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

[1beleevr]

Yo, elvisman: Long time no hear, my brother! Ezekiel 44:2 says in essence that the East Gate will remain closed, as that was the gate that God entered the Temple through! Besides, Ezekiel came way before Mary. And if Mary did have relations with Joseph(Matthew 1:25), and had other children, this would not alter or diminish what Jesus was; come on now, elvisman Both sides will continue to believe what they believe!

 

[1beleevr]

sonofmonica: We believe in sharing the FULL Gospel, also! And every minute that you and I waste on this forum, is time we take from Him. At an outreach for Christ, last Saturday, three people were saved!

 

[1beleevr]

tantum ergo: It is not so much about defending the faith, as there are probably as many faiths, as there are Christians It is about defending the Cross; the dividing line of history. The reason for our salvation, the beginning of eternal life. And it is also not about defending your beliefs as a catholic. We are all Christians, and serve the same Saviour, so we need to stop dividing and start uniting!

 

[guanophore]

How come in the Old Testament,“he knew his wife, and she conceived,” means they had sex, but in the New Testament, it means something else? Can we REALLY, without any shadow of a doubt, say that Joseph and Mary did NOT have sexual relations?

We do affirm that it means the same thing.

And yes, we have the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles,a nd we can be 100% sure that Jesus is able to preserve His Word, because we trust in His very great and precious promises. We can know, without a shadow of a doubt, that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Don’t you think, as close as the Apostles were to Jesus and His mother, they would know if she had other children?

Why would they teach that she never did?

 

[1beleevr]

guanophore: I too believe that Jesus is all powerful, and fully capable of preserving His Word, and ALL can find Truth in Him. As for Mary having other children, as has been stated on this forum, there were many things that happened, and were said that were not recorded in the Bible. It may have been that the apostles, including Paul, did not feel that this issue was vital to a person’s salvation! And is this not our charge from our Saviour(Matthew 28:19-20)? She may have had other children, and maybe not

 

[guanophore]

Sure seems like there is a lot of effort put into defending Mary’s virginity, and childlessness! Imagine if we worked that hard on saving the world? Imagine if every Christian, regardless of denomination or religion, shared the gospel with just one(1) unsaved person! W-O-W!

You are right beleevr. Catholics hold to the Apostlic command to preserve what was handed down to us. If we start giving ground on part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith, before you known it, there will be more newfangled inventions calling themselves Christians that want us to give more ground. If we keep abandoning what was entrusted to us, and fail to guard it, we will gradually lose all of the Truth, or so much that what remains is insufficient. A group calling themselves “Christians” could come along and say that Jesus is not really God, for example, and since the word Trinity is not in Scripture, He is really an incarnation of the archangel Michael.

Another could come along and say that Sunday is not really the Lord’s Day, and that we should be keeping the Jewish Sabbath.

Falling from the Truth is not conducive to the salvation of anyone, most especially to those who have been entrusted to it, when they are pressured to abandon it out of convenience.

 

[elvisman]

Yo, elvisman: Long time no hear, my brother! Ezekiel 44:2 says in essence that the East Gate will remain closed, as that was the gate that God entered the Temple through! Besides, Ezekiel came way before Mary. And if Mary did have relations with Joseph(Matthew 1:25), and had other children, this would not alter or diminish what Jesus was; come on now, elvisman Both sides will continue to believe what they believe!

Both sides WILL continue to believe what they believe.
The truth, though, is that the Catholic position is Scripturally stronger.

Many of these points have already been brought up but - if Mary indeed had children - I challenge ANY Protestant to name them. You can’t because the Bible never tells us.

**I also challenge anybody to transliterate the Aramaic word, “Ach” into the Greek word, “Adelphos”. Jesus spoke Aramaic - not Greek, so did the Apostles. first of all, “Ach” is an extremely loose meaning for **

 

[elvisman]

Yo, elvisman: Long time no hear, my brother! Ezekiel 44:2 says in essence that the East Gate will remain closed, as that was the gate that God entered the Temple through! Besides, Ezekiel came way before Mary. And if Mary did have relations with Joseph(Matthew 1:25), and had other children, this would not alter or diminish what Jesus was; come on now, elvisman Both sides will continue to believe what they believe!

