Did Mother Mary have other children?

[Bill_Pick]

Spell them out and if I have an answer I’ll try to answer them.​

BTW, want to comment on my ‘until’ verses?

---

Yes it got post 2 times

“Till she brought forth her firstborn son”… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist 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. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 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. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: 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 till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. 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.

 

[Dokimas]

---

Yes it got post 2 times

“Till she brought forth her firstborn son”… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist 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. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 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. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: 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 till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. 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.

I see, you don’t have any comments on the use of ‘until’ in verses that make your understanding of Matthew 1:25 questionable. Fair enough.

 

[TheLastProfit]

James!

 

[Good_Fella]

With all due respect Randy the bible says nothing about Rome or its role in being the home of the church. The church is built on Christ He is the cornerstone. 1 Peter 2:4-5 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. The body is built by our faith in Jesus. 1 Peter1:2 for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: We are elect for our obedience to Christ.

Peter was martyred at Rome, where he was bishop, in 67 A.D. His martyrdom was prophesied by our Lord - twice in fact (Jn 13:36; 21:18).

The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles with Christ as the cornerstone (Eph 2: 19-22). Our faith is based on their eye-witness testimony. and our doctrines and practices are based on their oral and written teachings. The apostles’ names are inscribed on the foundation for the New Jerusalem, that is the Bride of the Lamb, the Catholic Church (Rev 21: 9-10,14). Indeed, we are a holy priesthood in the Church by participating in the principal mediation of Christ by offering spiritual sacrifices, prayers, petitions, and thanksgiving for the salvation of all men and women. The Blessed Virgin Mary leads us in the order of grace by virtue of her divine maternity.

Nowhere in the bible does Peter come across as the person you claim. He never asserts the office you claim he had. 1 Peter 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s He is always humble and gracious a co laborer

I think you should reopen your Bible, not that it may do you any good. Sacred Scripture must be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. This is a maxim of the Apostles who wrote the New Testament and the Church Fathers. Anyway, Jesus himself charged Peter to feed his sheep (Jn 21:15-17). And our Lord prayed for him that his faith would not fail, so that he could strenghten his brothers in the Faith (Lk 22: 31-32). Peter certainly rose to the occasion in his divine call when he was the first to speak for all of the apostles at Pentecost (Acts 2:14). Earlier on, it was Peter who initiated the successor to Judas and thereby implemented the institution of apostolic succession in the Church leadership (Acts 1:15). And it was Peter who performed the first miraculous healing in the name of Christ (Acts 3:6-7). And wasn’t it Peter who was the first to declare an infallible truth revealed to us from God, on which our Christian faith ultimately rests, when he professed Jesus to be the Son of the living God (Mt 16:16)? And we know what has followed ever since Peter’s declaration of faith, which includes our four Marian dogmas. By the way, the Pope is an elder among elders, a bishop (of Rome) among the bishops of the world in the Catholic Church, which was founded by our Lord Jesus Christ - not some independent religious thinker or free-wheeling pastor.

But this is off-topic. If you wish to contest the primacy of Peter and the problem you have created of the biblical church, then start another thread or join one on these topics. Let’s not have this thread derailed.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I see, you don’t have any comments on the use of ‘until’ in verses that make your understanding of Matthew 1:25 questionable. Fair enough.

Dokimas,Do you not read my post or do you just not understat what I,m send you

 

[Justy90]

No, it doesn’t, and all you’ve done is to dodge issues that you know you cannot prove.

You claim they had “normal marriage” meaning they had sex and other children. PROVE IT.

You say that “firstborn” must prove that there was a “secondborn”. PROVE IT.

You say that those called “brothers” are blood brothers of Jesus. PROVE IT.

The plain fact of the matter is that all you have are private, fallible interpretations of scripture which do not stand up to close scrutiny.

So, unless you’re prepared to make an argument in support of your assertions, I suggest that you stop speaking so confidently on matters about which you are clearly ignorant.

Prove that the Firstborn doesn’t mean firstborn. Prove that those named as Jesus brothers are not blood. Prove that Mary and Jospeh never had sex. The Bible says that they did not have relations UNTIL Jesus was born. Prove that the Scriptures don’t mean what they say.

 

[Justy90]

I assume you meant “that’s why we should NOT pull…”. No problem, I understood.

Then perhaps you can provide a more complete exegesis of scripture proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary and Joseph engaged in “normal relations” resulting in the births of other children whose presence is unambiguous in the pages of scripture.

Thanks in advance.

The point here is that Scriptures don’t go to lengths to showcase and emphasize that Joseph and Mary had a normal marriage because nobody contested it in those times. And, they certainly don’t proclaim what Catholicism professes concerning the subject.

 

[Justy90]

Mother mary was a woman who even Angel Gabrial anounced as full of Grace. Now can you imagine if Jesus had siblings such siblings would not have followed Jesus, and do you believe Mother Mary would have reared them in bad way?

Who can be saved and not be full of God’s grace?

 

[Bill_Pick]

I see, you don’t have any comments on the use of ‘until’ in verses that make your understanding of Matthew 1:25 questionable. Fair enough.

Dok, Are you blind it on the board 3 times are do you not understand, do you read any post

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The point here is that Scriptures don’t go to lengths to showcase and emphasize that Joseph and Mary had a normal marriage because nobody contested it in those times. And, they certainly don’t proclaim what Catholicism professes concerning the subject.

