Did Mother Mary have other children?

[rev_kevin]

You are asking us to prove a negative? Try proving that she did.

Not morally, no. However, the belief that she had other children is wrong since there is no biblical or historical evidence that she did.

No, but this doesn’t give anyone the right to play loosey-goosey with the facts. Would it change who Jesus is if he were married to Mary Magdalene? Or are you okay with the DaVinci Code?

No. You repeat the errors you were taught honestly. There is no culpability in this. At the same time, you have heard the truth in this forum, and you now have the responsibility before God to learn the truth. In other words, now that you know that there is some question on this matter, you are obligated to form your conscience and your understanding properly. The burden on you is greater now that it was when you were completely ignorant.

Can’t or won’t back up your belief about her not having other children, why?

If I give you the scripture you will just say they are his cousins not brothers or sisters.
And it would be wrong on your part because of the same reason you gave me.

Didn’t say anything about Jesus being married or the DaVinci code. Stick to the Mary part please.

How can we repeat errors when you won’t even back up your assertions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s like asking catholics if you accept Calvin, Wesley, Zwinli and Luther about Mary, why don’t you accept their other teachings. It’s not a good point.

Actually, I think it has some value.

The earliest Reformers were unquestionably opposed to much that was taught by the Catholic Church, but they did not reject what they perceived to be truth.

Only in more recent years have their followers wandered away from the teaching handed down to them by these men.

It’s a disturbing pattern that we see particularly flagrant in the ordinations of women and actively homosexual bishops in the Anglican/Episcopal wing of Protestantism in recent years. The approval of contraception by all Protestants beginning in 1930 would be another example of reversal of doctrine.

 

[Randy_Carson]

According to the Perpetual Virginity the second of the 5 dogmas of Mary

There are only four Marian dogmas.

1. Mother of God
2. Perpetual Virginity
3. Immaculate Conception
4. Assumption.

Nothing fallible here.

 

[rev_kevin]

And we do this because this is what the text actually means when you evaluate the Aramaic, the Greek and the context, etc.

Prove to me that Jesus wasn’t married secretly to Mary Magdalene.

Jesus would be “different” if he had siblings in the same way he would have been “different” if he had been born in China instead of in Jerusalem. His life experiences and his knowledge would be different, but not his divine nature. I’m sure that Tantum Ergo and I would agree on this.

Every day in every thread. He who has ears…

Please stick to the subject and not try to back up your none proof with wanting me to prove that Jesus wasn’t married secretly to Mary Magdalene.

Now the NT was written in Hebrew and there is a word for brother there if I not mistaken.

We are not talking about being born in China. was actually talking about his divine nature.

 

[rev_kevin]

There are only four Marian dogmas.

1. Mother of God
2. Perpetual Virginity
3. Immaculate Conception
4. Assumption.

Nothing fallible here.

1. Mother of the church

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can’t or won’t back up your belief about her not having other children, why?

Rhetorical bluster. It is a simple debating trick to demand that one’s opponent prove a negative.

If I give you the scripture you will just say they are his cousins not brothers or sisters. And it would be wrong on your part because of the same reason you gave me.

How so? I can demonstrate that EVERY passage you will quote has a plausible explanation which means that you have no proof - only speculation.

If a district attorney cannot PROVE that someone was at the scene of the crime, then the jury must acquit due to reasonable doubt.

You claim that Mary had other children and you offer your evidence. I can explain alternative meanings for these passages that are actually stronger than your interpretations when taken together. Thus, the charge that Mary had other children fails due to lack of evidence. Case closed.

Didn’t say anything about Jesus being married or the DaVinci code. Stick to the Mary part please.

It’s a parallel. You can’t prove Jesus wasn’t married because you can’t prove a negative. See how difficult that is?

How can we repeat errors when you won’t even back up your assertions.

You’re repeating errors handed down from those from whom you learned them (not us). If you really are a pastor, then your congregation is learning them from you.

For example, the Church dealt with a heresy known as Nestorianism in the fifth century by defining the doctrine of Mary as Mother of God. Today, however, Protestant leaders have forgotten their history and pay little attention to the more difficult theology. Consequently, many Protestants reject the idea that Mary is rightly called the Mother of God, and they are open to the same heresy that Nestorius taught.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Mother of the church

Not a dogma.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please stick to the subject and not try to back up your none proof with wanting me to prove that Jesus wasn’t married secretly to Mary Magdalene.

I don’t expect you to. You can’t. This analogy proves my point about proving negatives. So, don’t try a cheap trick by insisting that I prove a negative.

Now the NT was written in Hebrew and there is a word for brother there if I not mistaken.

Greek, actually.

We are not talking about being born in China. was actually talking about his divine nature.

And I agree with you on this.

 

[rev_kevin]

Rhetorical bluster. It is a simple debating trick to demand that one’s opponent prove a negative.

How so? I can demonstrate that EVERY passage you will quote has a plausible explanation which means that you have no proof - only speculation.

