How can I prove that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin?

[po18guy]

Yeah this is the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Jesus had any brothers. In fact my Fiance (converting from hard core Evangelical Baptist to Catholic now after being exposed to more of the bible) was absolutly stunned when she first heard this passage read

After almost 20 years as a Catholic, I still had my doubts. Following is a private revelation that erased my last objections to Mary’s perpetual virginity. A little language and culture study helps, and this was revealed to me at a Catholic bible study. In those days, a woman relied on her husband for support. When he died, the children then supported her. If she was childless, she was in dire straights, because she had no one to rely on for support. Even worse, society considered her to be cursed by God, who gave her no children. Such women were shunned, and suffered greatly, reduced to begging for subsistence.

Jesus had great love for widows. This was evidenced by the “widow’s mite” story in both Luke 21:1-4 and Mark 13:41-44. Christ was so impressed at the widow in the temple that he made a point of teaching His disciples about her selflessness, for the sake of God. Again, Jesus showed His great love for the widow in Luke 7:11. When He and his entourage met the funeral party leaving the gates of the city of Nain, He took Heavenly pity upon the now childless widow who was enroute to bury her only son. He, as God in Christ, raised her only son to life and presented him to her. God raising an only Son to life. See any similarity? Imagine the awe!

Then, in John 19:26-27, Jesus’ last physical act on earth was to give Mary to John, telling him, “This is your mother” and saying to Mary, “This is your son”. Why did He do this at all, and why as He was dying on the cross? If Mary had any other children, they would have supported her for the remainder of her life. For Jesus to do this would have been a great insult and disrespect to Mary’s other children, IF SHE HAD ANY. There’s the rub! She had no other children to support her, as John “took her into his home from that hour”

Again, in the Aramaic, there was no word for “cousin”. So, “brother” and “sister” were used to describe various relatives. Remember that in some cultures, to this day, brother and sister can be used to address even those from the same town or village. Union members, did your mother actually give birth to all those “brothers” and “sisters” in the photos at the union hall?

Christ’s peace.

 

[crazzeto]

Sorry for top quoting if that’s “rude” in this forum, but my post is short. Yep totally agree, and covered (though not the love for widows) in my full post. Mary mother of God could not have had any other childeren, John 19 proves this.

After almost 20 years as a Catholic, I still had my doubts. Following is a private revelation that erased my last objections to Mary’s perpetual virginity. A little language and culture study helps, and this was revealed to me at a Catholic bible study. In those days, a woman relied on her husband for support. When he died, the children then supported her. If she was childless, she was in dire straights, because she had no one to rely on for support. Even worse, society considered her to be cursed by God, who gave her no children. Such women were shunned, and suffered greatly, reduced to begging for subsistence.

Jesus had great love for widows. This was evidenced by the “widow’s mite” story in both Luke 21:1-4 and Mark 13:41-44. Christ was so impressed at the widow in the temple that he made a point of teaching His disciples about her selflessness, for the sake of God. Again, Jesus showed His great love for the widow in Luke 7:11. When He and his entourage met the funeral party leaving the gates of the city of Nain, He took Heavenly pity upon the now childless widow who was enroute to bury her only son. He, as God in Christ, raised her only son to life and presented him to her. God raising an only Son to life. See any similarity? Imagine the awe!

Then, in John 19:26-27, Jesus’ last physical act on earth was to give Mary to John, telling him, “This is your mother” and saying to Mary, “This is your son”. Why did He do this at all, and why as He was dying on the cross? If Mary had any other children, they would have supported her for the remainder of her life. For Jesus to do this would have been a great insult and disrespect to Mary’s other children, IF SHE HAD ANY. There’s the rub! She had no other children to support her, as John “took her into his home from that hour”

Again, in the Aramaic, there was no word for “cousin”. So, “brother” and “sister” were used to describe various relatives. Remember that in some cultures, to this day, brother and sister can be used to address even those from the same town or village. Union members, did your mother actually give birth to all those “brothers” and “sisters” in the photos at the union hall?

