Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[SonofMonica]

sonofmonica: Seems interesting that a church, who claims to have written the Bible, would leave ,“And Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until after her son was born,”(Matthew 1:25), in there, especially when they promote the idea of perpetual virginity. There were a lot of “dead spots”, in the lives of both Mary and Joseph! While Mary was present at certain times during christ’s ministry, Joseph was not mentioned after the Temple appearance! What may have happened during these “gaps”, in the timeline? Are you saying that Joseph was just a pawn, and did not get to consummate his marriage to Mary? And had the disciples received the Holy Spirit, before their appearance at the Cross? In keeping her a virgin, it would be easier to have statues of her, and elevate her to a loftier position!

Sorry, hadn’t been following the thread, so I just now saw this. The saying that Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son” (Matt. 1:25) does not necessarily imply that he knew her afterward. I’m surprised you would be hung up on this, as it proves nothing for or against her perpetual virginity. The argument was debunked by St. Jerome in the year 383, which was was 14 years before the stipulation of the canon at the Council of Carthage.

It should suffice to dispense with the argument by recognizing that Scripture often uses a fixed time to denote time without limitation, for instance:

God says through the prophet to some folks, “Even to old age I am He.” (Isaiah 46:4). Now, will He cease to be God even when those people have grown old? Of course not.

Later, Jesus said “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt. 28:20). Does this mean that the Lord would forsake his disciples after the close of the age? Nope.

This line should put the nail in the coffin, no pun intended: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? Of course not.

There are more examples, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “until” in Matt. 1:25. In any event, more recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

As for Joseph, I’m confused as to how taking care of the Mother of God would be considered being a “pawn.” I’m sure the beloved disciple, John, didn’t feel like a “pawn” when Jesus entrusted her to his care. Mary sure didn’t feel like a pawn, calling herself “blessed” and all. You seem to imply that we are the ones all hung up on the fact she did not have sex, but you’re taking the extreme opposite position–that someone is a pawn if they don’t have sex with the Mother of God. Sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

 

[SonofMonica]

While I’m here, I want to add one more thing, because I think it may actually be productive and helpful to the conversation:

Coming from a Protestant background, I understand very intimately that Catholics and Protestants are coming to this issue from two totally different starting points. What do I mean? Well, in my experience as a Protestant, whether as a Baptist, United Methodist, or Episcopalian, the accepted-and more often, specifically taught-way of things was that if you were married, any and all sex with your wife or husband was fair game. Birth control, any type of sexual act, as long as it was in the marital bedroom. I “get” this Protestant philosophy and the theology behind it, and I’m not here to criticize it.

One of the biggest differences in reconciling with the Catholic church, however, was coming to grips with the fact that the Catholic church says that, even in marriage, not every kind of sex or instance of sexual behavior is okay. As a Catholic, birth control is not allowed, and many types of sexual behavior that do not support the unitive and/or child-bearing functions of marriage are disallowed, as well. There are times during marriage where a Catholic is called to abstain from sex, where a Protestant–if you’ll excuse my terminology–might feel free to “do it a different way.” Many Protestants “get” this Catholic philosophy and theology, and I don’t mean to invite criticism of it here.

To a Catholic, then, please understand that it is not that “abnormal” for Joseph to have abstained from sex with his wife, such that they did not have a “normal” marital sexual relationship that one might expect from any old husband and wife. Married couples are called to abstinence even today, in numerous instances. The first one that comes to mind is, in instances of awaiting an annulment of a previous marriage, a remarried couple returning to the Catholic church are literally expected to live as brother and sister unless and until the previous marriage is annulled. There’s the Catholic Church telling two of its members “you can’t do that. God is not okay with it.” Whereas Protestants might say, hey, they’ve gotten married, what’s the problem?

So in the instance of Mary and Joseph, for a Catholic, this is simply one of those times where God says to Mary and Joseph, “You can’t do that. I’m not okay with it.” Just as there are those times in our own marriages where we are called upon to abstain from sex in every way, Joseph was called upon to abstain from sex in every way while taking care of wife, Mary. Why? Well, I think the biggest reason is that Catholics have a general sense that a place where God is really, corporeally, physically present is infinitely sacred. Catholics consider Mary’s womb to be one of these places, just like the old Ark of the covenant, or the tabernacle, altar and sanctuary in Catholic churches. Catholics set apart these places as holy, believe that God enters the physical world at these places, and (hopefully) dare not trespass or take liberties in or around these places. They are sacrosanct to the nth degree.

