is the best and sufficient scriptural evidence that Mary had only one child as Sarah did. Mary need not have been barren though. She personally chose to remain a virgin and chaste all her life because of her intimate relationship with God while serving in the temple. This is why she was startled by the angel Gabriel’s announcement that she would conceive and bear the Messiah, who was expected to be of paternal lineage by the Jews.

PAX :harp:

 

[sola_scriptura]

The first and most essential dogma of the Catholic Church was declared and defined by one man: the divinity of Christ, professed by our first Pope, St. Peter.

There are four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church: The first two Marian doctrines - Mary invoked as the Mother of God and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - were declared dogma by the Church at the Council of Ephesus and the Lateran Synod. The latter two doctrines - the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption - were declared and defined as dogma by individual popes (in the Extraordinary Magisterium) exercising the charism of infallibilty in the same capacity Peter had exercised it in his confession of faith. The tradition of papal infallibilty began in apostolic time. It’s clear that it had already existed in Matthew’s church, however rudimentary, before he penned his gospel. :yup:

The Marian dogmas cannot be heretical given the definition of the word heresy. Neither the apostles nor the Episcopacy of the Catholic Church ever taught anything that is contravened by these dogmas. Of course Protestants consider the Church’s Marian dogmas heretical because they contravene the unauthoritative private interpretations of Scripture by non-Catholic Christians who have broken with Sacred Tradition and have severed themselves from the historic Christian faith. Ironically, the concept of Sola Scriptura is in fact heretical, since this notion was never held or taught by the apostles nor by the Church Fathers who validly succeeded them to preserve a unity of faith. Scripture and Tradition have always been the deposit of faith and a teaching of the Church since apostolic time. :grouphug:

PAX

The Council didn’t promulgate perpetual virginity into doctrine as far as I can tell (I just did a word search of the decrees from the Council & find no such act). They only promulgated the idea that Mary is God bearer (or mother of God) – nothing else as far as I can tell. Moreover, when you look at the councils explanation they did explain it quite well (they were careful to acknowledge the eternal existence of Christ for instance).

 

[ronald_g_w]

Dear Ronald – you stated: Well, if simple is what you need ot get around the till/until argument here’s simple:

Gail quit smoking till/until the day she died! Does this mean I’ll sit up at my funeral, stop the Mass, hop out of my casket and head outside for a smoke break with the Ushers? NOT!

Ummm…does this not shed some light on the ridiculous misuse of the word till/until in some folks “interpretations” of Scripture? it really is a stretch.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. Yippie! Gail figured out how to use the quote feature on the page. Now, if this lunkhead can manage multiple quotes in the same post…

Yes it is a strech.Gail quit smoking till / untill she had her firstborn child… and she named him …

 

[adstrinity]

Yes it is a strech.Gail quit smoking till / untill she had her firstborn child… and she named him …

Nosmo King