Did Mother Mary have other children?

[Dokimas]

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.

If Mary is the mother of God and the mother of us all, what’s the big deal that she mothered a few sons and daughters?​

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

Plausable to you because you start with the presupposition of Mary not having children. You can find just about anything in the Bible if you want to find it there. I don’t care whether Mary had children or not. It doesn’t change anything important that I believe one way or another. Look how much of what you believe would have to change if Mary had children.​

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

Come on. This is very different than proving God doesn’t exist. If we take anyone who has no Christian background and show them the NT only and ask them to come to a conclusion whether Mary had any more children, what do you think the outcome would be? Be honest with yourself.​

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

We have historical record, written from the 1st century by eye witnesses and every indication is that Jesus never married. Now do we believe it or not. The historical part is not difficult. For many the believe part 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.

Actually, for me, I can’t remember ever reading any protestant writers on the issue until I had formed my own opinion. I read for myself. For instance, you guys tell us that the word ‘brothers’ really might mean relative or cousin. Okay, I think, so let’s look more closely. I find the Greek word then trace it though the NT. I find that when the word is used of a large group it usually means in a spiritual sense. When it is used of a very few (2, 3, + -) it most probably means direct brother as in James and John, Andrew and Simon.​

I had know idea the protestant verse for marrial relations between Mary and Joseph was in Matthew 1:25. I found the verse myself as I was thinking about your views and studying for myself.​

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

Are you sure about that?​

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.

If we took your arguments and our arguments to court, I wonder what an (name removed by moderator)artial jury would say.

 

[Dokimas]

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.

You say telling me that the early reformers believed your dogmas about Mary has some value. Well, not fo convince me. I start with the presupposition that NO ONE understands correcly all the correct truth except God. Those reformers fall into the category of ALL very nicely. I don’t take what they believe as truth without investagating for myself.​

The early reformers believed that some of the CC teachings were true Biblically and much was Biblical. So what’s you point in paragraph 2?​

I most recent years, as you put it, the Bible has been accessible to the masses so it wasn’t as easy to build dogmas on non-Biblical teachings. The masses could read and study and think for themselves.​

Churches allow things like homosexuality and ordaining such not because they leave the cover of the CC but because they compromise the Bible Itself. They stop trusting the Bible and the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t take the CC to tell me that homosexuality (and all sex outside the marriage between one woman and one man) is sin; the Bible clearly teaches that. The Bible clearly teaches that church leaders should be men (there is a place for women leading women and children) but only men should lead men and whole congregations.

 

[jericho777]

Acts 1:12-15 apostles,Mary…some woman and Jesus"brother"number about 120 thats a lot of brothers
Lot,Abrahams nephew (Gen 11’26-28 described as Abrahams brother KJB
Gen 29;15 Laban,Jacobs,Calls Jacob his brother KJB
It does not look that Mary had other children

Bill I have alreay answered those questions in an earlier post.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

If you wish to give the appearance of “winning” this debate by using a cheap debating trick, then so be it, but your insistence that I prove a negative simply diminishes your credibility in the eyes of those who are following this thread.

That said, I will attempt to provide an overview of the case for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary again (much of this has been stated previously).

Four Positive Proofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Proof #1 - The Vow of Perpetual Virginity

At the annunciation, the angel said that she would conceive and bear a son, she asked, “How can this be, since I do not know man?” Mary knew how babies were made, and she was about to be married. “How can this be?” would seem like a pretty silly question unless she had made a prior vow of virginity.

So, Why is she betrothed to Joseph if she made a vow of virginity?

Consecrated virginity was not common among first century Jews, but it did exist. According to some early Christian documents, such as the Protoevangelium of James (written around A.D. 120), Mary was a consecrated virgin. As such, when she reached puberty, her monthly cycle would render her ceremonially unclean and thus unable to dwell in the temple without defiling it under the Mosaic Law. At this time, she would be entrusted to a male guardian. However, since it was forbidden for a man to live with a woman he was not married or related to, the virgin would be wed to the guardian, and they would have no marital relations. Joseph agreed to marry Mary as her guardian - not as her husband - because he was much older and a widower. See Proof #3 below.

