B
BlueMit11
Guest
Oh…and to answer the question: Yes, Mary has other children. I should know, I’m one of them! (Jn 19:26).
- Status
S
Salmon
Guest
Well said.
How can I be Christ’s brother if we do not share the same mother?
Peace in Christ…Salmon
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Faithful One:
First of all, the meaning in the Hebrew is not so clear as you seem to imagine. This is an idiomatic way of writing and speaking. For example, David’s wife Michal did not bear any children until the day of her death. In this example, it is obvious that Michal could not bear children after she had died.
Second: context, context, context. Why did Matthew need to even make the point about Joseph taking Mary as a wife etc? Because he was trying to point to the fact that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, and that Mary was indeed a virgin. However, he is not suggesting that Mary did have children. That is a modern interpretation of the Scripture that has been borrowed from the heretic Helvidius, and that means that Svendsen, James White and all the other preachers who teach this particular thing are in heresy, because they do not preach TRUTH.
Third, the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity is not about Mary. It is about Jesus, and who Jesus is. The point being, if Mary had other children then how can one prove that Joseph is not the father of Jesus?
Fourth, even though the work is spurious, the Protoevangelium of James, and the Psuedo Gospel of Matthew do in fact point to the fact that Mary did not have other children.
Fiftth, there is no Scriptural evidence that Mary had other children. The reliance on the word “until” is shallow and weak.
Maggie
I disagree with the conclusions that you are making. There are several reasons why Svendsen and James White are wrong when they come to these conclusions.
First of all, the meaning in the Hebrew is not so clear as you seem to imagine. This is an idiomatic way of writing and speaking. For example, David’s wife Michal did not bear any children until the day of her death. In this example, it is obvious that Michal could not bear children after she had died.
Second: context, context, context. Why did Matthew need to even make the point about Joseph taking Mary as a wife etc? Because he was trying to point to the fact that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, and that Mary was indeed a virgin. However, he is not suggesting that Mary did have children. That is a modern interpretation of the Scripture that has been borrowed from the heretic Helvidius, and that means that Svendsen, James White and all the other preachers who teach this particular thing are in heresy, because they do not preach TRUTH.
Third, the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity is not about Mary. It is about Jesus, and who Jesus is. The point being, if Mary had other children then how can one prove that Joseph is not the father of Jesus?
Fourth, even though the work is spurious, the Protoevangelium of James, and the Psuedo Gospel of Matthew do in fact point to the fact that Mary did not have other children.
Fiftth, there is no Scriptural evidence that Mary had other children. The reliance on the word “until” is shallow and weak.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
BlueMit11 said:
Bluemit,
spelling is important. If people are not making careless errors through a slip of fingers on the keyboards, but are not taking the time to check the correct spelling of words such as Ark or some of the other horrendous efforts I have seen, then yes, it needs to be pointed out because it shows a carelessness about checking out other details. For example, in this case, that which is presented by “Faithless” is the argument of the heretic Helvidius which has been revived by the likes of Svendsen and James White. They have written books on this topic putting forward the heresy of Helvidius. In some circles these men are popular authors. Their readers do not bother to check out the facts for themselves, hence they show a lot of carelessness.
Like a lot of other people I make spelling errors but there are some that really do leave me cringing. It is the carelessness involved in those errors that causes me to speak up and let them know that it is not acceptable. This is not aimed at the dyslexic, but at those who could not care less, including what they think of Mary - the Mother of Our Lord.
So no, I am not being nasty. That is in the eye of the beholder.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Deborah,
you have made a very valid point about English usage. What you are saying is absolutely correct because how modern Americans see these words that come from the Scripture is not the same as Matthew’s audience when they were first written. I commend you for your foresight on this issue.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Deborah I would like to address the issues that you have raised since as an adult convert you have not as yet come to grips with these realities. As a cradle Catholic I was brought up with all of these doctrines and yes I have needed to question them so that I can come to the fullness of my faith.Hey, people! This is getting really nasty! I’m sorry I asked the question, if this discord is a result.
I am Catholic, and an adult convert. The heart of Catholicism, for me, is the Real Presence. I don’t understand it well enough to explain it in words, but I know in the deepest reaches of my heart and soul that it is true.
I still don’t see why Mary being ever-virgin is such a big deal. I think the reason is that in the face of the Real Presence, it doesn’t matter whether Mary being ever-virgin would increase belief that Jesus was the Son of God. In fact, I think that the reason there isn’t anything in the NT directly about it is that it was either a) taken for granted that everybody knew it or b) it isn’t important. After all, the Gospels and the rest of the NT are about Jesus. And doesn’t Mary efface herself for Jesus? Don’t you think all this fighting over her place really makes her sad?
Why is it important for Mary to be ever-virgin in light of the Real Presence? It is because every Marian doctrine that the Church has given us is not in fact about Mary, but about Her Son. Most Protestants, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists appear to be confused about why it is necessary for Mary to be ever-Virgin. A lot of the misunderstanding is based upon a failure to understand the Judaic customs surrounding marriage, especially what is meant by betrothal and taking someone to be a wife.
Basically, as Christians we believe that Jesus is the Son of God. In order for Jesus to be the Son of God, and be born of a Woman it had to be proved that the mother of Jesus was indeed a virgin. Hence, when it was written that Joseph did not know Mary “until” Jesus was born, the Evangelist was not in fact stating that the relationship between Mary and Joseph was altered in any way after Jesus was born. However, I put it to you, that if Mary had other children, why would the audience, made up of Hebrew people, accept that Jesus is the Son of God. There would not be any proof that this was the case.
(cont)
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Hi all!
Lemme just point out a couple of things that may just clear this up a bit.
