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

[1beleevr]

arandur: Two questions: 1) How do you know that Jesus will ask us if we believed that His mother was a perpetual virgin(or whether we honored her)? 2) Do you believe that we will be married in Heaven, or even know our wives/husbands?

 

[1beleevr]

arandur: Now I am confused!:confused! My wife told me that years ago, she dated a catholic man, who told her that catholics had to marry catholics, ot the marriage was not recognized by the church. She said that his sister had gotten divorced(she was catholic also), but her husband was seeking a annulment; as , in his assessment, the marriage had not been consummated(they had three children). I met a young lady last year, who was catholic, and married a Baptist. She said that her parents didn’t force him to convert Just curious; if a couple is of different religions, whose church do they go to? Do they split time between the two? This would be a serious issue in the marriage. And where would they get married? Just wondering; I suppose each situation would be different!

 

[Arandur]

arandur: Two questions: 1) How do you know that Jesus will ask us if we believed that His mother was a perpetual virgin(or whether we honored her)? 2) Do you believe that we will be married in Heaven, or even know our wives/husbands?

1. I never claimed that He would. Just that He cares about both His mother, His Kingdom (and her place in it), and Truth. I imagine over the course of eternity it will certainly come up, though
   In response to this previously, I directed you back to my post:

I have explained how Mary’s perpetual virginity is important, how knowing more about God and His works, and about our brothers and sisters in Christ, helps us to grow in love and build the Kingdom. You cannot satisfy yourself with the “essentials,” for how is it in any way expressive of your love for God, your brothers and sisters, and the Kingdom to just remain complacent in a few bare facts and not care about knowing any of them any deeper? That is not love. That is the absence of love. That is self-serving indifference.

Also, what has been put forward on the meanings of the words you cite is not merely speculative. It either is or isn’t truth. The “brother/cousin” issue is really extremely clear, and to believe that the use of the term “brother” can only mean “brother” in the modern English sense is complete denial of truth. And since Jesus IS Truth, that’s a dangerous thing to toy with.

1. Of course we won’t be married in heaven, at least not like we are on earth. Jesus said we wouldn’t be. We don’t know if there will be anything like it or not. I am certain that we WILL know our spouses–people do not lose their identity or memories when they go into heaven! We assume our true identities, what God created us to be, but still shaped by our own choices. We know that the Saints retain their identities; the Apostles, prophets, those who went before, when mentioned in Scripture, have identity and even retain knowledge.

have advanced the notion that no one outside the catholic church can be saved and that all in Heaven will be catholic

I don’t know how they presented it, but if you read what the Church says in such matters, things become a bit clearer. What you paraphrased is a clumsy way to represent the Church’s position, so I hope people weren’t using it. But it DOES follow that if the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus established and intended for all mankind (catholic=universal), then everyone who is welcomed into heaven, whatever they were on earth, will be part of the same Church. So it is true to say that even if someone was Lutheran or Hindu or Muslim or Atheist on earth but makes it to heaven, they will be part of Christ’s Universal Church, and will therefore be Catholic. The Church Penitent (those in Purgatory preparing for their heavenly reception) and the Church Triumphant both contain many who were not Catholic on earth, but all are part of the Church.

Further, we Catholics recognize that anyone born into Christ (baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is catholic. Many are not in full communion with the rest of the family, but they are still part of the family. The same goes for those baptized by blood or desire (baptisms of the Spirit), even those who never heard the name “Jesus” in any tongue but who came to know and love and accept God through His expression of Himself in their lives (through creation, through other people, even through other religions).

arandur: Now I am confused!:confused! My wife told me that years ago, she dated a catholic man, who told her that catholics had to marry catholics, ot the marriage was not recognized by the church. She said that his sister had gotten divorced(she was catholic also), but her husband was seeking a annulment; as , in his assessment, the marriage had not been consummated(they had three children). I met a young lady last year, who was catholic, and married a Baptist. She said that her parents didn’t force him to convert Just curious; if a couple is of different religions, whose church do they go to? Do they split time between the two? This would be a serious issue in the marriage. And where would they get married? Just wondering; I suppose each situation would be different!

Each such marriage IS different. And it IS hard. Some unfortunately enter it unprepared and are not given enough aid or warning by their bishops/priests who get a dispensation for them. It is a special vocation, a calling directed at reuniting the Body of Christ, making steps towards healing our rifts.