How’s it goin’?

I agree - both sides WILL continue to believe what they believe.
The truth, though, is that the Catholic position is Scripturally stronger.

Many of these points have already been brought up but - if Mary indeed had children - I challenge** ANY**** Protestant to name them. You can’t because the Bible never tells us.**

I also challenge anybody to transliterate the Aramaic word, “Ach” into the Greek word, “Adelphos”. Jesus spoke Aramaic - not Greek, so did the Apostles.

First of all, Ach has an extremely loose meaning for:
Brother, cousin, kinsman, neighbor, countryman, etc.

Adelphos**, as has already been illustrated from the Septuagint, can also be used for brother, cousin, kinsman.**

Finally – the knockout punch:
The names used for Jesus’ “brothers”, James and Joses (Joseph) were sons of the ****OTHER **Mary at the cross (John 19:25) who is said to be the sister of Mary, Jesus’ mother. **
The word used in Scripture for this woman is *“Adelphe”, the feminine of Adelphos. It is highly unlikely that Mary’s own sister was also named Mary. Using the Septuagint rule for the words, Adelphos, Adelphe and Adelphoi (plural), we can illustrate that this****“other Mary******” ***was either a cousin or kinswoman of Mary who was married to a man named Clopas.

 

[1beleevr]

guan:Funny you should mention all of those differing thoughts on Truth and other things; as I have encountered many of them in my walk with Christ The belief that Christ was(is the Archangel Michael, that I should honor the 4th Commandment, and that we can all be gods when we die. Some say, "Tell me more about this Jesus of yours!“I smile and say,Got a few Years?” But it was prophesied that we would encounter things like this; meaning we should be diligent in our dedication to Christ, and ALL of us should carry the torch, letting our lights shine!

 

[SonofMonica]

How’s it goin’?

I agree - both sides WILL continue to believe what they believe.
The truth, though, is that the Catholic position is Scripturally stronger**.**

Many of these points have already been brought up but - if Mary indeed had children - I challenge** ANY**** Protestant to name them. You can’t because the Bible never tells us.**

I also challenge anybody to transliterate the Aramaic word, “Ach” into the Greek word, “Adelphos”. Jesus spoke Aramaic - not Greek, so did the Apostles.

First of all, Ach has an extremely loose meaning for:
Brother, cousin, kinsman, neighbor, countryman, etc.

Adelphos**, as has already been illustrated from the Septuagint, can also be used for brother, cousin, kinsman.**

Finally – the knockout punch:
The names used for Jesus’ “brothers”, James and Joses (Joseph) were sons of the ****OTHER Mary at the cross (John 19:25) who is said to be the sister of Mary, Jesus’ mother.
The word used in Scripture for this woman is *“Adelphe”, the feminine of Adelphos. It is highly unlikely that Mary’s own sister was also named Mary. Using the Septuagint rule for the words, Adelphos, Adelphe and Adelphoi (plural), we can illustrate that this**“other Mary******” ***was either a cousin or kinswoman of Mary who was married to a man named Clopas.

:bowdown2: THREAD OVER. (please?)

 

[1beleevr]

sonofmonica: Oh c’mon now, suck it up; we’ve got a couple hundred posts to go:thumbsup:Hey,do you yourself or maybe a group ever go out and witness to strangers?

 

[SonofMonica]

sonofmonica: Oh c’mon now, suck it up; we’ve got a couple hundred posts to go:thumbsup:Hey,do you yourself or maybe a group ever go out and witness to strangers?

First, demonstrate what any potential answer to that question would show about the truthfulness of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I’m so tired of the non-sequiturs. Hence my call for the end of the thread. Every time you’re back into a corner, you change the subject. There is a reason we have threads with topics at the top.

