Did Mother Mary have other children?

[Randy_Carson]

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.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.)16All 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.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

Another point to consider is that Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.

This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.

There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.

This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?

Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.

 

[Lapey]

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.”

I’ll give them a try there Rev, it’s been a while since you and I chatted. How’ve you been?

Rev -
“What difference would it make if Mary had other children or not?”

Lapey -
It would make a grave difference, because I believe as the Church teaches that the truth is always the truth, truth never changes. I know in my heart that the Church is the highest authority on earth to make this claim and I will not question her authority, I do not have that power as I do not have that access to truth as the Church.

Rev -
“By her having other children would it make her less then who she is?”

Lapey –
Yes, it most certainly would. Because number one, it wouldn’t be truth. Number two, Mary was and is a consecrated virgin and is pure of body and soul. She is a saint whom many women and men through the centuries have modeled their life to; a life of perpetual consecrated virginity, wholesomeness, and purity is saved for only one, Christ Himself! Now don’t you think that has much more meaning than simply trying to prove His Church to be wrong?

Rev -
“Would it change your outlook on what she stands for?”

Lapey –
Yes because it would not stand on truth. The fruit produced by her status and purity would become tainted. We measure her righteousness by the fruit in which her life has produced. Can you find anyone within any protestant denomination who has brought more souls to Christ? No I didn’t think so. Mary sole purpose is to lead people to her Son, I can’t for the life of me figure out why protestants this century would try so hard to fight that, unless there is another force behind the fight.

Rev -
“Does it change the fact that she is the mother of Jesus?”

Lapey –
No, however it does change the fact that she is everyone else’s adopted mother, including you and starting with John at the cross. Even scripture describes how the “brothers” of Jesus are sons of others, but many insist on dismissing this.

Rev-
“ Would you look down at her because she had other children?”

Lapey –
No, but her role in salvation history would be diminished tremendously. As stated above she has brought more souls to Christ than you and your man made doctrines ever will.

Rev -
“Would it make her less holy and therefore unworthy of your praise?”

Lapey –
She would be seen as less holy, but you misunderstand if you believe I “praise” Mary. The Church does not teach nor indorse worship or praise of Mary, however you define true worship very different than the Church so you believe we do worship her, untrue but it is your man developed belief.

Rev -
“Would it change anything except the teachings that she never had other children?”

Lapey –
As stated above it would change quite a bit.

Rev –
“Would it mean that the teachings are wrong about her?”

Lapey –
Yes, because the inherent truth would be changed, that is why the protestant denominations work so hard to disprove something that would affect so many, to prove the truth within the Church is not truth. It would raise other denominations and lower the Catholic Church, that is your goal, not salvation of souls.

Read the very last Code of Cannon Law, CCC 1752 if I can remember correctly.

Rev -
“Who decided to teach that Mary never had other children?”

Lapey –
That would be the oral tradition that scripture teaches of. This belief and teaching can be traced back to the early Church. This has been pointed out many times and still you discredit the answer that you ask for. There are even post here listing quotes from the “reformers” who proclaimed Mary’s perpetual virginity. No matter what we site as our source you will go back to the tired argument that “it is not stated in scripture that Mary remained a virgin until death.” Even though there is no mention in scripture that she didn’t.

Rev -
“What evidence is there that she did or didn’t have other children?”

Lapey –
There is no evidence in scripture that she did or did not remain a virgin, not plainly stated anyway. That is why it is necessary to use tradition and discernment to make these determinations. The determinations that the Church has made over these 2000 years do not contradict scripture or tradition, only protestants; and I’m okay with that.

Rev-
“I guess what I’m trying to say is, "does it really matter, she is who she is eather way you look at it.””

Lapey –
Yes! If it wouldn’t make much difference, people like yourself would not go through so much trouble to prove the Church wrong.

Someone in an earlier post said not in so many words that if you work against this teaching you some how do not serve Christ, I can see that. You must acknowledge the vast number of souls who have been brought to a life in Christ because of the intercessory prayers and work of Mary. If you work against her work you work against Christ. There is no other way to see that, if one id honest with himself. If you lead souls away from the truth you lead souls away from Christ, and that my brother is the work of the enemy!

Have a God day!