Christ’s peace.

 

[Steven_John]

Hi, Steven John,

Oh, where to begin…?

I think the root of the problem is the belief that everything is in the Bible…and, if it isn’t in the Bible, it is not worthy of beleif? Admittedly, this may not be exactly what you said, but I think it expresses the concept when you ask, “…where in the books…” (and, by that I understood you to mean, the Books of the Bible).

No i am keen on early church fathers writings on such beliefs.
My Father is so much more than the bible.

As for the next text i have not quoted sorry if my poor language skills lead you so far from what i had asked in my posts.

When i offered

My question was because in the books i cant find what you and the other poster offered and if she was not born naturally Mary (bbhn) would have been sufficient as the full sin offering.
As you point out Mary (bbhn) was conceived of two humans.

I thought we were in agree that Mary (bbhn) was conceived by the union of her parents.
All you have posted does not seem to correct this or substantiate it.

Elizabeth tells us the answer! Now, honestly, with such a direct reference to the Holy Spirit teaching others about Mary and her role in Salvation - do you think this same Holy Spirit would all error to be taught about Mary?

Seriously are you following on from what The Spirit inspired me to seek or has The Spirit inspired you to speak something else into my life? If it is the latter why did He inspire you to do it in this thread and not a PM?
Where did i even suggest The Spirit would teach error?

If you believe the Holy Spirit was acting through Elizabeth - then the burden is on you to provide references as to the Holy Spirit having suddenly stopped working.

How does seeking writings of the early Church fathers place a burden on me to provide references The Spirit has stopped working?
My Brother (pbwh) teaches me to seek and find, not seek and answer lots of question to some one who does not help you find what you are seeking?

I will do my best to give you the strarightest answer I can … and, I expect the same from you…

What question are you answering??? the ones you have decided i asked??? it aint seeming very straight to me. I dont assert you are but are you sure you are not speaking into me pride you have in you understanding? It is fine to have pride in His spirit but we speak Him into others lives not pride in Him. Being humble helps hearts seek Him.

So, here are two questions:

(1) Exactly what or which religion are you claiming membership? I have never heard of the group that you have listed.

None

(2) Why are you calling Jesus Christ “Yeshua” ?

Sorry i should have referred to him in words that were of your liking or comfort for you.

Yes, Christ and His Parents and Apostles were all Jewish - but, after the resurrection, the Old Covenant was fufilled and replaced with the New Covenant. The Apostles, under the direction of the Holy Spirit and the leadership of Peter, the first Pope, formulated the beginnings of the Catholic Church.

Thats nice which part says speak of him in English?

Glad you found my post helpful.

My reference was to other posts in CAF.

The real answers are within the CC - just go there and look for yourself.

So you say, so i asked when i was looking for early writings relevant to my question but its like you have taken it upon your self to teach me I should go where i was going asserting you are there. But hey maybe you wont take the splinter out of my eye?

Oh, where to begin…?

When i try to help people i begin where they are at rather than where i am at, look at Jesus (pbwh) it worked for him and has at times worked for me.
Maybe try it, after all for me Jesus (pbwh) is a great teacher.

Love ya Br Tommy pray well and stay well

 

[BenjaminLumen]

This is slightly off topic, but I felt it was better to post in this topic rather than start a whole new thread on it. I’ll put it bluntly: even if Mary was a virgin throughout her life, so what? What’s so special about that? This seems to me (as a non-Christian) that the Bible is saying that there is something “divine” about abstaining from sex, even in marriage. From this, I conclude that there is some type of negativity associated with sex (again, even in marriage).

I haven’t studied Catholicism extensively, so I apologize for my ignorance on the issue, but if someone could clear this up for me, I’d appreciate it.