If you can understand the previous paragraph as a Protestant, then you probably have some idea of how Eucharistic theology operates in the Catholic church, and I hope I have shed some light as to how the same incarnational thought processes apply to the Catholic church’s views about the perpetual virginity of Mary. I’m not asking you to agree with it, but understand that when Catholics approach scripture about Mary, these concepts are taken for granted, because incarnational, Eucharistic theology is the world in which the Catholic church operates.

So, on this thread, we see Protestants saying “Here are all these verses and biblical concepts that, when you tie them together, show that Mary and Joseph must have had sexual relations.” And Catholics are saying “Here are all these verses and biblical concepts that, when you tie them together, show that Mary and Joseph must not have had sexual relations.” There will never be a Bible verse that says “On the third day of the week, Mary and Joseph had sexual relations” or “Behold, Mary and Joseph had another child together after Jesus.” Nor will there ever be a result that says they didn’t have sexual relations or have another child together. Both Catholics and Protestants are displaying a wonderful breadth of scripture that they feel logically compels the result, one way or the other. But both Catholics and Protestants are coming at the issue with completely different philosophy and theology.

At the end of the day, I doubt many views in either will change. Protestants will still say “Married couples are called to normal marital sexual relations. How much more were our heroes in the Faith, Joseph and Mary, called to do so!” And Catholics will stay say “Even married couples are called to abstain from normal marital sexual relations. How much more were our heroes in the Faith, Joseph and Mary, called to do so!” I sincerely hope, however, this post helps both Catholics and Protestants to appreciate each other and the Word, Jesus Christ, more fully and completely. More immediately, I hope that it causes us to have humility and to understand that each one of us individuals does not have the answers alone. We are wearing lenses, and it matters where you buy the lenses, because it will affect what you see. God bless.

 

[SonofMonica]

Sorry, hadn’t been following the thread, so I just now saw this. The saying that Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son” (Matt. 1:25) does not necessarily imply that he knew her afterward. I’m surprised you would be hung up on this, as it proves nothing for or against her perpetual virginity. The argument was debunked by St. Jerome in the year 383, which was was 14 years before the stipulation of the canon at the Council of Carthage.

It should suffice to dispense with the argument by recognizing that Scripture often uses a fixed time to denote time without limitation, for instance:

God says through the prophet to some folks, “Even to old age I am He.” (Isaiah 46:4). Now, will He cease to be God even when those people have grown old? Of course not.

Later, Jesus said “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt. 28:20). Does this mean that the Lord would forsake his disciples after the close of the age? Nope.

This line should put the nail in the coffin, no pun intended: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? Of course not.

There are more examples, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “until” in Matt. 1:25. In any event, more recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

As for Joseph, I’m confused as to how taking care of the Mother of God would be considered being a “pawn.” I’m sure the beloved disciple, John, didn’t feel like a “pawn” when Jesus entrusted her to his care. Mary sure didn’t feel like a pawn, calling herself “blessed” and all. You seem to imply that we are the ones all hung up on the fact she did not have sex, but you’re taking the extreme opposite position–that someone is a pawn if they don’t have sex with the Mother of God.

 

[MercyMia]

SonofMonica your post brought up a really good point that has been absent from the conversation thus far! The idea of Mary not being a virgin has really grown along side the contraceptive mentality that is pervasive in Protestant culture (oh, and I know, many Catholics have fallen into the contraceptive mentality too… ). I feel like in Protestant marriages, even among the most conservative, they have a mindset that once you are married everything is okay. They essentially practice lust in their own marriage but don’t even understand that they are doing this. I think it almost upsets some Protestants (mostly preachers with complexes are the ones who really push this issue onto their flocks) to think that Mary could be so chaste, because they don’t see it as compataible with thier worldview and it makes them uneasy.

This thread has really have made me grow in love towards Jesus’ blessed mother.