If a district attorney cannot PROVE that someone was at the scene of the crime, then the jury must acquit due to reasonable doubt.

You claim that Mary had other children and you offer your evidence. I can explain alternative meanings for these passages that are actually stronger than your interpretations when taken together. Thus, the charge that Mary had other children fails due to lack of evidence. Case closed.

It’s a parallel. You can’t prove Jesus wasn’t married because you can’t prove a negative. See how difficult that is?

You’re repeating errors handed down from those from whom you learned them (not us). If you really are a pastor, then your congregation is learning them from you.

For example, the Church dealt with a heresy known as Nestorianism in the fifth century by defining the doctrine of Mary as Mother of God. Today, however, Protestant leaders have forgotten their history and pay little attention to the more difficult theology. Consequently, many Protestants reject the idea that Mary is rightly called the Mother of God, and they are open to the same heresy that Nestorius taught.

Plausible goes for your side also no proof only speculation. At least I can give you something you can’t.

And you can’t prove she didn’t. Aquit due to reasonable doubt.

Case not closed you know the passages and have not provided me with evidence that she didn’t have other children.

 

[rev_kevin]

Not a dogma.

Thats what I get when I google dogma of Mary.

 

[Good_Fella]

That’s like asking catholics if you accept Calvin, Wesley, Zwinli and Luther about Mary, why don’t you accept their other teachings. It’s not a good point.

We don’t accept any of their teachings that contravene Sacred Tradition and the faith of our Fathers. Anyway, it isn’t a matter for us of accepting the teachings of the so-called reformers at all, since they have never taught us Catholics and aren’t our teachers. These men were separated from the one unviersal and visible church established by Christ on Peter and the foundation of the Apostles. They had no apostolic authority and divine mandate to preach the gospel, and so they had no seal of guarantee from the Holy Spirit that would protect them from deviating from the divine truth in their teaching. It would be more accurate to say that the reformers accepted some Catholic doctrines while rejecting others.

PAX :heaven:

 

[rev_kevin]

I don’t expect you to. You can’t. This analogy proves my point about proving negatives. So, don’t try a cheap trick by insisting that I prove a negative.

Greek, actually.

And I agree with you on this.

I looked it up it was Hebrew.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Can you show us where it states that Mary didn’t have other children?

Show me where it says she conceived in her womb and bore any other child besides the Lord Jesus. We know where Scripture says “brothers and sisters” but not one of them is mentioned as being born of Mary or mentioned later as a child of Mary’s. There is the possibility that they were cousins, there is also the possibility that Joseph was a widower and these “brothers and sisters” were his children from his first wife. Notice we don’t read anything in Scripture about Joseph after they find Jesus in the temple when He was 12 years old?

I totally know where you’re coming from - I was on your side of this debate not too awfully long ago. If you’re a reader, I recommend Scott Hahn’s Hail, Holy Queen. If you’re more of an auditory learner, there’s a website called the Bible Christian Society that has free MP3s that you can download, one of which is all about Mary & the Bible. Either one would show you from Scripture why Catholics believe what we do about the Blessed Mother.

If she had other children would that be wrong?

It would have been very wrong of Jesus to give His mother to a disciple if she had another son to care for her. What a smack in the face to his alleged half-siblings!

Would it change who Jesus is if he had siblings?

It’s entirely possible that He had siblings, just not from the same mother!

So if we don’t see things the way the CC sees it we are liars?

I wouldn’t say that. I would suggest that you give the Catholic distinctives, like our views on Mary and the Sacraments, a fair and honest look, with prayer to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Don’t just reject Catholic teachings because they’re so different from what you have been taught before. I was guilty of that for a long time. God had to knock me over with a Holy 2x4 to get my attention. I was seeking His will, searching for a new church home, but I kept saying, “I’ll NEVER be Catholic…” Not saying you WILL end up Catholic, but if you can at least disagree with what we really believe and teach instead of the misconceptions and blatant lies told about Catholics in many a Baptist Church, I’m happy.

 

[rev_kevin]

Show me where it says she conceived in her womb and bore any other child besides the Lord Jesus. We know where Scripture says “brothers and sisters” but not one of them is mentioned as being born of Mary or mentioned later as a child of Mary’s. There is the possibility that they were cousins, there is also the possibility that Joseph was a widower and these “brothers and sisters” were his children from his first wife. Notice we don’t read anything in Scripture about Joseph after they find Jesus in the temple when He was 12 years old?

I totally know where you’re coming from - I was on your side of this debate not too awfully long ago. If you’re a reader, I recommend Scott Hahn’s Hail, Holy Queen. If you’re more of an auditory learner, there’s a website called the Bible Christian Society that has free MP3s that you can download, one of which is all about Mary & the Bible. Either one would show you from Scripture why Catholics believe what we do about the Blessed Mother.