The Church has zero negativity associated with Sex. none, the Church is the one
institution that I have found that has no negativity associated with Sex. Their view
of Sex is totally in its purest form. Man and Woman (It is the least deflied and least perverted view of sex that I have ever seen) in the act of congical chastity to create a life.

No see any perversion from this is the person themselves, as the Church does not have a negative view of sex. Everyone gets this wrong, I had this wrong for years.
The Church has a completely pure view of it… Catholic Virgin Man Through the Sacrament of Marriage to Catholic Virgin Female, who in their Marital act of Love Making, create a life. Now there are many ways to pervert this purity between man and woman, but the church does not have a negative view of sex. it has a negative view of any perversion from that doctrine . And that is upheld by Scripture. So don’t get confused there.

The myth that Catholics abhore sex is just that… a myth.

Benjamin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Steven John,

I guess I really do not understand what it is you really want to do. So, let’s see if I can at least tie up some lose ends…

No i am keen on early church fathers writings on such beliefs.
My Father is so much more than the bible. Did you know, He is my Father, too … and the Father of everyone on and not on this list? How does the term, “Our Father” sound?

As for the next text i have not quoted sorry if my poor language skills lead you so far from what i had asked in my posts. Maybe language really is an issue.

When i offered
I thought we were in agree that Mary (bbhn) was conceived by the union of her parents.
All you have posted does not seem to correct this or substantiate it. There are NO documents on this topic to the best of my knowledge. Since there is no revelation that Mary was conceived in a ‘special’ way, the assumption is that she was conceived in the ‘usual’ way. There is nothing to ‘correct’ and I can not substantiate this assumption. But, then, I can not substantiate how anyone was conceived - except Christ - and that really goes to the heart of the argument: not everything submits or yields to the type of ‘proof’ we would like to apply.

Seriously are you following on from what The Spirit inspired me to seek or has The Spirit inspired you to speak something else into my life? If it is the latter why did He inspire you to do it in this thread and not a PM? I answered as I thought best. You write and you get respoonse from all over the world - some may hit the mark (the one you set) and some may not. If you do not think they apply or appropriate write back and see what else develops… just like you have done here Where did i even suggest The Spirit would teach error? My error… sorry about that.

How does seeking writings of the early Church fathers place a burden on me to provide references The Spirit has stopped working?
My Brother (pbwh) teaches me to seek and find, not seek and answer lots of question to some one who does not help you find what you are seeking? **Did you know, He is my Brother, too… If you feel you have been burdened with a lot of questions - just ignore them, or complain about them, as you have done. **

What question are you answering??? the ones you have decided i asked??? Maybe this is back to the language issue, again.
it aint seeming very straight to me. And you are entitled to your opinion. But, if you throw something out on a world-wide forum, you can never really tell what type of response you will get back.
I dont assert you are but are you sure you are not speaking into me pride you have in you understanding? It is fine to have pride in His spirit but we speak Him into others lives not pride in Him. Being humble helps hearts seek Him. Back to language again, I guess.

None **You may be interested in knowing that in John 6:28-29 Christ tells the Jews what they need to do:

28
So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?”
29
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.” Christ established His visible presence on earth through His Church that He founded on Peter. Since you are claiming God as your Father and Christ as your Brother, maybe you would like to look at that “None” response of yours in a new light?

**

Sorry i should have referred to him in words that were of your liking or comfort for you. I think you will find that most of the English language New Testaments refer to the Messiah as Jesus Christ. Communications are always enhanced when commonly accepted words are used to express an idea.

Thats nice which part says speak of him in English? **Maybe this is because this is an English language list, posts are in English and so are scriptural references. Now, if you want to play games with this language then that is really another matter, but, if your intention is communications, you might want to revisit this question of yours and decide just what it is you want to ask. Maybe it is just me, but it sounds cynical. Is this what you intended? **

My reference was to other posts in CAF. Fine.