A Catholic can marry a non-Catholic Christian or even a non-Christian with a special dispensation from the bishop. They still typically must go through at least 9 months of marriage preparation. The marriage sacrament must still be witnessed and validated by an ordained Catholic minister (Bishop, Priest, or Deacon). My wedding occurred in my wife’s church with one of her ministers and a Catholic deacon.

We attend both churches on Sundays, study both together and separately, pray together whenever we can (as well as separately), and participate in each church community as well as in what ministries we feel called to. Together, whenever possible. Separately only occasionally.

We don’t yet have children; we’re working out those details now. That’s where the real challenge will be. Between just us it’s not that difficult.

Because of children, I wouldn’t recommend mixed marriages unless people are very well prepared and have really prayed about it and thought it out and have agreed to things before marriage.

 

[Jason_1977]

true statement.

Respectfully,

A catholic, lol.

 

[Jason_1977]

…biologically…there is the metaphorical use of brother, & mother, hehold your son, behold your mother, etc. but yeah. as far as the gene pool goes, he was an only child. (in my humble interpretation of things, lol)

 

[YADA]

guan: It is not a matter of believing or not believing what the apostles said, or wrote; rather it is dealing with a number of arrogant, venom-spewing catholics(not on this forum per se), who try to bully you with “their” interpretation. It is one of the main reasons that I would never entertain the notion of converting! Christ offers more freedom than your church is willing to allow, and I think it is quite disingenuous of you to suggest that I have followed a “weak” Saviour for 42 years. But, I still love arguing with you!:thumbsup:And I have read all of the apostles’ words many times, believe them, and know that these words also apply to me, as a Christian!

Personally, I do not know any 'venom spewingcathoics" who bully there inerpretation … though you can search the forums and find any number of threads started by protestants [non-catholics] who come to this catholic forum to “tell the catholics how wrong there are” … “how duped by the Church [which is obviously in apostasy]” … they are legion …

And I have not seen one non-catholic poster here - yourself included address the passages that indicate that the supposed 'brothers and sisters" of Mary and Joseph are in fact the children of others [as the other passages indicate] … Why is that?
Not one acknowledge and address those passages that list Cleopas or the 'other Mary’s" …

That passage also claims that Jesus is the son of the carpenter. Is Jesus the Son of Joseph? … that s a direct quote … “Is he not he son of the carpenter?” clearly and un-ambiguosly indicates Jesus and Joseph … the balance of the passage listing the 'brothers and sister" could reference any relative [full blooded siblings, half siblings, step siblings, adopted siblings, cousins, uncles/aunts - person from the same village] … [illustrated and noted numerous times]

If Jesus is not the child of Joseph [are you claiming he is?] - then the reference to this passage is wrong by a minimum of 50% … at the get go …

Another question that has never been addressed was the beliefs of the early protestant reformers … .they 100% believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary … why the change - do you know more about Christian belief then Calvin or Luther or Zwingli? Where did thos miraculous revelation come from?

 

[Rexpi]

Jesus said to John the apostle, “Behold your mother.” then he said to Mary, “Behold your son.”

Theologians have interpreted this as Jesus Giving Mary to Humanity as its mother.

Also Later John took care of Mary until the Assumption. Mary was and remains a Virgin.

I Hope this Helps

HickmanJosh

Well the bible shows something different… Lets start in Genesis 4:1

And Adam KNEW Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

Now check Genesis 4:17

And Cain KNEW his wife; and she conceived and bare Enoch…

Now check Genesis 4:25

And Adam KNEW his wife AGAIN, and she bare a son, and called his name Seth…

So can you tell me what the word KNEW is talking about?

Now please check Matthew 1: 18-25 (just so you can see the context, but main one would be 25)

And KNEW her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son and he called his name Jesus.

Can you see it? I do

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And Michal, wife of David, had no children until the day of her death.

Gee. Obviously she had them after.

And Christ will rule the nations until they are all under his feet.

Gee. Guess he stops ruling then.

The fallacy is to assume that the word until means that an action which was not done **before **a date will automatically be understood in the use of the word ‘until’ to mean it will be done after the date, or that an action which was not done before a date will automatically be understood in the use of the word ‘until’ to be done after a date.