 

[SonofMonica]

SonofMonica your post brought up a really good point that has been absent from the conversation thus far! The idea of Mary not being a virgin has really grown along side the contraceptive mentality that is pervasive in Protestant culture (oh, and I know, many Catholics have fallen into the contraceptive mentality too… ). I feel like in Protestant marriages, even among the most conservative, they have a mindset that once you are married everything is okay. They essentially practice lust in their own marriage but don’t even understand that they are doing this. I think it almost upsets some Protestants (mostly preachers with complexes are the ones who really push this issue onto their flocks) to think that Mary could be so chaste, because they don’t see it as compataible with thier worldview and it makes them uneasy.

This thread has really have made me grow in love towards Jesus’ blessed mother.

Thanks MercyMia. One more thought. As Catholics, we recognize that Joseph treated his wife differently because Christ physically dwelt within her. How differently would we, as Catholics, treat our spouses if we took time to acknowledge that Christ spiritually dwelt within them? How differently would we treat Protestants on forums like this?

 

[aquabatix]

While I’m here, I want to add one more thing, because I think it may actually be productive and helpful to the conversation:

Coming from a Protestant background, I understand very intimately that Catholics and Protestants are coming to this issue from two totally different starting points. What do I mean? Well, in my experience as a Protestant, whether as a Baptist, United Methodist, or Episcopalian, the accepted-and more often, specifically taught-way of things was that if you were married, any and all sex with your wife or husband was fair game. Birth control, any type of sexual act, as long as it was in the marital bedroom. I “get” this Protestant philosophy and the theology behind it, and I’m not here to criticize it.

One of the biggest differences in reconciling with the Catholic church, however, was coming to grips with the fact that the Catholic church says that, even in marriage, not every kind of sex or instance of sexual behavior is okay. As a Catholic, birth control is not allowed, and many types of sexual behavior that do not support the unitive and/or child-bearing functions of marriage are disallowed, as well. There are times during marriage where a Catholic is called to abstain from sex, where a Protestant–if you’ll excuse my terminology–might feel free to “do it a different way.” Many Protestants “get” this Catholic philosophy and theology, and I don’t mean to invite criticism of it here.

To a Catholic, then, please understand that it is not that “abnormal” for Joseph to have abstained from sex with his wife, such that they did not have a “normal” marital sexual relationship that one might expect from any old husband and wife. Married couples are called to abstinence even today, in numerous instances. The first one that comes to mind is, in instances of awaiting an annulment of a previous marriage, a remarried couple returning to the Catholic church are literally expected to live as brother and sister unless and until the previous marriage is annulled. There’s the Catholic Church telling two of its members “you can’t do that. God is not okay with it.” Whereas Protestants might say, hey, they’ve gotten married, what’s the problem?

So in the instance of Mary and Joseph, for a Catholic, this is simply one of those times where God says to Mary and Joseph, “You can’t do that. I’m not okay with it.” Just as there are those times in our own marriages where we are called upon to abstain from sex in every way, Joseph was called upon to abstain from sex in every way while taking care of wife, Mary. Why? Well, I think the biggest reason is that Catholics have a general sense that a place where God is really, corporeally, physically present is infinitely sacred. Catholics consider Mary’s womb to be one of these places, just like the old Ark of the covenant, or the tabernacle, altar and sanctuary in Catholic churches. Catholics set apart these places as holy, believe that God enters the physical world at these places, and (hopefully) dare not trespass or take liberties in or around these places. They are sacrosanct to the nth degree.

If you can understand the previous paragraph as a Protestant, then you probably have some idea of how Eucharistic theology operates in the Catholic church, and I hope I have shed some light as to how the same incarnational thought processes apply to the Catholic church’s views about the perpetual virginity of Mary. I’m not asking you to agree with it, but understand that when Catholics approach scripture about Mary, these concepts are taken for granted, because incarnational, Eucharistic theology is the world in which the Catholic church operates.