Proof #2 - The Absence of Younger Siblings in Childhood Scenes

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Proof #3 - The Presence of Older Siblings by Joseph’s First Marriage

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Proof #4 - Jesus Entrusts Mary to John

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

 

[jericho777]

If Mary had kids, Jesus would not have had to make arrangements to take care of her as He was dying.

There was no distinction in the Hebrew between the word brother and uncle/cousin/fifth cousin thrice removed.

I am sure this has been said a thousand times already. But excuse me, I do not feel like reading 30 pages of liars trying to shield themselves from the Truth.

Jesus was the eldest son and had the authority and responsibility to care for his mother. His brothers had abandoned him at the cross so he gave her care to his apostle John.

Now if Jesus supposedly had all these relatives present all the time like everyone here claims (uncles and cousins) where they? They should be the ones responsible for the care of Mary not John. Why were they not the ones assigned to that responsibility?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You say telling me that the early reformers believed your dogmas about Mary has some value. Well, not fo convince me. I start with the presupposition that NO ONE understands correcly all the correct truth except God. Those reformers fall into the category of ALL very nicely. I don’t take what they believe as truth without investagating for myself.

This makes you the final authority because you choose what you will believe and what you will reject. This is why Catholics often note that Protestants ultimately become “Pope of a church of one”.

The early reformers believed that some of the CC teachings were true Biblically and much was Biblical. So what’s you point in paragraph 2?

The point is that the Reformers retained their beliefs in things that they felt were true. Since the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was accepted by them, obviously they were on board with it as a revealed truth.

I most recent years, as you put it, the Bible has been accessible to the masses so it wasn’t as easy to build dogmas on non-Biblical teachings. The masses could read and study and think for themselves.

Unfortunately, this has not worked out so well, has it? “Thinking for [yourselves]” has resulted in fragmentation and denominationalism that is anything BUT the one Church that Jesus promised to build. The plain fact of the matter is that not everyone is qualified to pick up the Bible and interpret it accurately.

Churches allow things like homosexuality and ordaining such not because they leave the cover of the CC but because they compromise the Bible Itself. They stop trusting the Bible and the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t take the CC to tell me that homosexuality (and all sex outside the marriage between one woman and one man) is sin; the Bible clearly teaches that. The Bible clearly teaches that church leaders should be men (there is a place for women leading women and children) but only men should lead men and whole congregations.

But this is the fruit of the point you made previously when you wrote: “the Bible has been accessible to the masses so it wasn’t as easy to build dogmas on non-Biblical teachings. The masses could read and study and think for themselves.”

These churches are “thinking for themselves” alright. Like what you see?

 

[Good_Fella]

If Mary is the mother of God and the mother of us all, what’s the big deal that she mothered a few sons and daughters?

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.”
Genesis 3, 15

Mary is predestined to be the spiritual mother of humankind, the new Eve, who is to replace our universal biological mother, Eve, in the redemption. Since God has put enmity between Satan and the woman, and between his seed and her seed, Mary couldn’t have conceived children tainted with the stain of original sin by the seed of a man. Mary’s only offspring is of her own seed, not that of a man. Eve is our biological mother, so by her we inherit the stain of original sin (concupiscence) through the seed of a man of Adam’s posterity.

As the new Eve and the personification of Daughter Zion (Israel) and the new Zion (the Church), Mary is invoked as Woman by her Son as she stands at the foot of the cross together with the disciple whom Jesus loved (Jn 19, 26-27; cf. Rev 12). As Daughter Zion, Mary is the virgin bride of God and spouse of the Holy Spirit, whose offspring she conceived and bore: He shall be called Jesus, the Son of God.

No more shall people call you “Forsaken,”
or your land, “Desolate”

“Fear not Mary, for you have found favour with God.”]

but you shall be called, “My Delight,”
and your land, “Espoused”.

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”]

For the Lord delights in you
and makes your land his spouse.

“He has looked upon the lowliness of his handmaid.”]

As a young man marries a virgin,
your Builder shall marry you;

“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”]

and as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride
so shall your God rejoice in you."

“The Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”]

Isaiah 62, 4-5

If we take anyone who has no Christian background and show them the NT only and ask them to come to a conclusion whether Mary had any more children, what do you think the outcome would be? Be honest with yourself.

