Did Mother Mary have other children?

[Tantum_ergo]

Ok, but can you please answer my questions?

The ‘questions’ are moot because as I said, it’s not about your personal opinion (or mine). It’s about whether a teaching is true. You could have 1001 reasons that you felt justify your belief in a teaching, but if the teaching is false, none of those reasons mean diddly, do they? What matters is whether the teaching is true or not.

Again, it’s all about Jesus.

 

[Dokimas]

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

I looked at the post. You brought up OT verses with the context of ‘until’ different than the context of ‘until’ in Matthew 1:25​

Your comments have nothing to do with the verses in the NT I gave to you. The way to understand ‘until’ in the context in which it is being used. I gave you several (and I could give you more) from the NT using the same Greek word with the same construction and it is obvious what is going to happen after ‘until’.​

Remember, context, context, context.

 

[Dokimas]

We’re not indifferentists. Yes, it makes a difference. Either the Holy Spirit, through Scripture and Tradition, says authoritatively that she is. . .or she isn’t. No middle ground.

The truth is the truth. If Catholic teaching is the truth, then the non-Catholic teaching which ‘contradicts it’ is falsehood, no matter how you might try to explain it away.

Is the opposite true: if the non-catholic teaching about Mary not being a perpetual virgin, then the CC position is in error?

 

[rev_kevin]

The ‘questions’ are moot because as I said, it’s not about your personal opinion (or mine). It’s about whether a teaching is true. You could have 1001 reasons that you felt justify your belief in a teaching, but if the teaching is false, none of those reasons mean diddly, do they? What matters is whether the teaching is true or not.

Again, it’s all about Jesus.

I don’t believe they are moot. I’m not trying to justify my belief just asking would it make a difference in your preseption about Mary. Nothing hard about the questions. Could it be that your not sure how you would feel? Could it be your afraid of your own answers? Come on answer the questions and stop with the dancing around.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t believe they are moot. I’m not trying to justify my belief just asking would it make a difference in your preseption about Mary. Nothing hard about the questions. Could it be that your not sure how you would feel? Could it be your afraid of your own answers? Come on answer the questions and stop with the dancing around.

Do you always try to ask loaded questions or to imply that people are **afraid to answer?

**The question is as I said moot. Either the teaching is true, or it isn’t true.

If it’s true, it’s true whether or not **you **personally feel she would have been ‘just fine’ having a slew of kids with Joseph. You might personally feel it’s fine, but the truth is, she was and is a Virgin and all your justifications and cries of ‘it would be normal’ wouldn’t matter squat.

Jesus could have saved us by solving a Rubic’s Cube instead of dying on the cross. It would have been just fine. But. . .it didn’t happen, so why try to posit that it did?

The truth is, He died on a cross, in a messy, bloody, painful death that a lot of people feel was ‘unneccesary’ or even stupid. I’m sure that you would say to them, “It doesn’t matter that you personally feel His death/resurrection wasn’t necessary, but the fact is, it was true, it happened.”

What is important is truth, not your speculations.

 

[rev_kevin]

Do you always try to ask loaded questions or to imply that people are **afraid to answer?

**The question is as I said moot. Either the teaching is true, or it isn’t true.

If it’s true, it’s true whether or not **you **personally feel she would have been ‘just fine’ having a slew of kids with Joseph. You might personally feel it’s fine, but the truth is, she was and is a Virgin and all your justifications and cries of ‘it would be normal’ wouldn’t matter squat.

Jesus could have saved us by solving a Rubic’s Cube instead of dying on the cross. It would have been just fine. But. . .it didn’t happen, so why try to posit that it did?

The truth is, He died on a cross, in a messy, bloody, painful death that a lot of people feel was ‘unneccesary’ or even stupid. I’m sure that you would say to them, “It doesn’t matter that you personally feel His death/resurrection wasn’t necessary, but the fact is, it was true, it happened.”

What is important is truth, not your speculations.

I quess you can’t answer because of what your answer may be. Its kind of hard to look at ourselves and answer a question on how strong your faith in Mary is. Puts you between a hard place and a rock. Do I go with my true feelings or do I go with what I’m told to go with. If I go with my feelings then I go against the teachings of the church but if I go with the teachings of the church then I go against what I feel. So by not answering only leaves me to believe that it would make a difference in your outlook of Mary.