So, on this thread, we see Protestants saying “Here are all these verses and biblical concepts that, when you tie them together, show that Mary and Joseph must have had sexual relations.” And Catholics are saying “Here are all these verses and biblical concepts that, when you tie them together, show that Mary and Joseph must not have had sexual relations.” There will never be a Bible verse that says “On the third day of the week, Mary and Joseph had sexual relations” or “Behold, Mary and Joseph had another child together after Jesus.” Nor will there ever be a result that says they didn’t have sexual relations or have another child together. Both Catholics and Protestants are displaying a wonderful breadth of scripture that they feel logically compels the result, one way or the other. But both Catholics and Protestants are coming at the issue with completely different philosophy and theology.

At the end of the day, I doubt many views in either will change. Protestants will still say “Married couples are called to normal marital sexual relations. How much more were our heroes in the Faith, Joseph and Mary, called to do so!” And Catholics will stay say “Even married couples are called to abstain from normal marital sexual relations. How much more were our heroes in the Faith, Joseph and Mary, called to do so!” I sincerely hope, however, this post helps both Catholics and Protestants to appreciate each other and the Word, Jesus Christ, more fully and completely. More immediately, I hope that it causes us to have humility and to understand that each one of us individuals does not have the answers alone. We are wearing lenses, and it matters where you buy the lenses, because it will affect what you see. God bless.

You bring up some great points. One thing we have to remember is that in Joseph and Mary’s day, there was no contraception like we have today. So, in order not to have non-stop children, couples had to abstain from acting like dogs without self-constraint so that they would not have enormous families. Catholic’s who practice their faith seriously understand this. Without contraception you can still have marital relations, just control yourself enough not to have relations during certain periods of the month. (Natural Family Planning) This allows God to be involved in when you will have children and not yourself playing God. Celibacy was a Holy trait. Priests, temple virgins, and many others did it in their day and continue to do it now. Just because you are married doesn’t mean you HAVE TO have sex. If we HAVE TO, then we are no furthre evolved than animals who can’t control it.

 

[aquabatix]

sonofmonica: Seems interesting that a church, who claims to have written the Bible, would leave ,“And Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until after her son was born,”(Matthew 1:25), in there, especially when they promote the idea of perpetual virginity. There were a lot of “dead spots”, in the lives of both Mary and Joseph! While Mary was present at certain times during christ’s ministry, Joseph was not mentioned after the Temple appearance! What may have happened during these “gaps”, in the timeline? Are you saying that Joseph was just a pawn, and did not get to consummate his marriage to Mary? And had the disciples received the Holy Spirit, before their appearance at the Cross? In keeping her a virgin, it would be easier to have statues of her, and elevate her to a loftier position!

There are things we will not know for proof certain. Why? Because the Catholic Church didn’t WRITE the Bible. It was compiled. The Evangelists wrote the Gospels. It was not a piece of propaganda written to fulfill what the Church desired. We didn’t add anything or take it away. (Unlike someone like Luther, who took out books and parts to further his own view of salvation.):heaven:

 

[aquabatix]

thank you for your GREAT interpretation. The scriptures can be interpreted to satisfy your beliefs, Why do you think there are so many religions? But let me give you a different interpretation. If you are a logical thinker, and are not lead by the so called professors of religion who spent years in language deception, like the lawyers of today. And that you actually can think for yourself. We will take your thoughts and maybe get to some real point of sound doctrine. It is interesting that you believe in a God head, without body, parts, and passions, a mystical, magical God, that is no where, and is so larger he fills the universe and yet so small that he can dwell in my heart. Why does a God want to defy logic? and who says so. You have actually seen him and this is what he said “I don’t want anyone of my children to understand me” that would defy logic., or is it a dogma of your sound reasoning. I know you have seen him and that’s why you can attach this logical thinking to him. 1.) Holy Ghost is God. Holy Ghost is A God, but not the GOD the Father. Jesus is God the SON, separate 3 individuals. However Lets verify this structurally. First you cannot have a Son without a Father this defy s logic two separate, Father is above the Son. Holy Ghost is separate, is nether Father or Son, were it not so he could not dwell with in us. John 5:19 then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21.For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22. For the Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.
Two individuals Father has given judgment to the Son. Three in the Godhead. Father A God, Son A God and Holy Ghost A God.
John 8: 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifed up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he , and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
He is the Son of Man… what man? The God man not the God spirit, but Man (flesh) God
Who are you to say he didn’t need to take on a physical body do you know the acts of God, he didn’t take it on… he already had his body as he raised Jesus from the dead that he too maybe like his father a immortal being. Miracles are for those who don’t understand, But for those who understand, it is not a miracle. God came to impregnate Mary so that a Son maybe born to represent him on earth. it is not a miracle it is a truth, And though you would like to believe on the fo fo the magic the enchantment, it defy logic, wake up and smell the roses. The Highest over shadow her. point blank, end of story. If you want to believe in mystics if you want to live in that kind of fantasy, enjoy it, but it’s not real, the scriptures don’t lie, and I don’t need dogma or ministers to lead my thoughts astray. Mary is Gods gift to his Son