Mary had no intention of consummating her marriage with Joseph before the angel Gabriel appeared to her. If she had planned to consummate her marriage, then God would not have chosen her from all eternity to be the mother of his Only-begotten Son. And Joseph agreed to have a celibate marriage, which was extremely rare in Jewish society. But after Joseph had his dream by the visitation of an angel (Mt 1: 20-23) and discovered for himself whose child Mary had conceived, he fully understood as a devout Jew faithful to the teachings in the Torah that his betrothed could no longer be his bride from a moral perspective. She now belonged to God as his possession: The power of the Most High will overshadow you. Legally the two would fulfill their contract, but soley for raising the child Jesus. Joseph now knew together with Mary the ultimate purpose of her vow of chastity which was unknown to them both until now. Divine providence became clear to them: Mary was to be the mother of our Lord, and Joseph his spiritual guardian. If Mary had not been the virgin bride of God and spouse of the Holy Spirit in accord with the spirit of Mosaic Law, then Jesus would have been an illegitimate child, a son born out of wedlock. For he was not Joseph’s son. This would be the ignoble outcome.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Pixie_Dust]

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.

No more or less speculative than talking about her alleged other children. Where does it say that everything needs to be written down in Scripture in order to be true? Newsflash - Scripture says exactly the opposite! They couldn’t possibly write everything down, so they relied on oral tradition to impart wisdom and knowledge.

Is this not the carpenters son His mother Mary and his brothers and sisters.

Oh, so Jesus is Joseph’s son and was not conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit? That’s what you get from that verse if we’re going to take it ALL literally.

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’m quite familiar with the passage. I used to be Baptist, y’know. Would YOUNGER siblings’ approval have had any impact on anyone in that culture? This actually supports the idea that they were older, which obviously means they weren’t Mary’s natural children.

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

Seems you missed out on some theology lessons - you should know why the Church doesn’t believe Mary had other children, if you were truly paying attention in catechism class! It just baffles me that anyone who truly knows the Catholic faith would ever, EVER walk away from Jesus in the Eucharist.

Do me a favor, and please don’t tell me or anyone else"I used to be Catholic, then I got SAVED!"

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Pure speculation? As in “pure myth”…“pure fabrication”?

The earliest believers knew the Apostles and talked with them about things that never made it into the pages of scripture. That doesn’t make them any less true.

Jerome on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.”

This quote is taken from chapter 19 of St. Jerome’s work, “Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary—a work written in A.D. 383 in response to the teaching of Helvidius who denied that Mary had remained a virgin throughout her life.

**In this passage, Jerome states that Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 107), Polycarp of Smyrna (d. AD 155), Justin Martyr (d. AD 165) and Irenaeus of Lyons (d. AD 202) all held that Mary was ever-virgin. It is especially important to note that both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostles Peter and John—a fact which ties this discussion directly to the original Twelve Apostles of Jesus.

Although the works of these men with which Jerome was evidently familiar do not survive to this day, the fact that Jerome cites them in his refutation of Helvidius provides evidence that belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary existed from the earliest days of the Church.
**
It is interesting to note that Helvidius never responded to Jerome’s refutation.

 

[rev_kevin]

No more or less speculative than talking about her alleged other children. Where does it say that everything needs to be written down in Scripture in order to be true? Newsflash - Scripture says exactly the opposite! They couldn’t possibly write everything down, so they relied on oral tradition to impart wisdom and knowledge.

Oh, so Jesus is Joseph’s son and was not conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit? That’s what you get from that verse if we’re going to take it ALL literally.

I’m quite familiar with the passage. I used to be Baptist, y’know. Would YOUNGER siblings’ approval have had any impact on anyone in that culture? This actually supports the idea that they were older, which obviously means they weren’t Mary’s natural children.
Seems you missed out on some theology lessons - you should know why the Church doesn’t believe Mary had other children, if you were truly paying attention in catechism class! It just baffles me that anyone who truly knows the Catholic faith would ever, EVER walk away from Jesus in the Eucharist.

Do me a favor, and please don’t tell me or anyone else"I used to be Catholic, then I got SAVED!"

You can’t show me can you?

How many people do you think knew that Jesus came from God? I say very few. So it would stand to reason that they would think Joseph was his father. Remember they did not know Jesus the way we do today. :doh2:

A family would have a impact even if they were younger and besides I never said they were older.

