Did Mary & Joseph have children?

[Pheonix]

I’m not ‘Scripture Pope,’ nor I am dictating what to believe or telling people to ignore Scripture.

In a way, yes you are. You’re making it seem like the information you’ve provided in your OP CANNOT be wrong; you think you’ve perfectly valid and correct arguments from the conclusions and interpretations in your OP. In that way, yes, you are given a us an implication that you think you’re infallible.

The problem is that the Catholic church confuses who the various James’, Mary’s, etc. are, in order support the tradition that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

Are you serious? The Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years. Since her founding by Christ in 33 C. E., she has believed that Mary was indeed Ever-Virgin. This belief happened BEFORE the New Testament even came into existence. Further, since the Church compiled the Bible, she knows what it says and what it does not.

So the Church has been misinterpreting a book that she herself brought into existence for 2,000 years, but you come along during the 21st century and claim that you’re right in your interpretations of Scripture? That’s not logical.

Mary needed to be a virgin to fulfill OT prophecy, & to prove that He was the promised Messiah by His birth being miraculous - being born of a virgin.

Yes, the Old Testament prophecized that Mary had to be a virgin in order to given birth to Christ. However, there was ANOTHER prophecy given in Ezeckiel 44:2 that states that Mary had to be a perpetual virgin. Since Christ didn’t enter through any physical gate, the gate mentioned in Ezeckiel has to be Mary. Further, since the prophecy tells us that NO man shall enter this gate, we are forced to conclude that Mary was indeed Ever-Virgin.

Everything else is merely invented by the Church.

Unless you show otherwise, which you have yet to do so, you’re making a fallacious, unsubstantiated argument.

Instead of the Catholic church using Scripture to correct it’s theology about Mary, the church starts with the theology (borrowed from the false infancy ‘gospel’ of James) & ‘personally’ interprets Scripture to support its theology.

The Catholic Church does use Scripture to formulate her teachings. Here’s the catch, though: ***the Catholic Church does not go by Scripture alone.***The Catholic Church has existed since 33 C. E., a time when the New Testament didn’t even exist. Therefore, the Church had to have a way to formulate the teachings of Jesus Christ without having any Scripture written about Him. How did she do this? Easy: Sacred tradition, or the oral transmission of God’s Word passed down through the ages. Sacred Tradition encompasses everything that was written down in the Bible and everything that was also taught by the Apostles but was not written down. One these beliefs passed down through Sacred Tradition was Mary’s perpetual virginity, as years of Church studies and Early Church Fathers attest to.

And, as you’ve been shown before, there is biblical support for Mary being Ever-Virgin. You just refuse to accept it because it contradicts your personal interpretations of Scripture.

The first method is Biblical, which is what I am doing, the second is not, which is what the Catholic church has done.

The former is what the Catholic Church has been doing for 2,000 years. The latter is what you, in fact, are doing.

The same ‘belief’ that said the earth was the center of the universe & every else revolved around it, & that they based this on the Bible.

Except, even if this were true, the teaching was never an infallible proclamation. Therefore, this argument cannot be used against the Church.

The same belief that made it illegal to translate the Bible into English.

The Church has never done this. Please provide evidence that supports your statement.

The same belief that said that you had to be Catholic to go to Heaven prior to Vatican II, but afterwards said you can be of another religion that rejects Christ, & still go to Heaven based on your works.

Um… the Church still teaches that you must be a member of the Catholic Church to received salvation. However, from what I’ve seen on this thread, you don’t fully understand the teaching. In its most basic essence, the teaching that even if you die a non-Catholic and received salvation, you died a Catholic because the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Truth, given to her by Jesus Christ.

Second, the Church DOES NOT teach that works save us. Show me just one Church document that states “we are saved by our works.” The Catholic Church has firmly taught for 2,000 years that it is by grace that we are saved. Works, however, are a requirement of salvation because unless you are doing good works, you have a dead faith.