 

[1beleevr]

It shows that I have been in the forum too long; I am becoming like those who have been here longer! Everyone is vulnerable to changing the subject, regardless of their religious affiliation! It wouldn’t bother me if they ended this thread, I do believe we have discussed this topic ad nauseum However, I know that this is a serious and important issue for catholics, even though it is not an element of salvation, or eternal life

 

[guanophore]

meaning we should be diligent in our dedication to Christ, and ALL of us should carry the torch, letting our lights shine!

Indeed. Since Catholics have recieved the full gospel of Truth as committed to the Church by the Apostles, we are not at liberty to relinqish, marginalize, miminize, or otherwise purport that it is “not essential to our salvation”. As soon as we start picking and choosing what parts we think are “not essential” we will end up disintegrating the fullness of Truth. This type of splitting has occurred throughout history. Those who engage in it were called by the Early Fathers “heretics”, because they started to deny certain aspects of Apostolic Teaching that they considered unessential.

If we do that, we betray the sacred deposit of Truth.

 

[SonofMonica]

It shows that I have been in the forum too long; I am becoming like those who have been here longer! Everyone is vulnerable to changing the subject, regardless of their religious affiliation! It wouldn’t bother me if they ended this thread, I do believe we have discussed this topic ad nauseum However, I know that this is a serious and important issue for catholics, even though it is not an element of salvation, or eternal life

Yes it is. We believe that “man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.” You cannot break up salvation or eternal life into “elements.” There is one Faith, one Lord, and one Baptism. The way to eternal life is narrow, and includes repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38 & 22:16 and John 3:1-21) and then following Christ, (John 14:15, Matthew 10:38, 16:24, & 25:31-46, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23 and Revelation 3:5). We must observe ALL that Christ commanded. This includes following the teaching of the Apostles (Luke 10:16-17). When we don’t listen to their teachings, we reject Christ and His Father (ibid).

 

[1beleevr]

And as far as I know, Mary’s virgiinity is not an element of our salvation!

 

[1beleevr]

sonofmonica:Hate to disagree with youse, but I can’t find any evidence that believing that Mary was or wasn’t a virgin her whole life, is not something that Paul or Peter list as being essential for salvation!

 

[SonofMonica]

sonofmonica:Hate to disagree with youse, but I can’t find any evidence that believing that Mary was or wasn’t a virgin her whole life, is not something that Paul or Peter list as being essential for salvation!

Where are you getting the idea that we get the so-called “essentials” for Salvation from Peter and/or Paul? Just because they wrote about salvation, doesn’t mean they intended to limit the concept to what they were saying at the time. Nor does it mean they are the source of how we know about salvation. Catholic bishops chose recognize Peter and Paul’s works as being in the canon of scripture because they contain true doctrine, not because they are the only source of doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

And as far as I know, Mary’s virgiinity is not an element of our salvation!

May your igorance be invicible!

sonofmonica:Hate to disagree with youse, but I can’t find any evidence that believing that Mary was or wasn’t a virgin her whole life, is not something that Paul or Peter list as being essential for salvation!

And that is precisely the point we are trying to make, beleevr. The Apostles did not present salvation as a "list of essentials’. They taught the whole gospel, and Mary’s perpetual virginity is part of if. Modern American Fundamentalists. made lists.

 

[guanophore]

And as far as I know, Mary’s virgiinity is not an element of our salvation!

May your igorance be invicible!

sonofmonica:Hate to disagree with youse, but I can’t find any evidence that believing that Mary was or wasn’t a virgin her whole life, is not something that Paul or Peter list as being essential for salvation!

And that is precisely the point we are trying to make, beleevr. The Apostles did not present salvation as a "list of essentials’. They taught the whole gospel, and Mary’s perpetual virginity is part of if. Modern American Fundamentalists. made lists of “essentials”.