Here you contradict your self, You say that Scripture says exactly the opposite then you say not everything is written down. So if its in Scripture show me.

I remember my classes but I disagree with them.

Let me :bowdown: to you becaus you don’ want me to tell anyone.
I’ll tell everyone that I was Catholic then was saved, if it bothers you, you need to get over it. And besides don’t tell me what I can or can not say, I’m proud of the fact besides who do you think you are telling me that?

Hay everybody I WAS CATHOLIC THEN WAS SAVED.
Hay everyone I WAS CATHOLIC THEN WAS SAVED.
I WAS CATHOLIC THEN WAS SAVED. :extrahappy: kpeople:

 

[rev_kevin]

If you wish to give the appearance of “winning” this debate by using a cheap debating trick, then so be it, but your insistence that I prove a negative simply diminishes your credibility in the eyes of those who are following this thread.

That said, I will attempt to provide an overview of the case for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary again (much of this has been stated previously).

Four Positive Proofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Proof #1 - The Vow of Perpetual Virginity

At the annunciation, the angel said that she would conceive and bear a son, she asked, “How can this be, since I do not know man?” Mary knew how babies were made, and she was about to be married. “How can this be?” would seem like a pretty silly question unless she had made a prior vow of virginity.

So, Why is she betrothed to Joseph if she made a vow of virginity?

Consecrated virginity was not common among first century Jews, but it did exist. According to some early Christian documents, such as the Protoevangelium of James (written around A.D. 120), Mary was a consecrated virgin. As such, when she reached puberty, her monthly cycle would render her ceremonially unclean and thus unable to dwell in the temple without defiling it under the Mosaic Law. At this time, she would be entrusted to a male guardian. However, since it was forbidden for a man to live with a woman he was not married or related to, the virgin would be wed to the guardian, and they would have no marital relations. Joseph agreed to marry Mary as her guardian - not as her husband - because he was much older and a widower. See Proof #3 below.

Proof #2 - The Absence of Younger Siblings in Childhood Scenes

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Proof #3 - The Presence of Older Siblings by Joseph’s First Marriage

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Proof #4 - Jesus Entrusts Mary to John

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

The “cheap debating trick” must be something you always us when you can’t explain what you mean. As far as my credibility is speak my mind and want answers and you have not provided them just speculation in my eyes.

Proof #1 who can this be since I do not know man? In otherwords how can I be pregnant when I have not had relations with a man.
What would you say if you were in her place and was told that you are going to have a son and you never had relations with a man. Seems to me a logical question that anyone in her position would ask. And besides isn’t pre-marital sex a no no back then as it is today.

Proof #2 The son of Mary vs A son of Mary. It like someone seeing you in the street and telling their friend, Oh look see the one in the middle of the crowd did you know he is the son of Cathy and look over there, there are his brothers and sisters. Or someone seeing you in the street and telling their friend, Oh look see the one in the middle I’ll bet you didn’t know that he is a son of Cathy and oh my there are his brothers and sisters.

Proof #3 Its called advice and protection. It would be their resonsibility as younger siblings to advise or protect him about something that is not right.

Proof #4 Consider that they left him because they didn’t believe what he was doing. So if your dying and your siblings abandoned you and were not present but John, who was someone that Jesus trusted, was, wouldn’t you intrust your mother to someone you trust or someone who abandoned you?

 

[rev_kevin]

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 ?

Where does it say that she stayed a virgin?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

You can’t show me can you?

Nor can you show me where Scripture says Mary conceived and bore another child after Jesus. If it’s true, it should be recorded in Scripture, according to your qualifications for something to be true. Is it true that God is a Trinity? Scripture doesn’t say that. Is it true that Jesus is 100% God, 100% human? Scripture doesn’t say that. Is it true that out of the hundreds of “gospels” and “epistles” circulating in the first 300+ years of the Church, only 27 of those books are truly inspired of God? Scripture doesn’t tell us which books should be considered inspired.

How many people do you think knew that Jesus came from God? I say very few. So it would stand to reason that they would think Joseph was his father. Remember they did not know Jesus the way we do today. :doh2:

It seems that you’ve missed the point I was trying to make there.

A family would have a impact even if they were younger and besides I never said they were older.