Third, our God is a God of mercy, as I’m sure you know. Therefore, He would not condemn someone to eternal torment if they never knew Him out of no fault of their own. Further, we don’t know what will happen during the course of someone’s life. A Buddhist or Hindu could have a conversion experience at some point and begin to follow Christ. Also, we don’t know what happens when a person is dying. Jesus could appear to a non-believer, offering them salvation; after all, Jesus loves us so much and wills for all men to be saved.

The point is there’s no evidence that states that if you’re condemned to Hell if you’re not part of the Christian religion at some point in your life.

The same belief that taught limbo was a real place, but now says it just a ‘theory,’

Limbo has never been a official teaching of the Church. It’s always been a “theory.”

despite Scripture saying that ALL babies go to Heaven if they die, regardless if they’ve been baptized or not.

Where does the Bible say this? Provide the chapter, book, and verse please.

I’ll stick to what God’s Word actually says - Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters.

Except God’s Word does not actually say that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters. It is your personal interpretations and conclusions that have led you to that belief. Sorry, but I’m not going to trust your OP’s information unless you can prove that the information is completely accurate, which the Catholics participating on this thread has shown your information is not accurate. So… stop side-stepping are arguments, if you’re so sure that Mary’s perpetual virginity contradicts Scripture.

 

[Pheonix]

BornAgainRN, did you even bother to read Prieldedi’s comments on the information in your OP? The posts start on page fifteen, post 218. Prieldedi went through your entire OP, which is what you specifically asked us to do, and thoroughly explained, analyzed, and refuted all the claims, conclusions, and interpretations you made.

So could you please stop side-stepping our arguments and actually confront what we’ve actually been telling you, instead of resorting to cop-out answers like “draw the family tree from the information in the OP” or “I place my trust in God’s Word, therefore I am right and you are wrong.” Unless what you will find from our arguments actually contradicts your personal interpretations of Scripture.

 

[Pheonix]

I am ‘for’ Jesus - the Way, the Truth, & the Life, NO ONE comes to the Father, except through HIM (John 14:6). The side I am on is JESUS’.

Amen! Your Catholic and fellow Protestant brethren are with you on this one; we’re for Jesus too! This is a very Catholic thing for you to say.

If I’m on His side, them I’m automatically AGAINST everyone else.

Except you’re against the Church which Christ Himself founded? That’s astounding logic!

My desire is to see the Catholic church ‘come home’ to Jesus,

Except the Catholic Church never left Jesus. She has been firmly teaching what Christ taught us for 2,000 years.

but this can only happen if they abandon some their religious beliefs & traditions that are not only NOT Biblical in origin,

Everything the Catholic Church teaches has biblical support, not to mention support from the Early Church Fathers. Don’t believe me? Then please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The book gives a run-down of everything Catholics believe, and gives a myriad of references as to where this believe is supported and derived from.

but also NOT even CATHOLIC in origin, like the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is supported by the Infancy false ‘gospel’ of James - NOT God’s Holy Word.

Umm… this is false. The perpetual virginity of Mary is most certainly of biblical and Catholic origin. The belief that Mary was indeed Ever-Virgin started in 33 C. E., when Christ founded the Catholic Church on St. Peter, before any New Testament writing even existed.

We did not somehow derive the teaching from the Protoevangelium of James. We believed it prior to the book being written.

Further, where did you get the idea that we should only teach from Scripture alone? Scripture itself doesn’t even attest to such a concept! After all, there are several places in the New Testament where the writers teach from non-canonical books, which includes the Book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, and the Ascension of Isaiah. Heck, Paul even teaches by quoting the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander. So Scripture teaches using stuff that isn’t God’s Word either!

The point is that something is not automatically false if it is not part of God’s inspired Word. In other words, the Protoevangelium of James was thought to be inspired at one point. It did not, however, make the Canon of Scripture. Just because it’s not part of the Canon does not mean that the Protoevangelium doesn’t contain useful, correct teachings. It most certainly can, and indeed does.