As Scripture plainly shows in the above examples, the actions (childlessness, ruling) that occurred ‘before’ the word until will continue on after that ‘until’. Michal will not stop her childlessness and have children after her death; Christ will not stop ruling when all nations are under his feet.

 

[Rexpi]

You just don’t want to see the obvious here ay, the word is KNEW. Not until! It’s so clear. Mary had intimacy with Joseph after having Jesus

 

[Arandur]

You just don’t want to see the obvious here ay, the word is KNEW. Not until! It’s so clear. Mary had intimacy with Joseph after having Jesus

No, it is “Knew her NOT.” As Tantum Ergo explained, the “until” in the Biblical sense implies that this “knowing her NOT” continues on after the event (bearing Jesus).

 

[Rexpi]

No, it is “Knew her NOT.” As Tantum Ergo explained, the “until” in the Biblical sense implies that this “knowing her NOT” continues on after the event (bearing Jesus).

Well obviously you dont want to see the truth in the simplicity of the bible but making everything complicated… If you cannot see the easy thing as the word KNEW or KNEW NOT in relation with the whole bible (Adam knew Eve again and had a baby… hello?) what about when in Matthew says that Joseph knew not Mary until her FIRSTBORN baby was born… Firstborn? Wow why not ONLY BORN?

 

[Arandur]

Well obviously you dont want to see the truth in the simplicity of the bible but making everything complicated…

Truth is infinitely deep in meaning. It is not simple and superficial–we do not have a simple and superficial God who is fully comprehensible by cursory reading without any real thought, prayer, or study. That’s an idol.

If you cannot see the easy thing as the word KNEW or KNEW NOT in relation with the whole bible (Adam knew Eve again and had a baby… hello?)

We gave you examples of the words in the context of the whole Bible, yet you’re rejecting them out of hand. You also still seem very confused about this passage. It says “KNEW NOT,” not “KNEW.” Thus, it means Joseph did NOT have relations with Mary. “Until,” in context with the rest of the Bible, the way it is consistently used, means that that “knowing NOT” continues onward. It’s a time stamp, a milestone, not a conditional indicating a reverse as it is sometimes used in English. Remember, the original language was NOT English. You want to consider things “in relation with the whole Bible?” Then pay attention to “until” and how it is used in the whole Bible. We have pointed it out here.

what about when in Matthew says that Joseph knew not Mary until her FIRSTBORN baby was born… Firstborn? Wow why not ONLY BORN?

I figured you might bring “firstborn” up. It has been addressed on this thread, as well. Again, you must look at the original language and context AND the context of how these words are used elsewhere in the Bible. There you will find that “firstborn” is a title not dependent upon having any other children.

If you do not bother to actually read the Bible on its own terms, how can you possibly expect to understand it?

You seem to prefer to snatch up little sentence fragments and twist them to your own meaning, paying no attention whatsoever to context. That is a recipe only for falsehood and self-deception. Give what we’re doing a try–stop twisting sentence fragments and consider words and sentences and so forth in context with what surrounds it, with the rest of Scripture, with the language, with the culture, and with the times. As a non-Catholic I don’t expect you to consider Scripture within the proper context of Tradition, but this matter hardly requires that. Tradition just confirms and adds great additional evidence. History, as well, shows this–hardly anyone from the Apostles’ time to well into the Protestant movement questioned Mary’s perpetual virginity (much less thought that Jesus had siblings), and when it did come up, it was seen as a ridiculous and slanderous innovation. Why do you think that is?

 

[happilycatholic]

Why would God want the Mother of His Child to be different from any other Godly mother?

A woman is to marry one man in her lifetime and beget children of one man. A woman was not to have children by multiple men. The fact that God chose Mary as the Mother of His Son means that Mary was consecrated, as all mothers are, to that purpose.

The fact that human carnal “knowledge” was not present in the conception of Christ does not mean the meaning was not there. Mary was never meant to bear any other child than Christ because to do so, she would have to go outside of her relationship with God to do that. Her relationship with God was the most unique relationship between Man and God. She freely accepted it and was ever faithful to God as the Father of Her Son.

The fact remains that Mary accepted God’s commission to her and therefor formed an intimate relationship that resulted in a Child. We do not have the privilege of defining that relationship outside of what is in Scripture.

I’m not sure why this is so hard to accept.

Peace Be With You,

HC

 

[avflf]

And Michal, wife of David, had no children until the day of her death.

Gee. Obviously she had them after.