In that culture, it would have been unheard of for a younger sibling to tell an older sibling, particularly a brother, what he should do and where he should go.

Here you contradict your self, You say that Scripture says exactly the opposite then you say not everything is written down. So if its in Scripture show me.

No, I didn’t contradict myself. Scripture itself says that not everything was written down, and there are a boatload of passages that speak of things that had been passed on through oral tradition. Here are a few examples:

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.
More can be found here, if you care to “search the Scriptures.”

I remember my classes but I disagree with them.

By what authority? How is it that you know better than the apostles upon whom Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit?

Let me :bowdown: to you becaus you don’ want me to tell anyone.
I’ll tell everyone that I was Catholic then was saved, if it bothers you, you need to get over it. And besides don’t tell me what I can or can not say, I’m proud of the fact besides who do you think you are telling me that?

Hay everybody I WAS CATHOLIC THEN WAS SAVED.
Hay everyone I WAS CATHOLIC THEN WAS SAVED.
I WAS CATHOLIC THEN WAS SAVED. :extrahappy: kpeople:

I was not “telling” you, I was asking you. I even said “please.” The reason I asked is because the statement implies that being Catholic and being saved are mutually exclusive. I don’t go around telling people “I was Baptist, then praise the Lord, I got truly saved when I became Catholic!” because saying that deepens the chasm that divides us, when we should be building bridges and rejoicing in our common faith in Jesus Christ and His power to save us from our sins. It’s pouring salt into a wound when we should be putting a band-aid on it. It does very little to build up one another in Christ.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bill I have alreay answered those questions in an earlier post.

Good I must have miss that and that may be a good thing

 

[Bill_Pick]

The “cheap debating trick” must be something you always us when you can’t explain what you mean. As far as my credibility is speak my mind and want answers and you have not provided them just speculation in my eyes.

Proof #1 who can this be since I do not know man? In otherwords how can I be pregnant when I have not had relations with a man.
What would you say if you were in her place and was told that you are going to have a son and you never had relations with a man. Seems to me a logical question that anyone in her position would ask. And besides isn’t pre-marital sex a no no back then as it is today.

Proof #2 The son of Mary vs A son of Mary. It like someone seeing you in the street and telling their friend, Oh look see the one in the middle of the crowd did you know he is the son of Cathy and look over there, there are his brothers and sisters. Or someone seeing you in the street and telling their friend, Oh look see the one in the middle I’ll bet you didn’t know that he is a son of Cathy and oh my there are his brothers and sisters.

Proof #3 Its called advice and protection. It would be their resonsibility as younger siblings to advise or protect him about something that is not right.

Proof #4 Consider that they left him because they didn’t believe what he was doing. So if your dying and your siblings abandoned you and were not present but John, who was someone that Jesus trusted, was, wouldn’t you intrust your mother to someone you trust or someone who abandoned you?

Randy, I do not know about you but my dad told me to never arue with ignorance,are we talking about Cathy are Tha Mother of Our Lord

 

[jericho777]

Good I must have miss that and that may be a good thing

Truly sorry to hear you feel that way Bill.

 

[rev_kevin]

Nor can you show me where Scripture says Mary conceived and bore another child after Jesus. If it’s true, it should be recorded in Scripture, according to your qualifications for something to be true. Is it true that God is a Trinity? Scripture doesn’t say that. Is it true that Jesus is 100% God, 100% human? Scripture doesn’t say that. Is it true that out of the hundreds of “gospels” and “epistles” circulating in the first 300+ years of the Church, only 27 of those books are truly inspired of God? Scripture doesn’t tell us which books should be considered inspired.

It seems that you’ve missed the point I was trying to make there.

In that culture, it would have been unheard of for a younger sibling to tell an older sibling, particularly a brother, what he should do and where he should go.

No, I didn’t contradict myself. Scripture itself says that not everything was written down, and there are a boatload of passages that speak of things that had been passed on through oral tradition. Here are a few examples:

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.
More can be found here, if you care to “search the Scriptures.”

By what authority? How is it that you know better than the apostles upon whom Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit?