So you say, so i asked when i was looking for early writings relevant to my question but its like you have taken it upon your self to teach me I should go where i was going asserting you are there. But hey maybe you wont take the splinter out of my eye? ** I really did not understand the first part of your statement, but, you are certainly free to remove the splinter yourself. You obviously do not need any help from me.**

When i try to help people i begin where they are at rather than where i am at, look at Jesus (pbwh) it worked for him and has at times worked for me. Maybe try it, after all for me Jesus (pbwh) is a great teacher. **Stay flexible - not all help comes in the neat and pre-packaged format you expect it to come in. **

Love ya Br Tommy pray well and stay well **Thank you and you do the same…

God bless**

 

[Steven_John]

Hi, Steven John,

I guess I really do not understand what it is you really want to do. So, let’s see if I can at least clear up some lose ends…

**Thank you and you, too.

God bless**

No i am keen on early church fathers writings on such beliefs.
My Father is so much more than the bible

You know, He is my Father, too … and the Father of everyone on and not on this list. How does the term “Our Father” sound?

Amen often when i post i use My, more as in my understanding of Him, yes He is Our Father G-d of all meant Him no disrespect.
My Language skills are poor.

As for the next text i have not quoted sorry if my poor language skills lead you so far from what i had asked in my posts. Maybe language really is an issue.

Yes the words in my heart dont seem to make it to peoples ears, My Our Father forgive me. Seems oft on CAF i ask small question and get many more for a response. Our chat is example. I oft try to stay small and simple so not to make mess of what i need get led of people trying to explain Church teaching as if i did not know.

When i offered
I thought we were in agree that Mary (bbhn) was conceived by the union of her parents.
All you have posted does not seem to correct this or substantiate it. There are NO documents on this to the best of my knowledge. Since there is no revelation that Mary was conceived in a ‘special’ way, the assumption is that she was conceived in the ‘usual’ way.

Yes this where i started in my response to the OP, you and i have done this several times now and it was all i asked for from my question.

There is nothing to ‘correct’ and I can not substantiate this. But, then, I can not substantiate how anyone was conceived - except Christ -

Well for me it is different, the bible, church writings teach us Jesus (pbwh) was conceived by Our Fathers command and shows all others are of the seed of original creation for me this substantiates the conception of all men.

and that really goes to the heart of the argument: not everything submits to the type of ‘proof’ we would like to apply.

Amen

My error… sorry about that.

Its cool with me, but if Our Father inspires you to speak into me please do but if it is not directly connected to my question keep it separate if you can. I ask this because of my lack of education and desire to find what He inspires me to seek.

How does seeking writings of the early Church fathers place a burden on me to provide references The Spirit has stopped working?
My Brother (pbwh) teaches me to seek and find, not seek and answer lots of question to some one who does not help you find what you are seeking? You know, He is my Brother, too… If you feel you have been burdened with a lot of questions - just ignore them, as you have done.

Bold forgive me and see response on Our Father, if i slip in future posts sorry, pull me up so i keep straight with you.

Sorry if i have ignored questions it was not my intention, some times it is easy for my to be lead away from the seeking if i have too many questions, If the spirit inspired in you they were important to me distinctly pls ask again.

And you are entitled to your opinion. But, if you throw something out on a world-wide forum, you can never really tell what type of response you will get back.

Well i have expectations, brethren will serve me where i am at, thats what Jesus (pbwh) did and we are trying to live his way.
IME I accept we are all capable of drifting away from the guidance but those who are very sure of His spirit will intimate Jesus (pbwh). Those who feel sure of their place in a religion will try to correct what i have not said.

I dont assert you are but are you sure you are not speaking into me pride you have in you understanding? It is fine to have pride in His spirit but we speak Him into others lives not pride in Him. Being humble helps hearts seek Him. Back to language again, I guess.

That could be the case sorry again, please be assure i mean no disrespect to you, was just trying to be open with you as how i was feeling.