 

[SonCatcher]

Since, most people here aren’t taking the initiative to actually take the time to actually READ the Bible verses, but rather base their understanding of the Bible from what their Catechism tells them about the state of Mary’s virginity, & whether Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters or not, I’ll go ahead & make this as simple as I can - again using GOD’S HOLY WORD, which CANNOT be wrong, so we can be assured & KNOW that what it says is true. But, please bear with me to the very end, before passing judgment:

Matthew 13:54-57 describes 4 of Jesus’ ‘brothers’ (adelphos) - James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas (Jude), & at least 2 of Jesus’ ‘sisters’ (adelphe). Since ‘adelphos’ & ‘adelphe’ can mean either LITERAL blood brothers & sisters, like James & John, & Martha & Mary, or have other meanings, like referring to Jesus’ disciples or ‘spiritual’ believing brothers, we have to look to other passages to find out who all these James’, Joseph’s, Judas,’ & Mary’s are.

Parentage of the “brothers” and “sisters” is not iterated in these verses.

Matthew 27:55-56 describe three out of the 4 women at Golgotha, who were ‘looking at a distance,’ but not at the cross yet: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James & Joseph, & the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

It does not say there were 4 women. Just that there were women. Only 3 are identified but there may have been more (even a crowd of women is possible from the context).

Mark 15:40 describe these same 3 women, just slightly different: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less & Joseph, & Salome.

Again, no count of women is given. There are a few named but room in the context for multiple others.

John 19:25-27 describe all 4 women who ‘stood by the cross’: Jesus’ mother, His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, & Mary Magdalene.

4 women are identified, as well as the apostle. However, the context does not exclude the possibility of others being present.

In all, scripture identifies the following as being present:
Jesus’ mother
his mother’s sister
Mary (wife of Cleopas)
Mary Magdalene
Salome
Mary (mother of James and Joses)
the mother of Zebedee’s sons
the apostle whom Jesus loved (he probably didn’t care for being referred to as one of the women in the other accounts, BTW)

In all, there are 7 unique identifications of women and there may have been still more at the site. Some of them may be aliases but there is no way to be certain.

Mary, the wife of Clopas is the same as Mary, the mother of James the Less (Mark 16:1) & Joseph (Mark 16:46). Clopas (Greek: “my exchanges”) is another name for Alphaeus (Greek: “changing”), just as Cephas is another name for Peter, which both mean ‘Stone.’

That is a guess. (a very good one, BTW) If Clopas and Alphaeus are both Greek names, however, it is actually weakened. Cephas is a Hebrew name. Like Peter, Saul/Paul had both Hebrew and Greek names. Why would Clopas/Alphaeus have 2 Greek names? If one of the names is Hebrew, that would be an easier argument. Is it possible you misidentified one of the languages? If so I’ll grant that there may be only 6 unique identifications of women (yet still a chance of more unnamed).

Salome is the wife of Zebedee’s sons (Mark 10:35), the mother of James & John (Matthew 20:20).

Sorry. There is absolutely no way to support this assertion in the context. There is a Catholic popular tradition that holds this idea but it is not widely held because even the adherents know it is a guess.

So, we have 2 family units: 1) Salome, Zebedee, James, & John. 2) The ‘Other’ Mary, Alphaeus (Clopas), James, & Joseph. Salome is referred to as the mother of Zebedee’s sons, and James is referred to as the ‘brother’ (‘adelphos’) of John. It is clear they are all a nuclear, BLOOD related family. Likewise, the ‘other’ Mary is referred to as the wife of Clopas (Alphaeus) & the mother of James & Joseph, and James is referred to as the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3). Again, it is clear that this, too, is a nuclear, BLOOD related family.

No. We still have an indeterminate number of family units.

James, the brother (‘adelphos’) of John, is one of ‘The 12,’ & James, the brother (‘adelphos’) of Joseph, is also one of ‘The 12.’ Now, consider 1 Corinthians 15:5-8:

“and that He [Jesus] appeared to CEPHAS, then to THE TWELVE. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to JAMES, then to ALL the APOSTLES, and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me [Paul] also.”