I was not “telling” you, I was asking you. I even said “please.” The reason I asked is because the statement implies that being Catholic and being saved are mutually exclusive. I don’t go around telling people “I was Baptist, then praise the Lord, I got truly saved when I became Catholic!” because saying that deepens the chasm that divides us, when we should be building bridges and rejoicing in our common faith in Jesus Christ and His power to save us from our sins. It’s pouring salt into a wound when we should be putting a band-aid on it. It does very little to build up one another in Christ.

True the word "trinity"isn’t in the bible but the “trinity” is.

The Scripture don’t say that Joseph died but we know he had to sometime.

Jesus 100% God and !00% human. We know this because Jesus was human {proof positive} and that he said I am in the father and the father is in me.{refering to him being God}

Scripture don’t say which are inspired true. But man did.

What point was that? I gave you something logical and that makes sence.

Even if he was going to be harmed? I think they would protect him. Isn’t that what brothers and sisters do?

Oral tradition can be messed up after being told many times. Someone could add something or take away something. Have you ever played the game where you sit around and tell someone something and they tell the next person and so on. When it gets back to you its messed up.

By who’s authority. See I have a mind of my own, and if it don’t seem right I question it. The only stupid question is the one never asked.

So I shouldn’t say how I feel because it might make the Catholic church look bad. I can’t profess my faith as strong as you can. I agree that we should build bridges but that don’t mean that I have to bow down to what ever the Catholics say in order to build that bridge now do I?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

True the word "trinity"isn’t in the bible but the “trinity” is.

Yet, some Christians read the Bible and don’t see it. You and I agree that it’s there, implicitly, even though the word isn’t, but you can’t persuade a Oneness believer of it.

Jesus 100% God and !00% human. We know this because Jesus was human {proof positive} and that he said I am in the father and the father is in me.{refering to him being God}

Yet there were people early on who believed He either was 1)Divine and only appearing to be human or 2)human with some super-powers. Both were heresies condemned by the Early Church and it was at that point that the Church declared the hypostatic union of his two natures. You won’t find it definitively in Scripture. It’s oral tradition at work.

Scripture don’t say which are inspired true. But man did.

Then you accept the authority of the Catholic Church to determine canonical Scripture? Cool.

What point was that? I gave you something logical and that makes sence.

The point that you believe “brothers and sisters” in that passage has to mean biologically, from the same womb as Jesus yet you know full well He was not “the carpenter’s son.”

Even if he was going to be harmed? I think they would protect him. Isn’t that what brothers and sisters do?

Try to protect Him, yes. Tell Him what to do and where to go? No way. Younger siblings did not boss their older siblings around.

Oral tradition can be messed up after being told many times. Someone could add something or take away something. Have you ever played the game where you sit around and tell someone something and they tell the next person and so on. When it gets back to you its messed up.

O, ye of little faith. We’re talking about the Holy Spirit at work here, not the telephone game. Can the Holy Spirit mess up? Was Jesus mistaken when he mentioned oral traditions in the Jewish faith?

Jesus breathed on His apostles and promised them that they would remember everything He taught them. They went out and made more disciples, baptizing and laying hands on them, and they were then filled with the same Holy Spirit. To say that it could get “messed up” makes Jesus a liar! John’s gospel tells us that there isn’t enough ink and paper in the world to write down everything Jesus said and did.

By who’s authority. See I have a mind of my own, and if it don’t seem right I question it. The only stupid question is the one never asked.

I, too, have a mind of my own. As I studied the Scriptures I began to question a lot of things about Baptist theology that didn’t seem to hold up in light of what I was reading in the Bible. Bigger issues than whether or not Mary had other children after Jesus was born, but that don’t really belong in this thread. Suffice to say the Bible made me Catholic. I thank God for the years I spent in the Baptist church learning to study the Scriptures and learning to love God. I pray for those who taught me the Jack T Chick version of Catholicism, believing it to be true. It is only when these misconceptions get cleared up that we can begin to move forward in the unity Christ calls us to.

If you understand the theology of Christ’s incarnation and Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, (excellent comparison chart found here) you know it doesn’t make sense for her to have “known” a man after giving human life to the Christ.

So I shouldn’t say how I feel because it might make the Catholic church look bad.

Regardless of your feelings, your salvation began in the Catholic Church. It doesn’t just make the Catholic Church look bad, it makes Christianity as a whole look bad. “They will know we are Christians by our love.” Implying that being Catholic and being saved are not compatible does not demonstrate the love of Christ to anyone. Our divisions are just one more reason for some people to remain atheists.