The rubic’s cube wasn’t around then, that I know of.

Now Jesus’ death is not the question posed was it? I never said that his death on the cross wasn’t true or not necessary. Although there are those who would believe that.
Yes it is a fact the Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead and that is spelled out in the Bible and is very clear but Mary not having other children is not so clear and is not spelled out in the Bible.

 

[jericho777]

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.

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.

No where in the bible does it say or infer we should rely on for salvation or pray to Mary. That’s what my bible says and that’s what your bible says. If someone declares bible truths does that make them infallible also? You hold to tradition over the written word. I hold only to the written word.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I quess you can’t answer** Excuse me, I DID answer, thank you very much** because of what your answer may be. Its kind of hard to look at ourselves and answer a question on how strong your faith in Mary is. And what makes you think the questions you posed would 'interfere with my faith in Mary?" Puts you between a hard place and a rock. **No it doesn’t. You’re the one with speculations and assumptions. You’re the one trying to second-guess me. **Do I go with my true feelings (what exactly do you say they are? Are you saying you have read my mind?) or do I go with what I’m told to go with. Ah, the old, "the church tells you X but if you could think for yourself you’d think not-X’ fallacy If I go with my feelings then I go against the teachings of the church but if I go with the teachings of the church then I go against what I feel. So by not answering only leaves me to believe that it would make a difference in your outlook of Mary. Are you assuming that my ‘true’ feelings would go 'go against the Church"? Why would you assume that? It isn’t true.

The rubic’s cube wasn’t around then, that I know of.

Now Jesus’ death is not the question posed was it? I never said that his death on the cross wasn’t true or not necessary. **I didn’t say you did. I offered it as an example of a TRUE teaching --just as the teaching of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is a true teaching. ** Although there are those who would believe that.
Yes it is a fact the Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead and that is spelled out in the Bible and is very clear but Mary not having other children is not so clear and is not spelled out in the Bible.

**YOU say it isn’t clear or spelled out. I say it is. There is not a single solitary word that definitively names Mary as the Mother of anybody save Jesus. Nor was there a concerted, continuous, authoritative Christian teaching of her as being not virgin AFTER His birth for 1500 years . .not until the teachings of fallible men ‘read into’ Scripture that which is not there (as they did in several OTHER cases as well).

As Catholic I don’t hold to that man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura anyway that falsely holds that something must be explicitly ‘in the Bible’. The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, and the list of books to be included in the Bible wasn’t in the Bible itself. . .so there are already teachings that Christians believe that are not ‘explicit’ in the Bible ALONE. And the Bible also does not appoint itself as either self-interpreting or as the authority for Christians. The mere fact that you can spout off a Scripture and say, “This means X” and I can say, “No, it means not-X” shows that it is neither self-interpreting nor authoritative, as if it were self-interpreting it would have the same meaning for both of us, and if it were authoritative, it would be obvious which of ‘two’ possible but oppositional meanings is correct. Heck, John 6 has Jesus telling us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. . .and the same people who have conniption fits that “it says she didn’t know him UNTIL the birth, UNTIL means that she did AFTER” suddenly get all, “Well, Jesus didn’t REALLY mean that. That was just hyperbole”. Yeah. Clear Scripture, ya know? Insistence that something is absolutely literal. . unless it’s a Catholic position. Then somehow it become ‘only symbolic’!

**

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No where in the bible does it say or infer we should rely on for salvation or pray to Mary. That’s what my bible says and that’s what your bible says. If someone declares bible truths does that make them infallible also? You hold to tradition over the written word. I hold only to the written word.

You hold only to the written word? Exactly where in the Bible is that? Where it says that all that Jesus said and taught is recorded in the Bible, and that one is to go to the Bible, and only the Bible, as the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the faith? I can’t seem to find the passage. . .

 

[jericho777]

You hold only to the written word? Exactly where in the Bible is that? Where it says that all that Jesus said and taught is recorded in the Bible, and that one is to go to the Bible, and only the Bible, as the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the faith? I can’t seem to find the passage. . .

All you can do is insult when somebody asks a question you don’t like or can’t answer.