First “Son of Man” is not a literal meaning man, it is an allusion to Dan 7:13 in Daniels vision. Signifying Jesus messianic role.

Second, if God “took on flesh” like you say, then why create Jesus? He could just do everything Himself! Even better!

 

[Angelo_Michael]

The following address may seem heretical and/or offensive:

As I have mentioned earlier I am rather ignorant of Church doctrine. Yet form what I have understood and/or have observed of Catholicism thus far is that its doctrinology does not necessarily represent infallibility as it does a certain authority. For example, let us consider some scripture:

Matthew 23:1-12,
“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”

In my analysis the Papacy has become similar to Moses’ seat. Yet I don’t understand the justification for the violation of Christ’s words, “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” in referring to the Pope. I was actually a little relieved to see there is actually another title given for the Pope.

Matthew 6:5-8,
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.”

I have actually had a Catholic share some justifications for what appeared to me to be another blatant trespass against the words of Christ (repetitve prayer), but I still don’t quite get it.

Luke 18:9-14,
“And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”

Perhaps I should note that Catholicism has become like Judea and Protestantism has become like Samaria in my estimate and therefore scripture such as, “…Salvation is of the Jews.” and the parable of the Good Samaritan simply take on new meaning to me.

Now I will share the scriptural origins I have for my understanding of the differences between God and Christ:

Mark 10:17-18,
“And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”

Matthew 24:35-36,
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Again, I felt that the calling Mary ‘the Mother of God’ was a bit inaccurate-- especially after Christ had related how His mother was less of a concrete concept.

Matthew 12:46-50,
“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

Now I will discuss a little about scriptural amnbiguity and the tendency, necessity, and/or responsiblity to infer for clarification:

Perhaps one of the best known examples of this scriptural ambiguity or lack of clarity is Exodus 21:22-25,
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

There is some ambiguity in the original Hebrew as to whether the punishment would apply only for harm to the mother or also for the child. One could infer certain things and some newer translations indicate a more clear analysis that can not necessarily be deduced but is the product of inference.
I should note that the main reason I support Catholicism is its position on abortion.
I have often written at a site about abortion at another site, here is the link:
iusbvision.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/is-there-a-moral-justification-for-abortion/

This is all for now. Also, I would appreciate any feedback. Thank you.

 

[Bill_Pick]

many say jesus had more brothers because on the cross, “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!” John wasnt marys son! ?? anyone care to elaborate on these beliefs…

would love to hear from anyone! =]

You can tell some non-cathloic Mary did not have other children until you are blue in the face and they will not believe because they DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE and the meaning of the words brother they do not say much about sisters, the words brother can mean cousin or close friend

 

[aquabatix]

The following address may seem heretical and/or offensive:

As I have mentioned earlier I am rather ignorant of Church doctrine. Yet form what I have understood and/or have observed of Catholicism thus far is that its doctrinology does not necessarily represent infallibility as it does a certain authority. For example, let us consider some scripture:

Matthew 23:1-12,
“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”

In my analysis the Papacy has become similar to Moses’ seat. Yet I don’t understand the justification for the violation of Christ’s words, “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” in referring to the Pope. I was actually a little relieved to see there is actually another title given for the Pope.

Matthew 6:5-8,
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.”

I have actually had a Catholic share some justifications for what appeared to me to be another blatant trespass against the words of Christ (repetitve prayer), but I still don’t quite get it.

