I'm hung up on Mary.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ryan_Collins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah she is the new and 2nd eve, mother of God, the blessed virgin who conceived God in the flesh. No doubts about the respect and honor given her. I don’t think its wrong to pray for her intercession. Butthese are different issues than whether she had children after Jesus
 
Yeah she is the new and 2nd eve, mother of God, the blessed virgin who conceived God in the flesh. No doubts about the respect and honor given her. I don’t think its wrong to pray for her intercession. Butthese are different issues than whether she had children after Jesus
After knowing that you’ve given birth to God, the savior of the world, from a human perspective, having other children might not feel like a priority because your focus is so intent on being chosen for Gods astounding plan. In addition, it can be strongly debated that the scriptures do not support additional children as the word for “brothers” should be correctly translated as 'cousins".
 
But why should it be translated cousins when sometimes it does refer to brothers from the same mother? ? And even if Mary needed the less stress and time devoted to other children, she still had 6 other kids in the house, even if they are from Josephs previous marriage. It is still to be explained what crime Mary commits by having. Other childdeenchilddeen
 
But why should it be translated cousins when sometimes it does refer to brothers from the same mother? ? And even if Mary needed the less stress and time devoted to other children, she still had 6 other kids in the house, even if they are from Josephs previous marriage. It is still to be explained what crime Mary commits by having. Other childdeenchilddeen
And why should it be translated brothers when sometimes it refers to cousins or non-relatives all together.

And no one is explaining what crimes Mary would commit by having other children because no one ever said it would be a crime. It’s a strawman.
 
Look at the context of each verse, its not absurd to read it as Marys other children
 
But why should it be translated cousins when sometimes it does refer to brothers from the same mother? ? And even if Mary needed the less stress and time devoted to other children, she still had 6 other kids in the house, even if they are from Josephs previous marriage. It is still to be explained what crime Mary commits by having. Other childdeenchilddeen
Here you need to look at biblical hermeneutics. In scripture one word can have more than one meaning. Jesse was the last born son of David yet he is called the firstborn. Why? Because firstborn can mean “preeminant one”. Of course firstborn can also mean the first one born as in Mary and Joseph “gave birth to their firstborn”.

Catholic theology teaches about the improper translation that should actually put an end to whether the word “brothers” actually means brothers in the traditional sense. Read on.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0090.html
 
I’m well aware of that. But in the context of 1 household with 1 pair ofmother and father over 7 children, why is it automatically incorrect to read the brothers and sisters coming from the same mother? You are automatically choosing how to read it based on a presupposition. I never said if couldn’t be his cousins or close friends, just unlikely to the utmost
 
I’m well aware of that. But in the context of 1 household with 1 pair ofmother and father over 7 children, why is it automatically incorrect to read the brothers and sisters coming from the same mother? You are automatically choosing how to read it based on a presupposition. I never said if couldn’t be his cousins or close friends, just unlikely to the utmost
You need further study, as we all do. This should help you.
catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
 
I’m well aware of that. But in the context of 1 household with 1 pair ofmother and father over 7 children, why is it automatically incorrect to read the brothers and sisters coming from the same mother? You are automatically choosing how to read it based on a presupposition. I never said if couldn’t be his cousins or close friends, just unlikely to the utmost
In a Protestant family everything is possible, this is why Christ come into this world in a Catholic one:)
 
Look at the context of each verse, its not absurd to read it as Marys other children
After looking at the context, yes, it actually is. We know, by cross referencing to other books of scripture, that some of these men described as brothers of Jesus were actually sons of a woman named Mary, but this Mary is married to a man named Clopas. Not the same Mary that bore Jesus.
 
I’m well aware of that. But in the context of 1 household with 1 pair ofmother and father over 7 children, why is it automatically incorrect to read the brothers and sisters coming from the same mother? You are automatically choosing how to read it based on a presupposition. I never said if couldn’t be his cousins or close friends, just unlikely to the utmost
Where in the world did you get the idea that all of them were living in the same household?
 
So I’m reading through the CCC as a born and raised Protestant who is certain God is leading to the Catholic Church, much to my fighting and refusing (due to family security–I’m a Youth Pastor and full of fear about making the transition, see the Vocations forum for that).