All that Jesus wants us to know is in the bible. So all the stuff Jesus said thats not written in the bible you have it written down somewhere? And you really know Jesus said it. The words of scripture point us to our Savior.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

All you can do is insult when somebody asks a question you don’t like or can’t answer. First, how is my question an insult? If you’re taking it as such isn’t that something that you’re choosing to do, not something that I am ‘forcing’ on you? Second, what made you think I didn’t like the question, and third, since I answered it, you can’t say I couldn’t. I think you are the one who is upset and is stooping to insult here.

All that Jesus wants us to know is in the bible. I agree that everything in the Bible is something Jesus wants us to know. But I don’t agree–and the Bible backs me up-- that “all Jesus wants us to know” is there. So all the stuff Jesus said thats not written in the bible you have it written down somewhere? We have sacred tradition from the apostles’ oral (that would be ‘not written’) teaching, including such gems as the change from “Sabbath” to “Sunday” worship. I’m sure you know that Scripture itself does not explicitly state that “Christians shall stop worship on the Sabbath and do it on Sunday instead”. And you really know Jesus said it. The words of scripture point us to our Savior. And those words were recorded and were verified to be canon by? Yep, Catholics. You really know Jesus said what was written down. . .because Catholics told you.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Yes, indeed. And I thank the Lord that He is the judge and knows the heart.

2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Useful, not ‘absolutely sufficient and nothing else needed. And you do know that the "Scripture’ St. Paul speaks of is the Old Testament? St. Paul never saw the Book of Revelation, for example. If you held yourself to only the Scripture that St. Paul knew as Scripture, you’d be minus most if not all of the New Testament. The reason you know the New Testament is Scripture is that Catholics told you it was. . .

 

[rev_kevin]

**YOU say it isn’t clear or spelled out. I say it is. There is not a single solitary word that definitively names Mary as the Mother of anybody save Jesus. Nor was there a concerted, continuous, authoritative Christian teaching of her as being not virgin AFTER His birth for 1500 years . .not until the teachings of fallible men ‘read into’ Scripture that which is not there (as they did in several OTHER cases as well).

As Catholic I don’t hold to that man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura anyway that falsely holds that something must be explicitly ‘in the Bible’. The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, and the list of books to be included in the Bible wasn’t in the Bible itself. . .so there are already teachings that Christians believe that are not ‘explicit’ in the Bible ALONE. And the Bible also does not appoint itself as either self-interpreting or as the authority for Christians. The mere fact that you can spout off a Scripture and say, “This means X” and I can say, “No, it means not-X” shows that it is neither self-interpreting nor authoritative, as if it were self-interpreting it would have the same meaning for both of us, and if it were authoritative, it would be obvious which of ‘two’ possible but oppositional meanings is correct. Heck, John 6 has Jesus telling us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. . .and the same people who have conniption fits that “it says she didn’t know him UNTIL the birth, UNTIL means that she did AFTER” suddenly get all, “Well, Jesus didn’t REALLY mean that. That was just hyperbole”. Yeah. Clear Scripture, ya know? Insistence that something is absolutely literal. . unless it’s a Catholic position. Then somehow it become ‘only symbolic’!

**

Excuse me, not you didn’t.
What makes me think that the q;uestions I posed would interfer with your faith in Mary? You won’t answer them one by one.
If it don’t put you between a hard place and a rock then answer the questions.
Its not mind reading, its like thinking to yourself. Do I ------ or do I------- What should I do?
Tell me I’m wrong. Doesn’t the church tell you Mary never had other children?
Why would I believe your true feelings would go against the church. You won’t answer the questions one by one.
Show me where Mary being a virgin all the rest of her life is. {Not in your dogma’s because thats mans interpretation in my opinion}

True the word trinity is not in the Bible but the trinity is. At the Baptism of Jesus, You have the Father who spoke, the Son being Baptized, and the Holy Spirit like a dove. See the trinity.
How could the list of the books of the Bible be in the Bible when the Bible wasn’t around then?
Now now now when did I spout off Scritpure. I don’t believe I did now did I?
Now your spouting off about being symbolic which I never said anything about that.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Excuse me, not you didn’t.
What makes me think that the q;uestions I posed would interfer with your faith in Mary? You won’t answer them one by one. Because they are moot. Suppose I asked you the same questions about Jesus dying on the Cross. If you found out that He didn’t die on the cross but instead only ‘fainted’, would that change your opinion of Him?