Luke 18:9-14,
“And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”

Perhaps I should note that Catholicism has become like Judea and Protestantism has become like Samaria in my estimate and therefore scripture such as, “…Salvation is of the Jews.” and the parable of the Good Samaritan simply take on new meaning to me.

Now I will share the scriptural origins I have for my understanding of the differences between God and Christ:

Mark 10:17-18,
“And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”

Matthew 24:35-36,
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Again, I felt that the calling Mary ‘the Mother of God’ was a bit inaccurate-- especially after Christ had related how His mother was less of a concrete concept.

Matthew 12:46-50,
“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

Now I will discuss a little about scriptural amnbiguity and the tendency, necessity, and/or responsiblity to infer for clarification:

Perhaps one of the best known examples of this scriptural ambiguity or lack of clarity is Exodus 21:22-25,
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

There is some ambiguity in the original Hebrew as to whether the punishment would apply only for harm to the mother or also for the child. One could infer certain things and some newer translations indicate a more clear analysis that can not necessarily be deduced but is the product of inference.
I should note that the main reason I support Catholicism is its position on abortion.
I have often written at a site about abortion at another site, here is the link:
iusbvision.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/is-there-a-moral-justification-for-abortion/

This is all for now. Also, I would appreciate any feedback. Thank you.

All of the passages you quoted (calling “father”, repetitive prayer, and the two men in the temple making offerings) were actually referring to the disposition in one’s heart. NO ONE should be venerated as Father in Heaven as God is, it is useless to pray prayers over and over (even the Lord’s Prayer) if you do not mean it in your heart. Offerings of any kind are useless if they are not done sincerely. Catholics adhere to all of it.

 

[bextah]

My friend, explain original sin to me, I am a little lost here.

The sin we have from birth because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve?

What is removed by baptism?

Sorry, you have confused me a bit, I don’t know what you want me to explain…

 

[freedomwriter]

You can tell some non-cathloic Mary did not have other children until you are blue in the face and they will not believe because they DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE and the meaning of the words brother they do not say much about sisters, the words brother can mean cousin or close friend/QUOT

For the 100th time the greek word for brother is adelphos which means literal blood brother. nowhere in the nt is adelphos used for cousin. You keep talking about mary not having other children but have not provided any scripture to back you thought. Those who have studied the Word of God have provided plenty of scripture to say that she did have sons and daughters.

 

[Don_Hepler]

First “Son of Man” is not a literal meaning man, it is an allusion to Dan 7:13 in Daniels vision. Signifying Jesus messianic role.

Second, if God “took on flesh” like you say, then why create Jesus? He could just do everything Himself! Even better!

Where do you get that it is not the literal meaning MAN, I believe that is scripture, I don’t have to translate that do I??? I don’t see the allusion, it is the Son of Man of Holyiness. and as for your thoughts, If God was flesh then why father Jesus. Let’s see. God The Man is immortal… Jesus was fathered so he GOD sent his son to take upon him the sins of the world and atone for you and me. Then being mortal he could die.God immortal Jesus his son mortal . so he could be resurrected, giving us a resurrected life, meaning we will have our bodies after this life. so we can be like God flesh and bones as one big happy family Hope this helped in your confusion.

 

[Don_Hepler]

The sin we have from birth because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve?

What is removed by baptism?

Sorry, you have confused me a bit, I don’t know what you want me to explain…

Well… original sin… can you explain where that took place with Adam and Eve, I am assuming you are referring to our first parents. and what was the sin, little more explaining would help… thanks and God bless

 

[bextah]

Explain original sin, you’ve lost me

God had originally given Adam and Eve the preternatural gifts of immortality, freedom from suffering, superior knowledge, and inner harmony with Himself. The sabbath recalls Eden. Is 58:14 “You shall take delight in the Lord.” Ex 20:10 “You shall not do any work.” Ex 35:3 “You shall kindle no fire.” Our first parents in Eden lived that life every day. God had instructed Adam, Gn 2:16 “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

But Satan tempted Eve to reject God as her shepherd. Gn 3:5 “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,ou will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Adam and Eve committed the deadly sin of pride by rejecting God as their shepherd and seeking to decide as God does what is good and what is evil. This was the original sin. As a result, God took back the preternatural gifts and left Adam and Eve with a fallen nature: darkened intellect, weakened will, and a lack of inner harmony with Himself.