And Christ will rule the nations until they are all under his feet.

Gee. Guess he stops ruling then.

The fallacy is to assume that the word until means that an action which was not done **before **a date will automatically be understood in the use of the word ‘until’ to mean it will be done after the date, or that an action which was not done before a date will automatically be understood in the use of the word ‘until’ to be done after a date.

As Scripture plainly shows in the above examples, the actions (childlessness, ruling) that occurred ‘before’ the word until will continue on after that ‘until’. Michal will not stop her childlessness and have children after her death; Christ will not stop ruling when all nations are under his feet.

The quote is “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child **unto **the day of her death”. 2Sa 6:23. The Heb word is “ad” and it is also translated as “until”. As if it means continuity of the event or a new event taking place is dictated by the context of the phrase. The following verses show that there was a change of event afterwards:
Gen 33:3 And he himself passed over before them, and boweth himself to the earth seven times, **until **his drawing nigh unto his brother, [He stopped bowing] .
Gen 24:19 And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, **until **they have done drinking.[She stopped drawing water once the camels they had their fill]
In the N/T the Gk word most used (105 times) is “Heos” (till, until) and the following verses will give an idea of its proper meaning:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not **till **she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Mat 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there **until **I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Mat 2:15 And was there **until **the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist **until **now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied **until **John.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together **until **the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Mat 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, **until **the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
If you feel that the **context **(not belief) of the passage in Mt. 1:15 differs from the other given passages fine. I personally have no problem either way.

 

[Rexpi]

The quote is “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child **unto **the day of her death”. 2Sa 6:23. The Heb word is “ad” and it is also translated as “until”. As if it means continuity of the event or a new event taking place is dictated by the context of the phrase. The following verses show that there was a change of event afterwards:
Gen 33:3 And he himself passed over before them, and boweth himself to the earth seven times, **until **his drawing nigh unto his brother, [He stopped bowing] .
Gen 24:19 And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, **until **they have done drinking.[She stopped drawing water once the camels they had their fill]
In the N/T the Gk word most used (105 times) is “Heos” (till, until) and the following verses will give an idea of its proper meaning:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not **till **she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Mat 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there **until **I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Mat 2:15 And was there **until **the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist **until **now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied **until **John.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together **until **the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Mat 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, **until **the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
If you feel that the **context **(not belief) of the passage in Mt. 1:15 differs from the other given passages fine. I personally have no problem either way.

Well to me is totally clear, I havent even had to interpret the bible since the bible is clear. I also cannot find ANY proof to say that Mary (mother of Jesus) went to heaven. Sure she was a great woman but still needs a Saviour.

 

[SonofMonica]

Well to me is totally clear, I havent even had to interpret the bible since the bible is clear. I also cannot find ANY proof to say that Mary (mother of Jesus) went to heaven. Sure she was a great woman but still needs a Saviour.

The Catholic Church does not claim that Mary did not need a savior–she did need a savior, and she had one. You’re way off base. The need for a savior has nothing to do with this conversation.

 

[Arandur]

The quote is “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child **unto **the day of her death”. 2Sa 6:23. The Heb word is “ad” and it is also translated as “until”. As if it means continuity of the event or a new event taking place is dictated by the context of the phrase.

So you’re saying that context matters. Precisely. Tantum gives an instance in the OT and one in the NT where “until” has a continuous meaning for the action preceding. Others have posted much longer lists.

The following verses show that there was a change of event afterwards:

The interesting thing about these is that the context of the passages includes a discrete purpose, which helps discern the use of the term “until.”

Gen 33:3 And he himself passed over before them, and boweth himself to the earth seven times, **until **his drawing nigh unto his brother, [He stopped bowing] . –Hebrew. This is a description of action, so the time signature creates a before/after situation.
Gen 24:19 And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking.[She stopped drawing water once the camels they had their fill]–Hebrew. Again a description of action.
In the N/T the Gk word most used (105 times) is “Heos” (till, until) and the following verses will give an idea of its proper meaning:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not **till **she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. –Like the 2Sa 6:23 and Tantum ergo’s Revelation quote, a description of a state. In Samuel, a state of barrenness. Here in Matthew, a clear description of the state of Mary’s state of virginity while bearing Christ, a very important point that this passage is focused on driving home. In Revelation, a state of rulership. These states exist before and continue after. There is nothing that states that they had relations after.
Mat 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there **until **I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. –An instruction of what to do (do this until this time comes, after which do that; such a formula does not apply in the condition of states).
Mat 2:15 And was there **until **the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. –Involves that above instruction.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. --A state that DOES continue to this point; Christ changes things after.
Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. --You think this is a state that changed? John was a prophet, therefore prophesying continued in him. Another continuing state.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together **until **the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. –An instruction. But actually the tares continue to grow with the wheat. At harvest time people separate them.
Mat 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.–An instruction to wait until a certain time before carrying it out.