You may be … …Since you are claiming God as your Father and Christ as your Brother, maybe you would like to look at that “None” in a new light?
,

None was a direct answer to your question given the bold part you may already know me, if you want to know my religion the easiest way is to only go by what i offer at CAF and ask Our Father who i will be. Or in your context what.

Sorry i should have referred to him in words that were of your liking or comfort for you. I think you will find that most of the English language New Testaments refere to the Messiah as Jesus Christ. Communications are always enhanced when commonly accepted words are used to express an idea.

Was my apology lacking something? I tried to keep it simple, i had been speaking from my heart and was inconsiderate of you I REALLY AM SORRY TO YOU.

Thats nice which part says speak of him in English? Maybe this is because this is an English language list, posts are in English and so are scriptural references. Now, if you want to play games with the language this is really another matter, but, if your intention is communications, then you might want to revisit this question of your and decide just what it is you want to ask.Maybe it is just me, but it sounds cynical. Is this what you intended?

I have looked up cynical, i apologise i was, the scripture you posted made no reference to the language needed. While you assert CAF to be English i have shared with people from all over the globe here. I dont compel Arabic speaking people to call My Father Y-H-W-H to have dialogue with them i know they are speaking of the G-d Catholics worship and thats enough for me.
You knew who i was speaking of.
Yes i am to speak to people in words comfortable to them thats why i apologised to you. But you are welcome to call him Jesus and to be ok to post at CAF i should call him the same? no i am being cynical. I am happy to to call Yeshua (pbwh) Jesus (pbwh) for you.

…

 

[Steven_John]

The real answers are within the CC - just go there and look for yourself.
So you say, so i asked when i was looking for early writings relevant to my question but its like you have taken it upon your self to teach me I should go where i was going asserting you are there. But hey maybe you wont take the splinter out of my eye?You are certainly free to remove it yourself. You obviously do not want any help from me.

I am not knocking your help, i was seeking from the CC in the first place, my splinter line i thought would explain i was asking the CC and you were suggesting i was not.

When i try to help people i begin where they are at rather than where i am at, look at Jesus (pbwh) it worked for him and has at times worked for me. Maybe try it, after all for me Jesus (pbwh) is a great teacher. Stay flexible - not all help comes in the pre-packaged format you expect it to come in.

Surely you see me as flexible, i have agreed that i would speak the way you want, have gone through our long varied discussion from one simple question. I only suggested try it. I have said a few times if Our Father inspires you to speak in to my life i am to listen. I have just explained how you can be of best help to me where i am.
The package you have given to my simple question contains lots of unrelated questions from you.

When I ask our Father for an egg He gives me all the eggs He wills in my perceived needs, He knows i am simple and does not give me a bowel of fruit salad saying fish the egg out from this lot.

Pray well and stay well.

 

[Dan_Parker]

dmar198:
…This, however, is a point which will find its proper place further on. We must now hasten to other matters. The passage for discussion now is, “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus.” … Our reply is briefly this—the words knew and till in the language of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning. As to the former, he himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual intercourse, and no one doubts that it is often used of the knowledge of the understanding, as, for instance, “the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not." Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, Isaiah 46:4 "Even to old age I am he.” Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, Matthew 28:20 "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples,

More at source: newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

Dan:
I am interested in the explanations given for Mt 1:25:
DRA Matthew 1:25 And he **knew **her not **till **she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.

NJB Matthew 1:25 he had not had **intercourse **with her **when **she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

The above reference gives two reasons why this verse does not disprove the belief that Mary was always a virgin.

**1) ** The word “know” in Greek could mean something else as in not possessing knowledge (eg his parents knew it not)

**2) ** The Greek word “till” (EWS) as used in Isaiah 46:4 and Matthew 28:20.

In #1 above, it is interesting how the NJB resolves this by using the word “intercourse” but rendering the word EWS as “when.” I cannot find another instance in Scripture where EWS is rendered as “when” and it is not given as a gloss in the Greek lexicons. The explanation from the newadvent resource appeals to the sense of know as “possess knowledge” but this is not satisfactory, because in what sense could Joseph not know Mary as a person until after she gave birth?