I’m loving the CCC and have not yet disagreed, but I’m having a hard time with Mary. I’m now a believer in the perpetual virginity of Mary after research and reading (prior to I was not), but I’m having a hard time with the idea that Mary remained sinless in life and the bodily taking up to heaven at the end of her life (assumption).

Can anyone point me to a good resource that will spell this out in a convincingly Biblical and/or reasonable manner? Or, if you are able to articulate the position for a Protestant here, that would be greatly appreciated!
Jesus is perfect God and perfect man, right? He gets His perfect Godhood from the Father, and his PERFECT manhood from His mother.

Jesus fulfilled the commandments, and He is the creator of heaven and earth. If He honours his Father and mother, don’t you think He would save her from sin, since this is the worst thing in the universe?

Biblically, also look at Revelation 11 & 12. The last verse of ch11 talks about the ark of the covenant - this contained the rod of Aaron, signifying priesthood, the tablets of the law, God’s word to His people, and the manna from heaven. Jesus is the true bread from heaven (John 6) perfect priest (Hebrews 3) and Word of God (John 1). Mary is the ark of the new covenant. Revelation is the only book of the Bible likely written after the assumption of Mary, and the woman described in ch12 is clearly Mary - who else gives birth to the Son of God? Her being given power to escape the snares of the devil, and wings to fly to heaven are clear signs that the Church always taught this.

A historical proof as well as a biblical one: the early Church were big on relics. St Paul’s handkerchiefs are mentioned in Acts, and the remains of saints are to be found scattered all over the place, in all the churches that can trace their origins to the apostles (not only Catholic but Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian, Assyrian, etc). None of them claims to have any part of the body of Mary - don’t you think that would be an incredibly sought after and prized relic if it was still among us?

As a Protestant convert myself, I didn’t understand Marian devotion either - I accepted it as something other Catholics would do, but also accepted that you can be Catholic and not have special devotion to Mary. Then I received Holy Communion. Then I got it, Mary had Him inside her for 9 months, and beside her all His life! Wow! A few years later I joined the Legion of Mary, and made the act of Total Consecration to Our Lady. Private message me if you want to know more.
 
Jesus is perfect God and perfect man, right? He gets His perfect Godhood from the Father, and his PERFECT manhood from His mother.

Jesus fulfilled the commandments, and He is the creator of heaven and earth. If He honours his Father and mother, don’t you think He would save her from sin, since this is the worst thing in the universe?

Biblically, also look at Revelation 11 & 12. The last verse of ch11 talks about the ark of the covenant - this contained the rod of Aaron, signifying priesthood, the tablets of the law, God’s word to His people, and the manna from heaven. Jesus is the true bread from heaven (John 6) perfect priest (Hebrews 3) and Word of God (John 1). Mary is the ark of the new covenant. Revelation is the only book of the Bible likely written after the assumption of Mary, and the woman described in ch12 is clearly Mary - who else gives birth to the Son of God? Her being given power to escape the snares of the devil, and wings to fly to heaven are clear signs that the Church always taught this.

A historical proof as well as a biblical one: the early Church were big on relics. St Paul’s handkerchiefs are mentioned in Acts, and the remains of saints are to be found scattered all over the place, in all the churches that can trace their origins to the apostles (not only Catholic but Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian, Assyrian, etc). None of them claims to have any part of the body of Mary - don’t you think that would be an incredibly sought after and prized relic if it was still among us?

As a Protestant convert myself, I didn’t understand Marian devotion either - I accepted it as something other Catholics would do, but also accepted that you can be Catholic and not have special devotion to Mary. Then I received Holy Communion. Then I got it, Mary had Him inside her for 9 months, and beside her all His life! Wow! A few years later I joined the Legion of Mary, and made the act of Total Consecration to Our Lady. Private message me if you want to know more.
Read some historical documentation. Many early Protestant leaders accepted Marian devotion. This link may assist you in further understanding of the issue. catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
 
No one has explained the blasphemous crime that Mary would make if she had other children
You have been shown – from Scripture – that there are no brothers of Jesus who are sons of Mary and Joseph, you persist in your unbelief. Consider the following, from another thread:
40.png
Tantum_ergo:
Also, consider that Jesus is the Son of God. He is the legitimate Son of God.