Since Adam and Eve were the progenitors of all mankind, we their descendants inherit their fallen nature. We became Eph 2:3 “children of wrath.”

 

[aquabatix]

Where do you get that it is not the literal meaning MAN, I believe that is scripture, I don’t have to translate that do I??? I don’t see the allusion, it is the Son of Man of Holyiness. and as for your thoughts, If God was flesh then why father Jesus. Let’s see. God The Man is immortal… Jesus was fathered so he GOD sent his son to take upon him the sins of the world and atone for you and me. Then being mortal he could die.God immortal Jesus his son mortal . so he could be resurrected, giving us a resurrected life, meaning we will have our bodies after this life. so we can be like God flesh and bones as one big happy family Hope this helped in your confusion.

So you’re telling me, that with all the OT references, allusions and fulfillments, Jesus ignores this vison of God given to Daniel and rather re-interprets it to mean a literal man instead of the representation of the messiah that will judge the living and the dead?!? ok…

No translation necessary. You take every single letter of the Bible literally.

So, Lk 14:26 “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” = You hate your parents literally? Your poor parents.

As for your other statement about God who HAS to come out of (where ever God is) and become flesh to create life within Mary (even though He created EVERYTHING else) but yet can’t do it any other way…I won’t even touch that error with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Don_Hepler]

Bill Pick;5510976:

You can tell some non-cathloic Mary did not have other children until you are blue in the face and they will not believe because they DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE and the meaning of the words brother they do not say much about sisters, the words brother can mean cousin or close friend[/QUOT

For the 100th time the greek word for brother is adelphos which means literal blood brother. nowhere in the nt is adelphos used for cousin. You keep talking about mary not having other children but have not provided any scripture to back you thought. Those who have studied the Word of God have provided plenty of scripture to say that she did have sons and daughters.

Good work

[/quote]

 

[Don_Hepler]

So you’re telling me, that with all the OT references, allusions and fulfillments, Jesus ignores this vison of God given to Daniel and rather re-interprets it to mean a literal man instead of the representation of the messiah that will judge the living and the dead?!? ok…

No translation necessary. You take every single letter of the Bible literally.

So, Lk 14:26 “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” = You hate your parents literally? Your poor parents.

As for your other statement about God who HAS to come out of (where ever God is) and become flesh to create life within Mary (even though He created EVERYTHING else) but yet can’t do it any other way…I won’t even touch that error with a 10 foot pole.

Please reread your scripture “Does not” it is like saying "I am not what you think I Am,but I Am what you think I am. It does take a while to see what you need to see rather than to see what you want to see. LET"S TRY IT AGAIN

 

[Bill_Pick]

What a coincidence (or is it) that I heard a protestant preacher preaching on this very verse on the radio this morning. It pained me when he said “Now why did Jesus give his Mother to the disciple John, whenever Jesus had many brothers and sisters of his own to take care of her? The answer is because his own brothers and sisters were not Christians yet, so Jesus had to give Mary to someone he trusted, and that was his disciple, John.” What a disgustingly abhorrent thing to say… I wish I were in that studio to set him straight (Lord, give me a right attitude…)

First, Scripture doesn’t say that Jesus’ “brothers” or “brethren” were born of Mary. In fact, if you’re going to only look at Scripture and not the rest of the revelation given to the Apostles (“Tradition”), then you must first acknowledge that Scripture never mentions Mary giving birth again after Jesus, and never mentions Mary’s other sons. It only talks about Jesus’ brethren. So the real question is who are Jesus’ brethren, and one answer is that they could be his cousins.

In ancient Hebrew, there was no such thing as “cousin.” To a Jew of Jesus’ time, one’s cousin was one’s “brother.” conceptually. This is also true linguistically, as Aramaic and all of the other Semitic languages of the time had no word for “cousin.” Because “cousin” did not exist, the word for “cousin” did not exist.

Some examples from Scripture: Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

Monica, This is a very good post and is right on the money but you can tell some non-cathloic here that Jesus was a Jew and if it come from a Cathloic they will say it is not true.Most believe in the false teaching of Sola Scriptura