‘’

By normal marriage you mean having sex and children after Christ, yes?

Let’s see YOU prove that. . .because. . .drum roll. . .until the 16th century, the consensus among all Catholic theologians (meaning all CHRISTIAN theologians) was that the Virgin remained a virgin. We Catholics (and the Orthodox too, who are so often snubbed in these discussions) continue with the original teachings.

Nobody 'contested the teaching because they were sure they had sex? Oh please. So you’re going to claim that the consistent teaching of ‘ever-Virgin’ which has existed more than a millenium before your new-fangled teaching supposedly went on **in the face of ‘everybody knowing she wasn’t in those times?’

**You can’t have it both ways. The consistent teaching from the authorities (not just theologians in private manuscripts/letters) was that Mary was ever-Virgin, and the evidence was WRITTEN as early as AD 250 in the SubTuum, with the oral teaching being thus even earlier.

If it was so widely known and not contested that she wasn’t ever Virgin, WHERE are the consistent teachings to say, “Wait, that’s not right! She wasn’t ever Virgin”.

Golly. There aren’t any.

That’s the real thing. The consistent teaching was that she was --your doctrine is a NEW teaching. . .and we know what we are supposed to think about those teaching a doctrine other than what scripture teaches. (Remember the part about the Church being pillar and bullwark of truth too).

 

[Justy90]

‘’

By normal marriage you mean having sex and children after Christ, yes?

Let’s see YOU prove that. . .because. . .drum roll. . .until the 16th century, the consensus among all Catholic theologians (meaning all CHRISTIAN theologians) was that the Virgin remained a virgin. We Catholics (and the Orthodox too, who are so often snubbed in these discussions) continue with the original teachings.

Nobody 'contested the teaching because they were sure they had sex? Oh please. So you’re going to claim that the consistent teaching of ‘ever-Virgin’ which has existed more than a millenium before your new-fangled teaching supposedly went on **in the face of ‘everybody knowing she wasn’t in those times?’

**You can’t have it both ways. The consistent teaching from the authorities (not just theologians in private manuscripts/letters) was that Mary was ever-Virgin, and the evidence was WRITTEN as early as AD 250 in the SubTuum, with the oral teaching being thus even earlier.

If it was so widely known and not contested that she wasn’t ever Virgin, WHERE are the consistent teachings to say, “Wait, that’s not right! She wasn’t ever Virgin”.

Golly. There aren’t any.

That’s the real thing. The consistent teaching was that she was --your doctrine is a NEW teaching. . .and we know what we are supposed to think about those teaching a doctrine other than what scripture teaches. (Remember the part about the Church being pillar and bullwark of truth too).

Nah I don’t think so. The Catholic profession here is not all there was in pre-16th century. If your statements about the Early Church are true, then why do Othodox Christians have different beliefs regarding Mary?

 

[MartinJordan]

If Martin Luther had no issue with it, that speaks for itself I think.

 

[Justy90]

If Martin Luther had no issue with it, that speaks for itself I think.

If it’s that simple for you then so be it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Nah I don’t think so. The Catholic profession here is not all there was in pre-16th century. If your statements about the Early Church are true, then why do Othodox Christians have different beliefs regarding Mary?

I wasn’t aware that the Orthodox Church taught Mary wasn’t a perpetual Virgin. Are you telling me that you think they don’t teach her perpetual virginity?

 

[Justy90]

I wasn’t aware that the Orthodox Church taught Mary wasn’t a perpetual Virgin. Are you telling me that you think they don’t teach her perpetual virginity?

I’m not saying that, but I am saying that they do not hold to all of the dogmas of Mary in the Catholic church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We aren’t discussing other Marian ‘dogmas’. We’re discussing the fact that all Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox alike) have had the same teaching on Mary’s perpetual Virginity and that it is consistent and goes back nearly 2000 years. It is your protestant teaching which is ‘new’ and not consistently taught.

And we Catholics and Orthodox use the same Scripture that Martin Luther did. He believed in the perpetual Virginity as well.

So, why should I believe your ‘interpretation’ of Scripture which is so new? Why do you reject a teaching that is so old and respected by so many Christians for so long?

 

[Justy90]

We aren’t discussing other Marian ‘dogmas’. We’re discussing the fact that all Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox alike) have had the same teaching on Mary’s perpetual Virginity and that it is consistent and goes back nearly 2000 years. It is your protestant teaching which is ‘new’ and not consistently taught.

And we Catholics and Orthodox use the same Scripture that Martin Luther did. He believed in the perpetual Virginity as well.

So, why should I believe your ‘interpretation’ of Scripture which is so new? Why do you reject a teaching that is so old and respected by so many Christians for so long?

Catholic and Orthodox use the same Scripture? Last I checked the Orthodox church has different books in their Canon than you. Why the difference? Looks like some major differences long before Luther entered the scene.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Catholic and Orthodox use the same Scripture? Last I checked the Orthodox church has different books in their Canon than you. Why the difference? Looks like some major differences long before Luther entered the scene.

Mind sticking to the topic? Why should I accept your ‘interpretation’ of various Scripture when Martin Luther and your own Henry VIII didn’t accept them?

 

[Teneas]

If Martin Luther had no issue with it, that speaks for itself I think.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Mind sticking to the topic? Why should I accept your ‘interpretation’ of various Scripture when Martin Luther and your own Henry VIII didn’t accept them?

Can you please show what Martin Luther did not accept about Mary