In #2 above the argument is given that God does not change after the point in time when EWS is reached (old age of a human). However the sense of EWS is not that something changes after that point is reached, but that as BDAG notes it “1. to denote the end of a period of time, till, until” or “2. to denote contemporaneousness, as long as, while” or “3. marker of limit reached, as far as, to” , etc.

Therefore one must look at the context to see how the word EWS (till) marks the time point.

Are there better arguments that what is found in this resource?

 

[agnalamalan]

hi,

Once we enter in to the relem of religion most of the things will fall under faith. Faith is something personal and no one force the other to believe in something and more over we need not prove to someone of something in matter of faith. To be precise our human mind can’t go beyond our limit to understand something that of God’s. so if we believe that Mary gave birth to God (God used her as an instrument) I think it is possible for God to maintain virgin before birht, during birth and after birht too.

 

[kepha1]

Mary is forever virgin because the Church says so, and what she says is in harmony with the Bible. What the Church says and what the Bible says is the same thing.

God would not allow something so holy to be shared in such an intimate manner. Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, not to be reduced to some kind of pass around rent-a-womb.

Not even the early reformers went that low, they ALL believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. This nonsense about Mary having other children is a couple of hundred years old, thus obviously man-made.

According to Mosaic law, Mary would have to be stoned to death for having sex apart from her true Spouse. She can’t be “blessed among all women” and violate the law at the same time.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Agnalamalan,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this list to be a real source of knowledge and inspiration.

Great post! Ultimately, all of our desires for ‘proof’ sound more like Thomas’ response to the other Apostles who had just told him that they had seen the Risen Lord.

Like St. Augustine, we need to pray for more Faith so that we can understand… and not for more understanding so that we may believe.

hi,

Once we enter in to the relem of religion most of the things will fall under faith. Faith is something personal and no one force the other to believe in something and more over we need not prove to someone of something in matter of faith. To be precise our human mind can’t go beyond our limit to understand something that of God’s. so if we believe that Mary gave birth to God (God used her as an instrument) I think it is possible for God to maintain virgin before birht, during birth and after birht too.

God bless

 

[bluelake]

Mary is forever virgin because the Church says so, and what she says is in harmony with the Bible. What the Church says and what the Bible says is the same thing.

God would not allow something so holy to be shared in such an intimate manner. Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, not to be reduced to some kind of pass around rent-a-womb.

Not even the early reformers went that low, they ALL believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. This nonsense about Mary having other children is a couple of hundred years old, thus obviously man-made.

According to Mosaic law, Mary would have to be stoned to death for having sex apart from her true Spouse. She can’t be “blessed among all women” and violate the law at the same time.

This is certainly a debatable issue.
I’m sure the ‘Church’ teaches what the Bible reads on this subject.
Personally, I do not think it’s a salvation issue to believe this because there aren’t any clear teachings on this subject.

The Bible does speak of Jesus’ brothers in Mt.12:46-50. Lu.8:19-21 Mk.3:31-34
However, this family was not at the crucifixion of our Savior. Jesus mother was there. Jesus gave His Mother to the care of John from the cross. Why would the Lord do this if he had brothers?
This is a teaching you must discuss with your pastor or priest. Use the Bible if you have questions.

God bless,
bluelake

God bless,
bluelake

 

[redrosetea]

Hello everyone,

Hey friends my name is Jose and I would like to know how to prove to my friends that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin.  God Bless You All  :)

It is a mystery of faith…this is up to the Holy Spirit not you…all you can do is share

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluelake,

I just read your post and it got me to thinking… This probably is a ‘debatable issue’!