Duh. See, Jesus dying on the cross is a truth. If you say, "What if He didn’t die’. . .you’re denying the truth, even if you post it as a ‘what-if’.

You’re asking me to deny the truth of Mary’s perpetual Virginity in the same way, by saying, “what if?” It’s the same thing, you know. . . asking somebody how they would react if something they ‘thought’ was true wasn’t REALLY true. . .is really asking them to ‘admit’ that it could. . .possibly. . .be false.

You wouldn’t for a minute accept the possibility that Jesus faked His death, because you know it isn’t true. Yet you’re asking ME to ‘accept the possibility’ that a truth that I hold as authentic Christian teaching (backed up by Scripture, Tradition, and the Holy Spirit) is 'false?" I don’t think so, Rev. I don’t play that kind of game.
If it don’t put you between a hard place and a rock then answer the questions.
Its not mind reading, its like thinking to yourself. Do I ------ or do I------- What should I do?
Tell me I’m wrong. Doesn’t the church tell you Mary never had other children? You have it slightly ‘inverted’. The Church doesn’t ‘tell me Mary never had other children’ as though it invented the whole shebang. Mary never had other children, and the Church simply assents to the truth. The truth came first. The Church merely acknowledges that truth.

Today your wife could have stepped outside at say 8 a.m. and said, "Ah, the sun’s up’. Is the sun up only because she SAID so? Heck no. And if she went out and said, “Hey, the sun never came up” you’d know she wasn’t telling the truth. Because the truth of the sun’s ‘rising appearance’ is truth, whether somebody says, “the sun’s up” or not.

Why would I believe your true feelings would go against the church. You won’t answer the questions one by one.
Show me where Mary being a virgin all the rest of her life is. {Not in your dogma’s because thats mans interpretation in my opinion} Your contention that she had other children is man’s interpretation as well. There is not a single passage in Scripture that identifies her as mother of any child but Jesus. Where is the child listed as son or daughter of Mary, except Jesus?

True the word trinity is not in the Bible but the trinity is. At the Baptism of Jesus, You have the Father who spoke, the Son being Baptized, and the Holy Spirit like a dove. See the trinity.
How could the list of the books of the Bible be in the Bible when the Bible wasn’t around then?
Now now now when did I spout off Scritpure. I don’t believe I did now did I?
Now your spouting off about being symbolic which I never said anything about that.

 

[Teneas]

If Mary had other children it would do NOTHING to affect my faith in Christ or his Church. If she had other children, I believe it would be stated very very clearly in scripture. I believe the Church that Christ started would not say she was a virgin forever.

But if she did have other children, as I stated already, it does nothing to affect my faith.

You can take the word until and use it again and again and again and again and again, but it will do little.

Both sides are bashing at this point, and it’s sickening. Stop caring about what Catholics believe in this regard if all you do is grow angry. It’s sickening. If you don’t believe it, and the “Bible tells you so”, then more power to it. Does it affect your faith life knowing that we do believe that the MOTHER OF GOD was pure for all time? If so, you need to take a good hard look at your life.

Catholics, just stop acknowledging those that won’t listen, won’t open up, or are plainly waaaay to worried about how we have faith in Christ, instead of questioning whether or not our believe in Mary’s virginity actually helps our faith in Christ. Just ignore it. The debate will go on and on and on.

It is obvious that there are some that are so turned off by our belief on this subject they never stop to think about if it helps our faith, and doesn’t hurt it.

I am guilty of it on some threads, I freely admit, and once I take it to far imo, I walk away from it. No one will change anyone’s minds by bashing each other. Christ would weep for how some of the discussions go.

Catholics think we are right, the rest do as well. Only Christ changes things like this in peoples minds. Simply talking about our differences is one thing, and should be done with peace, love, and understanding.

 

[rev_kevin]

Tantum_ergo:
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross would it change the way I feel about him? Answer NO. See how easy that is. Not denying he didn’t die on the cross, just saying if he didn’t it would not change my feelings about him.

The Bible spells out that Jesus died on the cross. It don’t spell out about Mary not having other children. Still waiting for your evidence that she didn’t.
Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, Mark 3:31 says she did.

The sun analogy makes no sense. You know the sun comes up every day. Use something better then that.