 

[rev_kevin]

I’ll give them a try there Rev, it’s been a while since you and I chatted. How’ve you been?

Rev -
“What difference would it make if Mary had other children or not?”

Lapey -
It would make a grave difference, because I believe as the Church teaches that the truth is always the truth, truth never changes. I know in my heart that the Church is the highest authority on earth to make this claim and I will not question her authority, I do not have that power as I do not have that access to truth as the Church.

Rev -
“By her having other children would it make her less then who she is?”

Lapey –
Yes, it most certainly would. Because number one, it wouldn’t be truth. Number two, Mary was and is a consecrated virgin and is pure of body and soul. She is a saint whom many women and men through the centuries have modeled their life to; a life of perpetual consecrated virginity, wholesomeness, and purity is saved for only one, Christ Himself! Now don’t you think that has much more meaning than simply trying to prove His Church to be wrong?

Rev -
“Would it change your outlook on what she stands for?”

Lapey –
Yes because it would not stand on truth. The fruit produced by her status and purity would become tainted. We measure her righteousness by the fruit in which her life has produced. Can you find anyone within any protestant denomination who has brought more souls to Christ? No I didn’t think so. Mary sole purpose is to lead people to her Son, I can’t for the life of me figure out why protestants this century would try so hard to fight that, unless there is another force behind the fight.

Rev -
“Does it change the fact that she is the mother of Jesus?”

Lapey –
No, however it does change the fact that she is everyone else’s adopted mother, including you and starting with John at the cross. Even scripture describes how the “brothers” of Jesus are sons of others, but many insist on dismissing this.

Rev-
“ Would you look down at her because she had other children?”

Lapey –
No, but her role in salvation history would be diminished tremendously. As stated above she has brought more souls to Christ than you and your man made doctrines ever will.

Rev -
“Would it make her less holy and therefore unworthy of your praise?”

Lapey –
She would be seen as less holy, but you misunderstand if you believe I “praise” Mary. The Church does not teach nor indorse worship or praise of Mary, however you define true worship very different than the Church so you believe we do worship her, untrue but it is your man developed belief.

Rev -
“Would it change anything except the teachings that she never had other children?”

Lapey –
As stated above it would change quite a bit.

Rev –
“Would it mean that the teachings are wrong about her?”

Lapey –
Yes, because the inherent truth would be changed, that is why the protestant denominations work so hard to disprove something that would affect so many, to prove the truth within the Church is not truth. It would raise other denominations and lower the Catholic Church, that is your goal, not salvation of souls.

Read the very last Code of Cannon Law, CCC 1752 if I can remember correctly.

Rev -
“Who decided to teach that Mary never had other children?”

Lapey –
That would be the oral tradition that scripture teaches of. This belief and teaching can be traced back to the early Church. This has been pointed out many times and still you discredit the answer that you ask for. There are even post here listing quotes from the “reformers” who proclaimed Mary’s perpetual virginity. No matter what we site as our source you will go back to the tired argument that “it is not stated in scripture that Mary remained a virgin until death.” Even though there is no mention in scripture that she didn’t.

Rev -
“What evidence is there that she did or didn’t have other children?”

Lapey –
There is no evidence in scripture that she did or did not remain a virgin, not plainly stated anyway. That is why it is necessary to use tradition and discernment to make these determinations. The determinations that the Church has made over these 2000 years do not contradict scripture or tradition, only protestants; and I’m okay with that.

Rev-
“I guess what I’m trying to say is, "does it really matter, she is who she is eather way you look at it.””

Lapey –
Yes! If it wouldn’t make much difference, people like yourself would not go through so much trouble to prove the Church wrong.

Someone in an earlier post said not in so many words that if you work against this teaching you some how do not serve Christ, I can see that. You must acknowledge the vast number of souls who have been brought to a life in Christ because of the intercessory prayers and work of Mary. If you work against her work you work against Christ. There is no other way to see that, if one id honest with himself. If you lead souls away from the truth you lead souls away from Christ, and that my brother is the work of the enemy!

Have a God day!

Hi I’m fine how are you?
I want to thank you for your honesty in this. That is all I was looking for. Honesty.

 

[rev_kevin]

That is not what he said. Read the post more carefully.

I did where am I wrong. Please point it out.