“The Twelve” includes James, the brother of John (sons of Zebedee), & James, the brother of Joseph (sons of Alphaeus). Then, Jesus appeared to James, and ALL the apostles. This last ‘James’ is NOT the one of ‘The 12.’ This is a separate ‘James,’ who is an apostle, but NOT one of ‘The 12.’ ‘Apostle’ means ‘messenger’ or ‘sent one’ & is used to describe specific ‘apostles’ of the Church, who are NOT part of ‘The 12,’ like Barnabas & Paul (Acts 14:14). THIS ‘James’ is a ‘non-12’ apostle, who Jesus singled out to appear to AFTER He appeared to Peter & ‘The 12.’ This ‘James’ is the leader of the Jerusalem Church in Acts 15:13:

Non sequitur. If Peter could have a personal visit as well as with the rest of the Apostles, why not James?

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers (‘adelphos’), JAMES and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Scripture does not identify their parentage. As you know, there are many reasons why someone might be called “brother” in Scripture.

Just as James & John were BLOOD brothers (‘adelphos’) & one nuclear BLOOD family unit, and James & Joseph were also BLOOD brothers (‘adelphos’) & one nuclear BLOOD family unit, in order to be consistent with Scripture & the Greek language, there is no logical reason to believe that the ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) of Jesus - JAMES, Joseph, Simon, & Judas, as well has Jesus’ sisters (‘adelphe’) (Matthew 13:56) are anything other than Jesus’ actual BLOOD half-brothers & half-BLOOD sister. If a person insists that they are Jesus’ cousins (‘anepsios’), then to be consistent, you have to say that about the relationship between James & John, and between James & Joseph, too.

There is another consistency we must keep in mind: consistency with the Semitic mind. It really behooves the honest Bible scholar to translate the ideas back into Hebrew/Aramaic.

Scripture also makes a distinction between Jesus’ 12 disciples & His brothers (‘adelphos’) (Acts 1:13-14), who ‘collectively’ with ‘The 12,’ the women, & Mary, the mother of Jesus, make up the 120 ‘brethren’ (Acts 1:15). Scripture also makes a distinction between Jesus’ brothers (‘adelphos’) & His disciples in John 2:12. Also, keep in mind, Jesus’ brothers didn’t believe in Him while He was alive:

“Therefore His [Jesus] brothers (‘adelphos’) said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing”…For not even His brothers (‘adelphos’) were BELIEVING in Him.” (John 7:3,5). These ‘brothers’ are distinct from Jesus’ disciples. Also, if these ‘brothers’ were Jesus’ ‘believing’ brothers, then why does it say they DIDN’T BELIEVE in Him? The answer comes from an Old Testament Messianic Psalm, which not only identifies the coming Messiah, but also that His mother would have CHILDREN:

Younger siblings do not tell an older sibling what to do in that culture. It is gravely disrespectful. Therefore, those “brothers” could not be younger than Jesus.

"Because for Your sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. I have become estranged from MY BROTHERS And an alien to MY MOTHER’S SONS. For zeal for Your house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me. (Psalm 69:7-9)

Prophesy always has 2 purposes: a current one and a future, spiritual one. David was writing at the time of one of his exiles (either when Saul was out to murder him or Absalom was trying to usurp the kingdom or possibly some other time). Yet it is also applicable to the Messiah. It is possible to have a more literal reading when interpreting to the then-current situation. Future-spiritual interpretations cannot be taken literally, however. After all, where was Nebuchadnezzar’s statue?

The rest of the post doesn’t introduce anything I have not already addressed here.

 

[KP3243]

Then why did Jesus say to Mary woman behold your son who was the beloved disciple John, if she already had several more sons to take care of and to care of her. This passage doesn’t make any sense.

 

[adrift]

Then why did Jesus say to Mary woman behold your son who was the beloved disciple John, if she already had several more sons to take care of and to care of her. This passage doesn’t make any sense.

A good question that has been aske more than once.

Is an answer forthcoming:shrug:?