Did God stop being the Father of Jesus? No. Since God is the legitimate father and Mary the legitimate mother, the only way for Mary to take ‘another’ husband without commiting adultery would be if God wasn’t really the legitimate Father or that He ‘divorced’ Mary.

OR, if Mary had REALLY been planning to marry and consummate the marriage with Joseph, what does that make God? It makes God the kind of God who like the Greek and Roman gods beds human women, has ‘half-human/half God’ offspring and then casts the woman aside as not ‘good’ enough for Olympus. It makes God into the kind of God who takes Mary to be the mother of HIS child and CUCKOLDING Joseph.

Is it FAIR of God to take a woman who was promised and intended to marry another man, impregnate her, and then say to Joseph, “OK, I’ve used her the way I want, NOW you can have her after me?” Is it fair to the relationship of a man and woman who planned to have ‘regular’ sexual relations to have the woman raising (as the man’s) the child of ANOTHER man and expect their lives to ‘go on as planned?’

Is it fair of God to play around with the love of a man and woman, which is what it would have been if Mary had planned to have a ‘sexual’ marriage with Joseph?

Is it fair to JESUS for God to use His mother as an ‘incubator’ and then leave Jesus as a huge reminder to Joseph, always feeling ‘apart’ from the ‘other kids’ who would be both Mary’s and Joseph’s? To put Joseph in the shoes of having to raise "the son of God’ and have that child (who was not Joseph’s ‘own’) always be considered as the oldest son, the heir, while the younger boys who ‘were’ Joseph’s ‘own’ would not have their true rights as the REAL ‘sons’ of Joseph?? How do you think those children would feel about their brother? Would they even really believe He was the son of God, and not some ‘lie’ foisted by Mary onto their father? How would they view their mother --as somebody who tried to lie and cheat and raise some ‘bastard’ above them and take their legal rights and status, take all the attention?

NOT exactly the kind of family you would think that God would want for any child, let alone that by your thinking God would have PLANNED to cuckold Joseph, rob Joseph’s ‘own’ children of their legal rights, and put them in the position of being party to what would have been lies (Jesus was NOT ‘the son of the carpenter’ or the ‘oldest child’, Mary would have been viewed as a slut, the children’s status even when the truth ‘came out’ would have been even WORSE than before). . .

Whereas by the grace of God and the testimony and the grace accorded by the Holy Spirit who LEADS US TO ALL TRUTH – the understanding of the truth --that God did NOT cuckold Joseph, that there were no ‘other children’ who would be robbed of their rights and would be made miserable–we have a situation where Joseph is shown to be a righteous, chaste, and WORTHY foster father to the ONE child for whom he freely takes on responsibility ‘on earth’. . .we have Mary’s love not divided between ‘God’ and ‘earthly’ but fully given to God and SUPPORTED by Joseph–we have Jesus not overshadowing and robbing his brothers and sisters or being unfairly elevated, but living with a father and mother who could devote themselves to GOD and His Son without anything coming between.

It’s so much more reasonable a picture–and it’s also the picture that has been presented through Christianity over the last 2000 years and endorsed by greater thinkers than any of us here –

in fact, the idea that Joseph and Mary were sexually ‘intimate’ was not even a concept which the first PROTESTANTS believed as is shown by the fact that Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is very much a ‘modern’ idea based on the hypersexualization of our culture along with the often unconscious desire to try to make Mary (and Joseph, and even Jesus) into more ‘human’ people, i.e., people ‘just like us’. . .and to dismiss as ‘absurd’ ideas such as perpetual virginity, continence, and giving ‘all’ to God instead of living a ‘normal’ life and giving Him anything ‘left over’ when and if it suits us too. . .

As I said earlier, the Bible is an excellent TOOL but it is not self-interpreting nor is it our AUTHORITY. There is a lot the Bible never tells us (what did Jesus do between the ages of 12 and 30, for example), and that’s because it doesn’t HAVE to. The Church has the authority to teach (and the Church’s teachings will not CONTRADICT Scripture and in fact the perpetual virginity does NOT contradict Scripture in any way). . .but it doesn’t HAVE to tell us WHY, WHEN, WHERE and HOW as if it were discussing a movie of the week about Mary’s perpetual virginity, complete with touching backstory and ‘guaranteed proof from eyewitness reports’. The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual Virgin, it’s in the catechism, it’s in the teachings spread back over the centuries because that’s the way the Holy Spirit wanted to have us taught.
This link does a good job of explaining the relationship between Mary as Ark of the New Covenant and her perpetual virginity.
 