 

[rev_kevin]

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 ?

Why not do something more charitable you ask. Lets see. I serve on the board of trustees to help the homeless families, I’m a member of Kiwanis international which helps children all over the word and in our community, I help a Methodist preacher who deals with recovering acholics, I help with the elderly, I do hospital visits, I teach 6th grade Sunday school, I work with the youth, I feed the hungry. See I do a lot if charitable things thank you. Now what about you?

If its a worthless waist of time then why do you respond to it? Aren’t you feeding into the worthless waist of time?

 

[Lapey]

Hi I’m fine how are you?
I want to thank you for your honesty in this. That is all I was looking for. Honesty.

I am good, thanks! Glad to hear you are as well.

 

[rev_kevin]

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.

I’m not saying to change your dogmas, but I see that there are going to be more added. Faith is fine and I’m all for it. But what makes you so sure that the teachings are correct? Just because something has been taught for over 1500 years don’t mean its correct. There are a lot of things that were taught for years and then found to be incorrect. Now I beleive the church is Christ not a single named church but Christ himself. All churches today are man made. Christ is the one and only true chruch founded by Christ himself. The word Catholic is a man made name, before that there was no name except Christianity.

 

[rev_kevin]

Rev-

Here’s the problem…let’s say that you think it doesn’t matter one way or the other. Fine. Live and let live. But that’s not what really happens…

You know from being around these threads for awhile that SOME non-Catholics are not content to live and let live. They want to PROVE that Mary was a sinner, that she had other kids, etc. in order to undermine dogmas of the Catholic Church.

They do this because they want to prove that Catholicism is wrong, that the Church is not infallible, and that we should leave the Catholic Church and become (insert denomination here).

So, we end up talking about Mary a lot…not because WE bring it up but because y’all do.

See my point?

I can’t speak for all but for me I don’t or am not trying to change your or anyone eles to a { denomination}

As for me, if Mary had other children it would not change my feelings, outlook or anything about her. Why should it? I’m looking for honest answers to honest questions.

Now we want to prove that Mary was a sinner you say. Now having sex and children is a sin. How is it a sin and why would Mary be a sinner for it? I don’t think I’m trying to undermine the dogmas of the Catholic church, but I can’t speak for the rest, I question it and put in my opinion about it.

I don’t believe the church is infallible.

Ltes see the person who started this post “Did Mary have other children” is Catholic so your statement in incorrect.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I can’t speak for all but for me I don’t or am not trying to change your or anyone eles to a { denomination}

As for me, if Mary had other children it would not change my feelings, outlook or anything about her. Why should it? From your perspective on Mary, it wouldn’t change your feelings because you do not have a correct understanding of her. I’m looking for honest answers to honest questions. Please do feel free to tell me (since you asked me specifically a few times and seemed ‘dissatisfied’ with my answers) just exactly how I was ‘dishonest’. I’d like to know. Or perhaps you felt that my honest answer to you, because I was honest enough to explain to you WHY the questions were moot since the teaching I follow is true and your questions were designed to paint my belief as FALSE, was ‘dishonest’ because I wouldn’t play the game of 'let’s pretend?"

Now we want to prove that Mary was a sinner you say. Now having sex and children is a sin. Having sex and children IS a sin for unmarried people. Mary was married, true. However. . .when did God stop being the father of Jesus? Under what circumstances is it permitted for a woman to have legitimate children by two different fathers? If God is the father of Jesus (and He is), then either God is no different from the Roman/Greek gods who ‘used’ the wives of human beings in order to impregnate them with ‘demi gods’, and who thus commit adultery. . .or God has some kind of relationship with Mary which supersedes any kind of sexual relationship she can have with another --either He has a truly ‘spousal’ relationship with her, or He took a betrothed woman --legally under the law in a committed relationship with Joseph, and cuckolded Joseph. How is it a sin and why would Mary be a sinner for it? I don’t think I’m trying to undermine the dogmas of the Catholic church, but I can’t speak for the rest, I question it and put in my opinion about it.

I don’t believe the church is infallible.

Ltes see the person who started this post “Did Mary have other children” is Catholic so your statement in incorrect.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I can’t speak for all but for me I don’t or am not trying to change your or anyone eles to a { denomination}

As for me, if Mary had other children it would not change my feelings, outlook or anything about her. Why should it? I’m looking for honest answers to honest questions.