 

[Patavium]

BornAgainRN,

For someone who claims to have been Catholic, you have a very superficial understanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church

 

[adrift]

The Greek word for ‘until’ in Matthew 1:25 is ‘heos’ which means ‘up to the completion of an event.’ The event that Matthew is referring to is the birth of Jesus:

“but kept her a virgin UNTIL (up to the completion of an event) she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”

Although the Greek word ‘until’ has different meanings in the Bible, it is because they are based on DIFFERENT Greek words for ‘until,’ like 1 Corinthians 15:25 (‘achri’), Philippians 1:10 (‘eis’), 1 Timothy 6:14 (‘mechri’), which all don’t mean ‘up to a completion of an event,’ but rather ‘unto, or up to an event, & then continues.’ However, the Greek word for ‘until’ in Matthew 1:25 (‘heos’) means ‘up to a completion of an event, & then STOPS,’ such as Acts 23:12

When a translator chooses a word to translate, they do so to convey the closest meaning. The word that they chose was until. Until by definition means up to a cerain point but does not say anything about what happens aftwards. In each of your examples this holds true.
Take for instance

teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

The word used here is heos.

“When it was day, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink UNTIL (‘heos’) they had killed Paul.”

Had the Jews been successful in killing Paul, they would have started eating & drinking again. Another ward, the ‘completion of the event’ would have been life of Paul, just like the ‘completion of the event’ that ended Mary’s virginity was the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25).

Again you add. It says nothing about what would happen after Paul was killed. It only addresses the time before the death of Paul.

We’ll begin with Matthew 13:55-56.

First, we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.” Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother.

They called one another brother because they had no word for uncle and nephew.

This is supported by Matthew 1:25, that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph no longer kept Mary a virgin, by ‘conjugating’ their marriage, & Mary was no longer a virgin.

No Matthew only supports that Mary was virgin when she gave birth. No where does it say what you want it to say. To paraphrase Mary I have made a vow to be a virgin is God releasing me from this vow? “How can this be since I know not man” What she didn’t say is that I don’t’ know my husband but plural what she did say was I know not man.

 

[KP3243]

Third, the idea that Mary was not a virgin for her entire life is a relatively new belief. It came into existence sometime after the Reformation, as the original Reformers believed Mart was indeed Ever-Virgin. Mary’s Perpetual Virginity dates back to 33 C. E. So, my money is on the relatively new belief being the “tradition of man” to which you are clinging to.​

Martin Luther AND John Calvin believed that Mary was Ever-Virgin. Protestants in Europe even believe she was Ever-Virgin but for some reason groups of American Protestants choose to believe otherwise.

 

[Patavium]

I
The same belief that said that you had to be Catholic to go to Heaven prior to Vatican II, but afterwards said you can be of another religion that rejects Christ, & still go to Heaven based on your works.

Catholic teaching on merit is commonly misunderstood by non-Catholics. Many thinks that Catholics believe we must do good works to merit salvation or eternal life, just like a worker must work to merit his/her wages. Catholic teaching that we can merit eternal life and increase of grace [1] is definitely scandalous to Protestants and “Bible only” Christians – it even fuels their common charge that Catholics believe in salvation by works.

Six clauses of Catechism of the Catholic Church, clause # 2006 to # 2011, deal with Catholic teaching on merits. It first defines merit (# 2006), in general, as recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it. Under this general definition a worker merits his wages. It will be injustice if the employer refuses to pay his/her wages. Note that both employer and workers are equal – the employer needs workers to do the work while a worker does the work to earn his/her wages. His/her wages are not gifts from the employer but something he/she deserves.

Does the Catholic Church teach we deserve merits or reward from our good works, just like a worker merits his/her wages? The answer is NO – the Catechism (# 2007) states that with regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. The same clause gives the reason: Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator. Because of this immeasurable inequality we cannot apply the general understanding of merit, described in the previous paragraph, to our merits in relation to our salvation. Unlike our employer, God does not need our works because He can do everything by Himself. He can rain down food from heaven to feed the hungry; He can bring the good news to anybody on earth without the help of any missionary.

The next question is: does Scripture say God rewards us for our good works? The answer is YES – there are ample verses from Scripture, both Old and New Testaments saying that God does reward us for our good works. He who respects the commandment will be rewarded (Proverbs 13:13). The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me [Psalms 18:20]. Look to yourselves that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward [2 John 8]. Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done [Revelation 22:12]. Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven [Luke 6:23]. Does Scripture say the rewards of our good works include eternal life? Again, the answer is YES. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment [John 5:28-29]. For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life [Romans 2:6-7].