The debate is just how strongly do you take the Word of God! Yes, this is probably it in a nutshell. Let me explain…

This is certainly a debatable issue.
I’m sure the ‘Church’ teaches what the Bible reads on this subject. **Actually,it was the Catholic Church that brought you the Bible from which your abbreviated version came from. Getting the origin straight on this issue really does a lot to clear the air.**Personally, I do not think it’s a salvation issue to believe this because there aren’t any clear teachings on this subject. There are some really intersting ‘salvation issues’ that maybe you can clarify for me… like when Christ gave us the Eucharist Discourse in John 6 - that if we do not eat His Flesh and drink His Blood we have no life in us - and many Protestants dismiss this as metaphor - except Christ hit this theme about 20 times to make sure we understood it was not metaphor…is that a ‘salvation issue’? How about in John 20 when Christ gives His Apostles the delegated Authority of God to forgive sin…and many Protestants dismiss this as not necessary - but, this is the method God gave us…is that a ‘salvation issue’? How about Christ telling us that Baptism is necessary for us to inherit eternal life…but many Protestants dismiss this as an option…is that a ‘salvation issue’? A lot depends on whose ‘salvation’ you are debating - the salvation offered by Christ through the Church He founded on Peter - on the one founded by men on a desire to break away from the Truth of Christ.

The Bible does speak of Jesus’ brothers in Mt.12:46-50. Lu.8:19-21 Mk.3:31-34
However, this family was not at the crucifixion of our Savior. Jesus mother was there. Jesus gave His Mother to the care of John from the cross. Why would the Lord do this if he had brothers? **You really have me confused on this point you are presenting. You seem to be saying two mutually contradictory things - in your first paragraph you are saying that an article of the Catholic Faith is ‘debatable’ and the in the second you provide a reason why it should be believed. I do not know why you would debate something you believe in like this. My real question to you is do you believe Mary Ever Virgin? **

This is a teaching you must discuss with your pastor or priest. Use the Bible if you have questions. ** The Bible does not address this matter directly - so, I am really at a loss on what it is you are saying. Maybe you can clarity this for me.

Oh and by the way, would you please tell me just what religion you claim membership? I am not familiar with those initials. Thanks. **

God bless,
bluelake

God bless,
bluelake

And, God bless you to you, too, Bluelake

 

[guanophore]

There is no proof that the Apostle Peter was ever in Rome.

Do you honestly believe that, since you have not read the historical evidence, “it does not exist”? I think that means it just does not exist for you!

The rest of us who have read the history of our faith find plenty of “proof”.

He could not have been the been the first Pope.

What do you think a “pope” is, bruno?

Peter went to Babalon and not Rome.

Bruno, if you would even read a non-Catholic bible scholar, you will perhaps realize that you have misunderstood what you haver read.

When Peter died the Apostle John was still alive and if there was ever a Pope he would be in line to be the next Pope.

Where does it say THAT in your bible!

What ever made you think there was a “line” to be pope?

 Only one Apostle was chosen after the death of Judas.  No other Apostles were chosen for other aspostles that died.

ARe you familiar with the requirments to be an Apostle?

Jesus had brothers and sisters and therefore Mary could not be an eternal virgin.

It appears there are more scriptures that you misunderstood besides the code word for “Rome”.

Have you ever wondered why it was that all the Apsotles and their disciples thought Jesus was the only child of His mother?

It would be pure paganism to worship a human, Mary.

Absolutely.

The Bible says not to go beyond that which is written. The Bible warns about following traditions.

There is another thread running on this already,a nd I already posted my comments about this earlier.

The Church is not an organization and has no headquarters.

LOL.

So, when Jesus said “take it to the Church”, they were just supposed to wander around the marketplace looking for a disorganized collection of people that did not meet?

One one obeys the gospel, the Lord adds you to his church.

brunro211

Amen!

I hope you will be able to learn more about your faith here, brunro. It seems you have been given a lot of misinformation.

 

[eamonnroma]

It was provided to the Church thru Divine Revelation.

This is amazing. Thank you. Could you kindly provide me details of this revelation to the Church? Thanks

 

[john_aurelius]

James the righteous and Jude appear to have been Jesus’ brothers according to the flesh.