Now we want to prove that Mary was a sinner you say. Now having sex and children is a sin. How is it a sin and why would Mary be a sinner for it? I don’t think I’m trying to undermine the dogmas of the Catholic church, but I can’t speak for the rest, I question it and put in my opinion about it.

I don’t believe the church is infallible.

Ltes see the person who started this post “Did Mary have other children” is Catholic so your statement in incorrect.

rev First of ally you are undermine the dogmas of the Catholic church, and why do uu say you believe on your opinion you know what they say about opinions

 

[AJTheMan]

Pretty good up until the part about the Reformers. Here’s what they actually said:

Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity.”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin (1509-1564)

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley (1703-1791)

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as shebrought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

Who would have guessed? My error, then.

That’s the catch with Protestantism, though. It’s not monolithic. Some Protestants follow the traditions of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin…yet others follow newer, more modern reformer speakers. This rise in belief that Mary’s virginity was not perpetual is quite unorthodox, Catholic and Protestant alike. I wonder which Protestant leaders formed these ideas…ideas that even reformers like Luther disagreed with. Then again, from my experience, Protestant churches are not as reliant on the beliefs of early church fathers. (Early church fathers meaning the Protestant reformers, not the saints of the ancient churches)

 

[Bill_Pick]

Who would have guessed? My error, then.

That’s the catch with Protestantism, though. It’s not monolithic. Some Protestants follow the traditions of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin…yet others follow newer, more modern reformer speakers. This rise in belief that Mary’s virginity was not perpetual is quite unorthodox, Catholic and Protestant alike. I wonder which Protestant leaders formed these ideas…ideas that even reformers like Luther disagreed with. Then again, from my experience, Protestant churches are not as reliant on the beliefs of early church fathers. (Early church fathers meaning the Protestant reformers, not the saints of the ancient churches)

And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace, and of prayers: and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn.

 

[Bran_Stark]

I don’t know.

As I see it the plain text of Scripture, and plain common sense, seem to indicate the Virgin Mary gave birth to other children. That’s what I was taught in UCC Sunday School. However as the ancient and consistent tradition of the Church has been otherwise, I’m somewhat inclined to accept her perpetual continency.

 

[jericho777]

Wow. Talk about a target-rich post…where to begin?

How about this?

1 Peter 5:1 – Peter a “fellow elder”

Many non-Catholics try to minimize the authority of the Catholic Papacy by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?

However, could it be possible that the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?

1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

Peter’s desire was that some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that he of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Would this have inspired them to practice humility, also?

Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Peter was first among the Apostles, and he viewed himself as the servant of all - a “fellow elder” - just as Jesus had taught him to do. Peter’s unwillingness to trumpet his own importance is evidence that he truly was “first” among the Twelve.

Randy
Why is it not more probable the text means what it says. Peter was just an apostle like the rest. 1Peter 2:4-5 is in fact a direct parallel to Mat 16:18 im surprised you didn’t pick up on that it expands the point that we all are built on Christ the living stone and we are living stones built into a spiritual house.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Randy
Why is it not more probable the text means what it says. Peter was just an apostle like the rest. 1Peter 2:4-5 is in fact a direct parallel to Mat 16:18 im surprised you didn’t pick up on that it expands the point that we all are built on Christ the living stone and we are living stones built into a spiritual house.

What Scripture cathloic has to say from the Bible.

Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, “he who hears you, hears Me.” When we hear the bishops’ teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

Num 16:28 - the Father’s authority is transferred to Moses. Moses does not speak on his own. This is a real transfer of authority.

John 5:30 - similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.

John 7:16-17 - Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.

John 8:28 - Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.

John 12:49 - The father’s authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority.

John 13:20 - Jesus says, “he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me.” He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.

John 14:10 - Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.

John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated.

John 17:18; 20:21 - as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. The apostles have divinely appointed authority.

Acts 20:28 - the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit / 1 Peter 2:25 - Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian. The apostles, by the power of the Spirit, share Christ’s ministry and authority.

Jer. 23:1-8; Ezek. 34:1-10 - the shepherds must shepherd the sheep, or they will be held accountable by God.

Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word “foundation” proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession.

Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:9,14 - the words “household,” “Bride of the Lamb,” the “new Jerusalem” are all metaphors for the Church whose foundation is the apostles.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I did where am I wrong. Please point it out.

Sure thing.

What TEPO actually said was:

Originally Posted by TEPO

%between%
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.

In other words, denying this about Mary does not serve God; it is a self-serving position. TEPO makes not claim about whether someone is serving God OVERALL. He simply points out that denying this one doctrine does not advance the cause of Christianity.

However, you read WAY more into his post as shown here:

Originally Posted by rev kevin

%between%
Excuse me!
Anyone who denies this does so not to serve the Lord.
**
See the difference? TEPO didn’t say you’re not serving the Lord OVERALL; he simply stated that denying the Marian doctrines do not serve the Lord.

You could be serving God just fine in other ways.

 

[Bill_Pick]

What Martien Luther and Cathloic bridge has to say about Mary
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers,

 

[TEPO]

Why not do something more charitable you ask. Lets see. I serve on the board of trustees to help the homeless families, I’m a member of Kiwanis international which helps children all over the word and in our community, I help a Methodist preacher who deals with recovering acholics, I help with the elderly, I do hospital visits, I teach 6th grade Sunday school, I work with the youth, I feed the hungry. See I do a lot if charitable things thank you. Now what about you?

First of all, I never asked you which charitable things you do… That is between you and the Lord above. One should never boast like the pharisees who “wore their good deeds on their shoulders for all to see”.

Since you asked however, I’ve been homeless since 2008, and my wife and I lived out of a tent for most of 2009… My children have suffered greatly and I am now in recovery mode… I openly admit that It is all due to my own faults and failures…
Today however, I work for the Lord Full-Time. since you asked.

If its a worthless waist of time then why do you respond to it? Aren’t you feeding into the worthless waist of time?

No. I’m protecting the Church from those who wish to destroy her. It’s my duty to spread God’s truth, as well as to correct those who attempt to spread lies.

 

[Dokimas]

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.

Good to see you agree that the verse could mean Joseph and Mary could have consumated their marriage. You’re the first to admit it. Thank you. Here are more verses with the construction you were speaking about.​

Mt 1:25 and did not know her till <2193> <3739> she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.
Mt 14:22 Immediately Jesus made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, while <2193> <3739> He sent the multitudes away.
Mt 17:9 Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until <2193> <3739> the Son of Man is risen from the dead.”
Mt 18:30 "And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till <2193> <3739> he should pay the debt.
Mt 18:34 "And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until <2193> <3739> he should pay all that was due to him.
Mt 26:36 Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, “Sit here while <2193> <3739> I go and pray over there.”
Lu 12:50 "But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till <2193> <3739> it is accomplished!
Lu 12:59 “I tell you, you shall not depart from there till <2193> <3739> you have paid the very last mite.”
Lu 13:21 “It is like leaven, which <3739> a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till <2193> <3739> it was all leavened.”
Lu 24:49 “Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until <2193> you <3739> are endued with power from on high.”
Joh 13:38 Jesus answered him, "Will you lay down your life for My sake? Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till < 2193> <3739> you have denied Me three times.
Ac 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time <2193> <3739> an offering should be made for each one of them.
Ac 23:12 And when it was day, some of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till <2193> <3739> they had killed Paul.
Ac 23:14 They came to the chief priests and elders, and said, "We have bound ourselves under a great oath that we will eat nothing until <2193> <3739> we have killed Paul.
Ac 23:21 “But do not yield to them, for more than forty of them lie in wait for him, men who have bound themselves by an oath that they will neither eat nor drink till <2193> <3739> they have killed him; and now they are ready, waiting for the promise from you.”
Ac 25:21 “But when Paul appealed to be reserved for the decision of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till <2193> <3739> I could send him to Caesar.”
2Pe 1:19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until < 2193> <3739> the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;

 

[TEPO]

I’m not saying to change your dogmas, but I see that there are going to be more added. Faith is fine and I’m all for it. But what makes you so sure that the teachings are correct? Just because something has been taught for over 1500 years don’t mean its correct. There are a lot of things that were taught for years and then found to be incorrect.

faith.