If you feel that the **context **(not belief) of the passage in Mt. 1:15 differs from the other given passages fine. I personally have no problem either way.

Yes, the context differs, as shown above.

Well to me is totally clear, I havent even had to interpret the bible since the bible is clear.

You DID interpret. Falsely, and before even considering context, much less history or other viewpoints. Hardly the proper way of going about Scripture interpretation.

The Bible is clear about Mary’s virginity. It does not say that Jesus had siblings, nor that Mary and Joseph had relations. You can speculate that if you wish, but again I ask, why do you think it is that hardly anyone until well into the Protestant era questioned Mary’s perpetual virginity, and those who did (the first instance of which isn’t recorded until late in the 4th century) were soundly refuted for error and slander? Even the Protestant founders defended Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Do you put yourself above all of these?
Why do you think this is such a minority viewpoint if it’s so “obvious?”
Do you think that maybe your viewpoint is farther removed than theirs, being almost two thousand years removed from the time and the writing of the Scriptures, even farther removed from the culture, and you only being familiar with modern translations of what was originally Greek?

I also cannot find ANY proof to say that Mary (mother of Jesus) went to heaven. Sure she was a great woman but still needs a Saviour.

I suggest you do some searches on Catholic Answers about what we believe of Mary. You obviously are under some serious misconceptions. We Catholics very firmly insist that Mary absolutely needed a Savior. It is only by Jesus that she is saved, that she has any blessings she has (and she does have blessings–the Scriptures tell us clearly that she has blessings greater than any other woman in history: “Blessed among all women;” “All generations shall call [her] blessed.”).

There is also quite clear proof that Mary went to heaven. She is in Revelation, the woman crowned with the sun, the mother of the child. Yes, that image also has other meanings, but can you really deny the extremely strong and clear descriptions of the mother of Jesus? John saw Mary in heaven in his Revelation–and, interestingly, it is just as John is saying that he turned and saw the Ark of the Covenant that he then describes Mary (the Ark, the Queen).

 

[1beleevr]

Hi, yada: I may be wrong, but I believe that if you search all of my posts, you would not find ONE in which I explicitly told a catholic that they were wrong! But, by virtue of being non-catholic, I may be considered anti-catholic; which of course, like everything else, is a matter of perception! Wasn’t aware of how early Protestant leaders believed about Mary’s alleged perpetual virginity And I have encountered a few venom-spewing catholics on this forum; but for the most part, I find them out here, at my work, and at social functions. They will call you an f---------g liar, idiot, ignoramus,etc. And I have addressed the issue of Jesus’s brothers and their lineage, and have had catholic apologetics say that James, who is referred to as the brother of Our Lord, by Paul, as being the son of Cleopas. Why doesn’t Paul call anyone else the Lord’s brother? And, I for one, am not so naive, that I would believe that Joseph was Jesus’s biological father But, when Joseph and Mary traveled with Jesus, those they had contact with, would normally assume that they were a “family”, and that Jesus was Joseph’s :son." Anyway, whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin, or whether or not we believe it or don’t, is not going to get us to, or prevent us from Heaven! Nice theory though!

 

[1beleevr]

arandur: You hit the nail on the head, when you said that the reference to the woman with the crown in Revelation had different meanings:thumbsup:This could probably apply to many verses in the Bible. We could all read this and other verses and glean different meanings from it Like 2 Samuel 14: 14. How many people would agree that it a reference to Jesus? And does Ezekiel 44:2 really refer to Mary, when it says that the East Gate would remain shut, as it is the one that the God Almighty entered the Temple through? I know that catholics can and do point us in the direction, of equating the Temple with Mary’s womb, saying that no other man can enter there, because the Lord came through there!???

 

[Zundrah]

There is no evidence to show or even sugggest that Mary did NOT have children after Christ.