I personally think it is enough to say that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

Eusebius and Hegesippus appear to have no problem with describing them this way.

“…Jude - the brother, humanly speaking, of the saviour” and record an interesting account of Domitian Caesar interrogating Jude’s grandsons due to their lineage from David.
(Cf. Ecclesiastical History 20.2).

 

[Frankk]

Anyone who has lived in the Middle East will know how ‘Family’ is absolutely central to people’s lives. The idea that sons would allow their mother to go and live with someone else (John) while they were alive to look after her would be completely unthinkable.

Anyone in the 1st Century M.E. wouldn’t even question that Mary had no sons or daughters to take care of her. Jesus’ words are clearly intended to ensure there was someone to look after his mother.

 

[johnbres2]

If that were true I would still be Catholic. Mary’s alleged perpetual virginity is an example (just to stay on topic). The angel didn’t tell Mary that she would remain a virgin her entire life, and to “assume” that she had a “vow of virginity” is completely unsupported by scripture. Joseph was told not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, with no indication that he had to keep her a virgin her entire life. Even the OT prophecy that was fulfilled only stated that “a virgin will conceive and bear a son”, not so much as a hint that she was a perpetual virgin. And to claim that Ezekiel’s “sealed gate” refers to Mary’s virginity is a stretch (especially since that is a real gate, and was sealed centuries ago, and is mentioned in Revelations).

Cachonga, you ARE still a Catholic, you just haven’t been called back…yet. Br. Rich said nothing in Church doctrine is opposed by scripture. Your disagreement was that not everything in Church doctrine is supported by scripture. Those are different arguments.

Doctrines like Mary’s perpetual virginity are indeed difficult to accept, for one who reads the Bible with no pre-conceptions and an open mind. Sometimes all it takes is a little humility, to realize, the Church has contemplated and pondered these things in her heart for 2000 years, perhaps, since Jesus Christ did indeed found this Church, this Chuch just maybe knows what is talking about, and has a little more insight into these things than I do. To support this idea, you have to ask yourself, what possible motive would the Church have to foist a phony idea of perpetual virginity on us? My point is, the Church genuinely believes this to be true doctrine, and believes that the doctrine further enhances the true glory of Jesus Christ. I understand your doubts, I often have them too. But sometimes you have to look at yourself and say, “do I really know better than St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Francis de Sales, Pope John Paul II, and countless others, who have devoted their whole lives to studying these questions?”

 

[FCEGM]

James the righteous and Jude appear to have been Jesus’ brothers according to the flesh.

I personally think it is enough to say that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

Eusebius and Hegesippus appear to have no problem with describing them this way.

“…Jude - the brother, humanly speaking, of the saviour” and record an interesting account of Domitian Caesar interrogating Jude’s grandsons due to their lineage from David.
(Cf. Ecclesiastical History 20.2).

No, it is not enough to limit the virginity of the Blessed Virgin to when she gave birth to our Lord. The faith of the Church is that she was/is perpetually a virgin. What you present doesn’t threaten Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.*In fact, if we look at Hegesippus we see proof that St. James was not the biological son of St. Joseph (and thus not of Mary either), since St. Hegesippus describes St. James as a Levite, i.e., part of the Levitical priestly class, since only a Levite could enter the Holy Place in the Temple for which they also wore linen garments. If he was a Levite, it means that his father had to be a Levite. St. Joseph was not a Levite, however, but a Judahite of the House of David. Therefore, when the Fathers speak of James or Jude being “brothers” of Jesus “according to the flesh,” all it means is that they were blood relatives of Jesus (as opposed to His “ecclesial brothers,” like everyone else in the Church), not that they were Jesus’ literal siblings. This is most abundantly clear when it comes to St. James.

Some articles that should be helpful to you:

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/Articles/FallOfTheNewHelvidius.aspx

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/Articles/TheBibleAndMarysVirginity.aspx