Thus while we do not deserve any reward from God for doing good works, according to Scripture, He nevertheless still rewards us and His reward even includes eternal life. The Catechism (# 2008) provides explanation: The merit of man before God arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. God chose some of us to be His agents to show love to others like feeding the hungry. He chose others to be His agents to bring good news to mankind etc. It is worth to mention that in Catholicism the initiative of doing such works always comes from God – The same clause says the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his [man] collaboration [2]. Because of this, the same clause further says that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Men’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. To be able to do good works, we must connect ourselves to the true vine, Christ, who said apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:1-5).

The next clause (# 2009) explains that our filial adoption [as children of God] can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us co-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17) and worthy of obtaining the promised inheritance of eternal life. This means, as the same clause further says, the merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. Our merits are God’s gifts. Thus in Catholicism the merits of our good works are not something we deserve (like our wages) but they are gifts from God. The first clause dealing with merit (# 2006) is preceded with a phrase from Augustine (354 to 430 AD):

You [God] are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.

Clause # 2010 says: Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. We neither have to do good works nor must become good persons to make God take the initiative to move our hearts to have faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is gift from God, irrespective of our past behaviour, whether we were good or evil persons. This is how Catholics understand Ephesians 2:8, the verse mostly quoted by Protestants and “Bible only” Christians to support their belief of by faith alone salvation. Catholics understand the phrase “not by works” in Ephesians 2:8 to mean works before our conversion to Christ, while to Protestants and “Bible only” Christians it means all works, before and after our conversion to Christ.

Since our merits are God’s gifts and are not something we deserve, then they may come in the form of increase of grace and even eternal life. John 1:16 says that through Christ we receive grace upon grace. Thus Clause # 2010 says: Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Finally, the sixth clause (# 2011) says that the charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merits before God and before men.

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/merits-in-catholicism/

 

[KP3243]

wrong text

 

[KP3243]

Matthew 1:24-25: And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn (Gk. prototokon) son: and he called his name Jesus. (Douay-Rheims)

A surface reading of these passages seems problematic. If Jesus had “brothers” and “sisters,” would not Mary have had other children? If Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn,” would there not be at least a second-born? And if “he knew her not till,” did he not then “know her” at some point?​

Are you familiar with the Jewish tradition of a first born male child which Jews still abide by today because referring to Jesus as the first born makes so much sense given the Angel who heaven sent was speaking to a devout Jewish man who was an earthly creature and probably overwhelmed and confused so speaking to his in terms he understood was necessary probably divinely instructed to be delivered in terms he understood given what was on the line and the fact he had free will to reject what he was being asked to do. Any Jewish first child that is a male has to present him at the Temple which Mary and Joseph did and then they have make a sacrifice which they did by offering two the pigeons (Jews today don’t use animal sacrifice but the obligation to present a first born male at the temple is still required) Rich people would have brought a lamb to the temple or doves but poorer people usually brought pigeons and we know Mary and Joseph were not rich. The Angel using the words first born also cleared up any confusion he might have had about presenting Jesus in the Temple with Mary who wouldn’t have been able to present Jesus without Joseph because women were only allowed so far in the Temple. In order to fulfill the Jewish requirement and be obedient to God, Joseph had an important role to play in the first born presentation because he was needed to bring the sacrificial pigeons to the high priests and also serve as Jesus’ eartly father or foster father as some call him. If Jesus wasn’t presented in the Temple there would have been reason to doubt his divinity later on. There was no reason for Matthew to have excluded the words first born from his Gospel because they were necessary given that being a first born male has meaning to Jews because there is special spiritual instruction and most importantly that there would be no question of Jesus’ divinity.

 

[tabycat]

 

[BornAgainRN]

In a way, yes you are. You’re making it seem like the information you’ve provided in your OP CANNOT be wrong; you think you’ve perfectly valid and correct arguments from the conclusions and interpretations in your OP. In that way, yes, you are given a us an implication that you think you’re infallible.

Are you serious? The Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years. Since her founding by Christ in 33 C. E., she has believed that Mary was indeed Ever-Virgin. This belief happened BEFORE the New Testament even came into existence. Further, since the Church compiled the Bible, she knows what it says and what it does not.