I can’t profess my faith as strong as you can. I agree that we should build bridges but that don’t mean that I have to bow down to what ever the Catholics say in order to build that bridge now do I?

I was merely asking a favor, in the hope that charity for your brethren and sistren in Christ would prevail over whatever it is you are protesting.

 

[Bill_Pick]

True the word "trinity"isn’t in the bible but the “trinity” is.

The Scripture don’t say that Joseph died but we know he had to sometime.

Jesus 100% God and !00% human. We know this because Jesus was human {proof positive} and that he said I am in the father and the father is in me.{refering to him being God}

Scripture don’t say which are inspired true. But man did.

What point was that? I gave you something logical and that makes sence.

Even if he was going to be harmed? I think they would protect him. Isn’t that what brothers and sisters do?

Oral tradition can be messed up after being told many times. Someone could add something or take away something. Have you ever played the game where you sit around and tell someone something and they tell the next person and so on. When it gets back to you its messed up.

By who’s authority. See I have a mind of my own, and if it don’t seem right I question it. The only stupid question is the one never asked.

So I shouldn’t say how I feel because it might make the Catholic church look bad. I can’t profess my faith as strong as you can. I agree that we should build bridges but that don’t mean that I have to bow down to what ever the Catholics say in order to build that bridge now do I?

Thank You as we know not ever thing is in the Bible John 21;25 and the great commission fromChist was to preach and not to write Matt28;19,29

 

[rev_kevin]

Yet, some Christians read the Bible and don’t see it. You and I agree that it’s there, implicitly, even though the word isn’t, but you can’t persuade a Oneness believer of it.

Yet there were people early on who believed He either was 1)Divine and only appearing to be human or 2)human with some super-powers. Both were heresies condemned by the Early Church and it was at that point that the Church declared the hypostatic union of his two natures. You won’t find it definitively in Scripture. It’s oral tradition at work.

Then you accept the authority of the Catholic Church to determine canonical Scripture? Cool.

The point that you believe “brothers and sisters” in that passage has to mean biologically, from the same womb as Jesus yet you know full well He was not “the carpenter’s son.”

Try to protect Him, yes. Tell Him what to do and where to go? No way. Younger siblings did not boss their older siblings around.

O, ye of little faith. We’re talking about the Holy Spirit at work here, not the telephone game. Can the Holy Spirit mess up? Was Jesus mistaken when he mentioned oral traditions in the Jewish faith?

Jesus breathed on His apostles and promised them that they would remember everything He taught them. They went out and made more disciples, baptizing and laying hands on them, and they were then filled with the same Holy Spirit. To say that it could get “messed up” makes Jesus a liar! John’s gospel tells us that there isn’t enough ink and paper in the world to write down everything Jesus said and did.

I, too, have a mind of my own. As I studied the Scriptures I began to question a lot of things about Baptist theology that didn’t seem to hold up in light of what I was reading in the Bible. Bigger issues than whether or not Mary had other children after Jesus was born, but that don’t really belong in this thread. Suffice to say the Bible made me Catholic. I thank God for the years I spent in the Baptist church learning to study the Scriptures and learning to love God. I pray for those who taught me the Jack T Chick version of Catholicism, believing it to be true. It is only when these misconceptions get cleared up that we can begin to move forward in the unity Christ calls us to.

If you understand the theology of Christ’s incarnation and Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, (excellent comparison chart found here) you know it doesn’t make sense for her to have “known” a man after giving human life to the Christ.

Regardless of your feelings, your salvation began in the Catholic Church. It doesn’t just make the Catholic Church look bad, it makes Christianity as a whole look bad. “They will know we are Christians by our love.” Implying that being Catholic and being saved are not compatible does not demonstrate the love of Christ to anyone. Our divisions are just one more reason for some people to remain atheists.

I was merely asking a favor, in the hope that charity for your brethren and sistren in Christ would prevail over whatever it is you are protesting.

No I don’t because man is fallible.

The telephone thing as you put it is just showing how man can mess things up.

So if I said that I was Baptist and now I’m saved would be acceptable.

Even though the Holy Spirit came into the disciples don’t mean that man later down the line didn’t make mistakes.