Are you saying it’s textually impossible for anyone to read the texts of the new testament that Jesus had brothers from Mary?

If what you are saying is true, then Joseph should never have married Mary.

I don’t know where you are at in your reading of church writings, because the father’s are all over the place in their understanding of scripture and truth. Tertullian taught that Peter alone is rock of the church, not applicable to any man other than peter!!! This right here shows there was no authiratative announcement of the petrine dynasty from the beginning.otherwise, why such a denial.?
 
Are you saying it’s textually impossible for anyone to read the texts of the new testament that Jesus had brothers from Mary?

If what you are saying is true, then Joseph should never have married Mary.

I don’t know where you are at in your reading of church writings, because the father’s are all over the place in their understanding of scripture and truth. Tertullian taught that Peter alone is rock of the church, not applicable to any man other than peter!!! This right here shows there was no authiratative announcement of the petrine dynasty from the beginning.otherwise, why such a denial.?
So what good would a dead rock be? Every guy who picks up a bible can interpret the scripture as they please? How would the Church keep the traditions and sacred scriptures intact? Look at how many Protestant churches they are. All different from each other. Imagine if there was a free for all for 2000 yrs, instead of 500yrs. It only makes sense that there would be someone to pass on the traditions of the Church. An office that would work to preserve what was taught by Christ and his Apostles. The Holy Spirit has kept her for 2000 yrs. How long has it kept your current church or any other protestant Church.

I see that you just dont want to see the facts given. You seem to think you know more than the thousands of theologians and councils over the past 2000 yrs. There is a reason the Catholic Church survives the centuries of attacks. It is because she is protected, against the gates of hell.

Peace be with you,

-Frank
 
Are you saying it’s textually impossible for anyone to read the texts of the new testament that Jesus had brothers from Mary?
Correct. See post #70 on this thread, which clearly demonstrates that the only named “brothers” of Jesus in all of Scripture were not – and could not have been – sons of Mary and Joseph
If what you are saying is true, then Joseph should never have married Mary.
Matthew 1:19 tells us that Joseph did, in fact, have in mind to divorce Mary quietly… but we already know that’s not what happened. Joseph did take Mary as his wife… but of course he recognized her special consecration as God’s living vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant. He knew that, just as Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle due to God’s presence (Exodus 40:34-35), he himself was not able to have marital relations with Mary because God’s presence had overshadowed her. He also knew that Uz’zah was killed immediately simply for reaching out to steady the Ark being shaken by the oxen (2 Sam 6:6-7) – and understood that the same fate would likely befall him if he tried.
 
Are you saying it’s textually impossible for anyone to read the texts of the new testament that Jesus had brothers from Mary?

If what you are saying is true, then Joseph should never have married Mary.

I .?
Just think about this a minute…the Church, sitting in Council, akin to the council in Acts 15, convened and sat and thought about this…and came to the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary…despite all these Biblical verses that you try to read into.

So, may I ask…do you think the Holy Spirit guided that Church council to come to the conclusion of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

And is it the same Holy Spirit that is now making you doubt the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary?
 
Matthew 1:20 NASB

But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Joseph wanted to send Mary away secretly BEFORE he even knew that God was involved. You say that Joseph wanted to send her away because she is the fulfilled ark? He thought it was a natural birth from another man. If he would have divorced her because she became the ark, that would be a sin for Joseph, for he is a righteous man. No, Joseph was gonna send her away because he thought he had grounds; not some knowledge of Mary as a prescience of the glory of God. Goodness, how perverse can we get just to maintain a doctrine which has no essence to Christianity?

Where in the world ( thatwould mean scripture or early testimony of church fathers) understood Mary as she lived on the earth to be avoided like the ark was to be untouched by Uzziah? No one could touch her? What minimum characteristic carries over to Mary from the old ark? Its not her shape. Its not her feel. Its not inside her body as a physical ark. No, she bore God in her flesh and was mother to him. There is no other physical carry over that made Mary’s body different. Only that it especially preserved by God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top