So the Church has been misinterpreting a book that she herself brought into existence for 2,000 years, but you come along during the 21st century and claim that you’re right in your interpretations of Scripture? That’s not logical.

Yes, the Old Testament prophecized that Mary had to be a virgin in order to given birth to Christ. However, there was ANOTHER prophecy given in Ezeckiel 44:2 that states that Mary had to be a perpetual virgin. Since Christ didn’t enter through any physical gate, the gate mentioned in Ezeckiel has to be Mary. Further, since the prophecy tells us that NO man shall enter this gate, we are forced to conclude that Mary was indeed Ever-Virgin.

Unless you show otherwise, which you have yet to do so, you’re making a fallacious, unsubstantiated argument.

The Catholic Church does use Scripture to formulate her teachings. Here’s the catch, though: ***the Catholic Church does not go by Scripture alone.***The Catholic Church has existed since 33 C. E., a time when the New Testament didn’t even exist. Therefore, the Church had to have a way to formulate the teachings of Jesus Christ without having any Scripture written about Him. How did she do this? Easy: Sacred tradition, or the oral transmission of God’s Word passed down through the ages. Sacred Tradition encompasses everything that was written down in the Bible and everything that was also taught by the Apostles but was not written down. One these beliefs passed down through Sacred Tradition was Mary’s perpetual virginity, as years of Church studies and Early Church Fathers attest to.

And, as you’ve been shown before, there is biblical support for Mary being Ever-Virgin. You just refuse to accept it because it contradicts your personal interpretations of Scripture.

The former is what the Catholic Church has been doing for 2,000 years. The latter is what you, in fact, are doing.

Except, even if this were true, the teaching was never an infallible proclamation. Therefore, this argument cannot be used against the Church.

The Church has never done this. Please provide evidence that supports your statement.

Um… the Church still teaches that you must be a member of the Catholic Church to received salvation. However, from what I’ve seen on this thread, you don’t fully understand the teaching. In its most basic essence, the teaching that even if you die a non-Catholic and received salvation, you died a Catholic because the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Truth, given to her by Jesus Christ.

Second, the Church DOES NOT teach that works save us. Show me just one Church document that states “we are saved by our works.” The Catholic Church has firmly taught for 2,000 years that it is by grace that we are saved. Works, however, are a requirement of salvation because unless you are doing good works, you have a dead faith.

Third, our God is a God of mercy, as I’m sure you know. Therefore, He would not condemn someone to eternal torment if they never knew Him out of no fault of their own. Further, we don’t know what will happen during the course of someone’s life. A Buddhist or Hindu could have a conversion experience at some point and begin to follow Christ. Also, we don’t know what happens when a person is dying. Jesus could appear to a non-believer, offering them salvation; after all, Jesus loves us so much and wills for all men to be saved.

The point is there’s no evidence that states that if you’re condemned to Hell if you’re not part of the Christian religion at some point in your life.

Limbo has never been a official teaching of the Church. It’s always been a “theory.”

Where does the Bible say this? Provide the chapter, book, and verse please.

Except God’s Word does not actually say that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters. It is your personal interpretations and conclusions that have led you to that belief. Sorry, but I’m not going to trust your OP’s information unless you can prove that the information is completely accurate, which the Catholics participating on this thread has shown your information is not accurate. So… stop side-stepping are arguments, if you’re so sure that Mary’s perpetual virginity contradicts Scripture.

Phoenix,

I’d love to respond to your questions, but in doing so, it might be interpreted as a violation of forum rules, which I want to respect… Unfortunately, in order to answer your questions accurately, I don’t really have the freedom to do so in this forum. If you would like to email me privately, I’ll be happy to discuss each of these questions with you, because I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. For instance, of course, a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, can attain Heaven prior to their death - IF they accept Christ. But, if they reject Christ & die (just as if a person who is brought up Christian, but later rejects Christ & dies), then they WON’T go to Heaven. As far as babies going to Heaven, that would take way to long & may be interpreted as a proselytizing. So, again, if you would like a more detailed explanation based on Scripture, I’d be happy to comply if you choose to email me privately.