It would have been very wrong of Jesus to give His mother to a disciple if she had another son to care for her. What a smack in the face to his alleged half-siblings!
It’s entirely possible that He had siblings, just not from the same mother!
I wouldn’t say that. I would suggest that you give the Catholic distinctives, like our views on Mary and the Sacraments, a fair and honest look, with prayer to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Don’t just reject Catholic teachings because they’re so different from what you have been taught before. I was guilty of that for a long time. God had to knock me over with a Holy 2x4 to get my attention. I was seeking His will, searching for a new church home, but I kept saying, “I’ll NEVER be Catholic…” Not saying you WILL end up Catholic, but if you can at least disagree with what we really believe and teach instead of the misconceptions and blatant lies told about Catholics in many a Baptist Church, I’m happy.

And we see nothing from birth to 12 or from 12 to 33. Where does it say Joseph had a first wife, that is pure speculation and nothing more.
Is this not the carpenters son His mother Mary and his brothers and sisters.
If you read is says that this brothers and sisters did not approve of what he was doing. Maybe not in those exact words.

I was Catholic from birth so the Catholic way is what I was taught.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Now, Bill, please stop being silly.

DoKmas Why I,m being silly because you can not answer the question,when in facr you just keeo saying you do not understamd the CC taching and keep trying to get me to understand what you are saying. If I said to you Jesus is God you will tell me i,m wrong

 

[rev_kevin]

There are only four Marian dogmas.

1. Mother of God
2. Perpetual Virginity
3. Immaculate Conception
4. Assumption.

Nothing fallible here.

I noticed you only addressed the part about the 5 dogmas of Mary and not the rest why?

 

[TEPO]

And we see nothing from birth to 12 or from 12 to 33. Where does it say Joseph had a first wife, that is pure speculation and nothing more.
Is this not the carpenters son His mother Mary and his brothers and sisters.
If you read is says that this brothers and sisters did not approve of what he was doing. Maybe not in those exact words.

I was Catholic from birth so the Catholic way is what I was taught.

Rev, you skipped the important part… Where in the bible does it say that MARY had other children ? We know about Jesus’ brothers and sisters, but where does the bilbe say MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN ?

 

[MartinJordan]

As far as I’m concerned, Mother Mary had no other children because Jesus mentions the word “Mother” about his Mother only at the time of his death as opposed to “woman”. Then subsequently allows his loved Disciple to care for her. His Disciple you can say was his brother in faith thus allowing St. John be with her.

 

[Good_Fella]

Rhetorical bluster. It is a simple debating trick to demand that one’s opponent prove a negative.

How so? I can demonstrate that EVERY passage you will quote has a plausible explanation which means that you have no proof - only speculation.

If a district attorney cannot PROVE that someone was at the scene of the crime, then the jury must acquit due to reasonable doubt.

You claim that Mary had other children and you offer your evidence. I can explain alternative meanings for these passages that are actually stronger than your interpretations when taken together. Thus, the charge that Mary had other children fails due to lack of evidence. Case closed.

It’s a parallel. You can’t prove Jesus wasn’t married because you can’t prove a negative. See how difficult that is?

You’re repeating errors handed down from those from whom you learned them (not us). If you really are a pastor, then your congregation is learning them from you.

For example, the Church dealt with a heresy known as Nestorianism in the fifth century by defining the doctrine of Mary as Mother of God. Today, however, Protestant leaders have forgotten their history and pay little attention to the more difficult theology. Consequently, many Protestants reject the idea that Mary is rightly called the Mother of God, and they are open to the same heresy that Nestorius taught.

Well expressed.

Protestants who reject our Marian dogmas claim that the burden of proof lies with us to support them with convincing evidence. But nothing we present will satisfy them insofar they reject Sacred Tradition as belonging to the deposit of faith and subscribe to sola scriptura. Scripture is materially sufficient but formally insuffucient, so it’s next to impossible for one to grasp the fulness of divine truth by consulting the Scriptures alone, especially when the written word is read in a purely literal sense. I see the wisdom of our Lord establishing one universal and visible Church on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles. Jesus could have just written the New Testament by himself with no co-authors and have his disciples disrtibute copies to the masses for individuals to decipher by themselves without appointed shepherds to guide them with the seal of guarantee from the promised Holy Spirit. This is what happened in the 16th century beginning with Martin Luther who appointed Scripture to serve as the final arbiter of truth, although he mistakenly believed that the masses would accept the written word in agreement with his interpretations and teachings before the other so-called reformers entered the stage. The logical consequence of the Protestant Reformation is the non-denominational and bible-only traditions in Christendom in which individuals set themselves up as a churches unto themselves.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Dokimas]

DoKmas Why I,m being silly because you can not answer the question,when in facr you just keeo saying you do not understamd the CC taching and keep trying to get me to understand what you are saying. If I said to you Jesus is God you will tell me i,m wrong

Okay, Bill, have it your way. Oh yes, BTW, you are correct, Jesus is God and I’ll show you from the Bible why I believe so.