I’m not asking you to deny anything. You seem to be afraid of your own answer to the questions or you would answer them one by one. You chose to comment on my post but can’t answer the questions. Why did you even bother to comment on it in the first place if you can’t or won’t answer the questions.

So I see by your answer that the dogma’s are mans interpretation.{“Your contention that she had other children is MANS INTERPRETATION AS WELL.”} if now you wouldn’t of used the words “as well.”

How do you know that Mary not having other children is true, lets see because of the teachings of the church. Therefore the church tells you that she had no other children.

 

[TEPO]

Sorry, but the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was, is, and will always be ever-virgin…

Anyone who denies this does so not to serve the Lord -but to satisfy their own conscience in their protest. Proof being because it only divides Christianity further, as the Catholic Church will never deny the truths bestowed on her by God.

 

[rev_kevin]

Sorry, but the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was, is, and will always be ever-virgin…

Anyone who denies this does so not to serve the Lord -but to satisfy their own conscience in their protest. Proof being because it only divides Christianity further, as the Catholic Church will never deny the truths bestowed on her by God.

Excuse me!
Anyone who denies this does so not to serve the Lord.

There are those who serve the Lord but don’t believe she remained “ever virgin.”
So if you don’t believe the Catholic teachings you are not serving the Lord?
Where do you get this hog wash from?

 

[TEPO]

Excuse me!
Anyone who denies this does so not to serve the Lord.

There are those who serve the Lord but don’t believe she remained “ever virgin.”
So if you don’t believe the Catholic teachings you are not serving the Lord?
Where do you get this hog wash from?

No, you can still serve the Lord as you choose… But to deny the virginity of Mary is a worthless waste of time… Why not do something more charitable instead of promoting Mary’s non-virginity…

What does anyone hope to accomplish by this besides trying to prove the Church wrong ?
What is the goal, as everyone here has already been explained what the Church thinks and why ?

 

[TEPO]

What difference would it make if Mary had other children or not? By her having other children would it make her less then who she is? Would it change your outlook on what she stands for? Does it change the fact that she is the mother of Jesus? Would you look down at her because she had other children? Would it make her less holy and therefore unworthy of your praise? Would it change anything except the teachings that she never had other children? Would it mean that the teachings are wrong about her? Who decided to teach that Mary never had other children? What evidence is there that she did or didn’t have other children?
I guess what I’m trying to say is, “does it really matter, she is who she is eather way you look at it.”

FAITH, FAITH, FAITH. It is what we believe — that’s it.

It is what our Church has taught for over 1500 years… And since we have faith in our Church, we will not change the dogmas. We believe them to be divine interpretation, as our Church itself is part divine. The Church is the “bride of Christ”, that is what we believe -in good faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

-I posted this earlier. It answers your logic about ‘until’ by using your logic with the following verses.

[sign]Let’s apply what you infer to other verses with the same Greek word and construction… Let’s see what they say usning your inference.​

2193 = heos - till, until​

Mt 1:25 and did not know her till <2193> she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Joseph never knew Mary in a complete way.

Mt 2:13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until <2193> I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.” Mary, Joseph and Jesus never left Egypt.

Mt 10:11 "Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till <2193> you go out. They never left those sities.

Mt 5:26 "Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till <2193> you have paid the last penny. After paying his debt, he stayed in jail.

Mt 17:9 Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until <2193> the Son of Man is risen from the dead.” They never told of the vision.
Mt 23:39 “for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till <2193> you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’” They never saw and never will see Jesus again.

Mt 26:36 Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, “Sit here while <2193> I go and pray over there.” They never stood up and spent the rest of their days in Gethsemane sitting.[/sign]​

How’d your logic do for these verses???

My logic holds up just fine because I have not suggested that heos hou (not heos alone, btw) ALWAYS takes one meaning. I have made the case that it can mean a cessation, but it can also be used when no cessation is implied.

Consequently, it is not MY logic that is demolished but that of those who seek to use “until” to PROVE that Joseph and Mary had relations after the birth of Jesus.

In other words, since the word “until” can be used in either sense, Matthew 1:25 may be used to suggest the POSSIBILITY that Joseph and Mary had relations, but it cannot be used to PROVE that they did.

Consequently, Matthew 1:25 is not the proof-text that non-Catholics long for it to be.