God bless you in Jesus’ Name,
Steve.

In Christ,
Steve.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Matthew 1:24-25: And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn (Gk. prototokon) son: and he called his name Jesus. (Douay-Rheims)

A surface reading of these passages seems problematic. If Jesus had “brothers” and “sisters,” would not Mary have had other children? If Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn,” would there not be at least a second-born? And if “he knew her not till,” did he not then “know her” at some point?

 

[SonCatcher]

Phoenix,

I’d love to respond to your questions, but in doing so, it might be interpreted as a violation of forum rules, which I want to respect… Unfortunately, in order to answer your questions accurately, I don’t really have the freedom to do so in this forum. If you would like to email me privately, I’ll be happy to discuss each of these questions with you, because I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. For instance, of course, a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, can attain Heaven prior to their death - IF they accept Christ. But, if they reject Christ & die (just as if a person who is brought up Christian, but later rejects Christ & dies), then they WON’T go to Heaven. As far as babies going to Heaven, that would take way to long & may be interpreted as a proselytizing. So, again, if you would like a more detailed explanation based on Scripture, I’d be happy to comply if you choose to email me privately.

God bless you in Jesus’ Name,
Steve.

In Christ,
Steve.

You certainly have the freedom to answer the questions. This forum is open to all views so long as they are presented respectfully and honestly.

Again, there are many non-Catholics on this board who constantly present their views strongly. They are able to continue because they are honest and respectful. The only reason to refuse to answer is if you find that you cannot do so respectfully.

 

[SonCatcher]

Very good point. In fact, what you wrote actually supports that not only was Mary a virgin WHILE she was pregnant with Jesus, but also that Mary & Joseph conjugated their marriage AFTER Mary gave birth to Jesus, & then later they also had children. Very well written!

It wasn’t really a point. KP3243 wrote “surface reading” implying that other understandings could well be possible. Instead, he was leading into his point about why it is significant to identify Jesus as firstborn.

 

[BornAgainRN]

It wasn’t really a point. KP3243 wrote “surface reading” implying that other understandings could well be possible. Instead, he was leading into his point about why it is significant to identify Jesus as firstborn.

I understand that, but the way he worded it, was that he was saying that it’s not ‘cut & dry’ that Mary remained a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus, or that it’s ‘cut & dry’ that they didn’t have children. The post that he ‘led into’ about Jewish babies didn’t really support one way or another. I was merely commending him that the way he posted, that neither belief is ‘cut & dry,’ but when you look into the Greek in Matthew 1:18-25, as well as other Scripture passages that I originally posted & then later went into more detail, that it ‘does’ become ‘cut & dry.’ Well done, KP3243!

 

[Patavium]

I understand that, but the way he worded it, was that he was saying that it’s not ‘cut & dry’ that Mary remained a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus, or that it’s ‘cut & dry’ that they didn’t have children. The post that he ‘led into’ about Jewish babies didn’t really support one way or another. I was merely commending him that the way he posted, that neither belief is ‘cut & dry,’ but when you look into the Greek in Matthew 1:18-25, as well as other Scripture passages that I originally posted & then later went into more detail, that it ‘does’ become ‘cut & dry.’ Well done, KP3243!

Steve,

Are we going to act in this uncharitable way? I do not know why did you choose to ignore his arguments, and just re-quote him without the rest of his argument?

I expect you will address the rest as well, no?

 

[SonCatcher]

I understand that, but the way he worded it, was that he was saying that it’s not ‘cut & dry’ that Mary remained a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus, or that it’s ‘cut & dry’ that they didn’t have children. The post that he ‘led into’ about Jewish babies didn’t really support one way or another. I was merely commending him that the way he posted, that neither belief is ‘cut & dry,’ but when you look into the Greek in Matthew 1:18-25, as well as other Scripture passages that I originally posted & then later went into more detail, that it ‘does’ become ‘cut & dry.’ Well done, KP3243!

Neither are the other verses you posted “cut and dry”, even when taken together. Did you even bother reading my post #246? Perhaps you could respond to that.