It was asked above if there was a passage of scripture that says that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant…
Has anyone looked at the 19th verse of the 11th Chapter of Revelation and the first two verses of the following chapter? When you do, please remember that the chapter breaks and the verse divisions are not part of the inspired text, but were added somewhat arbitrarily by men much later on. So then, that passage actually read like this in the original:
"And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. "
As to the issue of Mary having had children by Joseph after Jesus: There are several contextual arguments that you seem to have missed along the way here:
Lemme just point out a couple of things that may just clear this up a bit.
It was asked above if there was a passage of scripture that says that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant…
Has anyone looked at the 19th verse of the 11th Chapter of Revelation and the first two verses of the following chapter? When you do, please remember that the chapter breaks and the verse divisions are not part of the inspired text, but were added somewhat arbitrarily by men much later on. So then, that passage actually read like this in the original:
"And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. "
As to the issue of Mary having had children by Joseph after Jesus: There are several contextual arguments that you seem to have missed along the way here:
*]The Living Tradition of the Church says that Jesus was Mary’s first born and only child.
*]The NT says that Jeus brothers attempted to rebuke him and counseled him. This could not be under Jewish custom since the Eldest/first born was the authority among siblings.
*]The Living Tradition of the Church also says that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children from his first marriage.
*]IF Jesus had had other brothers and sisters he would NOT have given the Blessed Virgin into the care of St. John since his own brothers and sisters would’ve been bound under the 4th commandment and Jewish custom to take care of her. Yet virtually with his dying breath on the cross he DID commend Mary into the care of St. John.
This link to a tract on this home page will show that the ECF also concur with us in this matter. I submit to you all that they should indeed know.
Pax vobiscum,
C
Church_Militant
Guest
NUTS! I left out the link…DUH! Here it is:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
Other ECF quotes about the Blessed Virgin:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp
Other info about Catholic teaching about Mary
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
Other ECF quotes about the Blessed Virgin:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp
Other info about Catholic teaching about Mary
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
One thing that always puzzles me when I hear a Catholic say that perpetual virginity is not a big deal: If it is not a big deal, then why not simply believe it and avoid the slide into formal heresy which is a big deal?
Scott
Scott
M
mommy
Guest
Church Militant:
I just want to say, If I’m ever in an argument, I want Church Militant on my side
B
BlueMit11
Guest
I understand all of this. I am simply pointing out that your use of the word “pathetic” and your continual reference to Faithful One as “Faithless One” is uncharitable. I realize she is being even less charitable than you, and therefore she is doing little to promote her cause, but we all know that’s no reason to do the same. What we are doing here on these boards is very important–we are convincing people with history, logic, and theology that the Catholic Church is right in all of its teachings. But none of that is worth anything if we do not do it with love. Not that you have to be all puppy dogs and rainbows, but at least quit with the name-calling, and consider how your posts will appear to others, especially those lurking. Remember: we’re not just debating “issues”, we’re discussing the Truth.
Thanks,
Timothy
D
deborah1313
Guest
Scott Waddell:
I have never said I don’t believe it. I said I don’t understand it. The Catholic Church talks about faith and reason, so I am asking for insight into the necessity of Mary being perpetually virgin. If you note my response to Faithful One, I correctly point out that the Bible never says Mary didn’t die a virgin. Both MaggieOH and ChurchMilitant have provided the kinds of help I am looking for. Maggie says:
Why is it important for Mary to be ever-virgin in light of the Real Presence? It is because every Marian doctrine that the Church has given us is not in fact about Mary, but about Her Son. Most Protestants, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists appear to be confused about why it is necessary for Mary to be ever-Virgin. A lot of the misunderstanding is based upon a failure to understand the Judaic customs surrounding marriage, especially what is meant by betrothal and taking someone to be a wife.
Basically, as Christians we believe that Jesus is the Son of God. In order for Jesus to be the Son of God, and be born of a Woman it had to be proved that the mother of Jesus was indeed a virgin. Hence, when it was written that Joseph did not know Mary “until” Jesus was born, the Evangelist was not in fact stating that the relationship between Mary and Joseph was altered in any way after Jesus was born. However, I put it to you, that if Mary had other children, why would the audience, made up of Hebrew people, accept that Jesus is the Son of God. There would not be any proof that this was the case.
I agree that a lot of the problems we Christians have today is in not understanding ancient Judaic customs. So, Maggie, could you tell me the ones to which you are referring? I know that a betrothal was more than an engagement, so that Mary being pregnant before being married to Joseph but after betrothal is adultery, not fornication. But are there others you can give me more info on? (Also, one of the things, thankfully, that doesn’t trip me up is that sneaky, little word “until”.) As to your last two sentences, they make really good sense. But there had to be more for the ancient Jews to accept Jesus’ true parentage. That Mary had no other children would be a necessary, but not sufficient condition. After all, just because she had no other children doesn’t prove that Joseph wasn’t the father. Lots of women have only one child. [NOTE: I am arguing the other side here in an attempt to explain the kind of information I am looking for. I KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth is the Only Begotten Son of God, the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Godhead, so please don’t somebody misread this.]
Besides the quote from Revelations, where ChurchMilitant astutely points out the bad numbering/phrasing of that section, he mentions four points. I understand points one and three. I am looking for the underpinnings of Tradition, because it had to have a source. That source is the kind of info a non-Catholic would need in order to understand that Tradition isn’t spun of wholecloth, it isn’t just pulled out of the middle of thin air. The points that ChurchMilitant makes are:
Yes, formal heresy IS a big deal, so big, in fact, that the Church takes both the accused AND the accuser very seriously and investigates very thouroughly. Spurious and off-the-cuff accusations are not looked on with favor.
I have never said I don’t believe it. I said I don’t understand it. The Catholic Church talks about faith and reason, so I am asking for insight into the necessity of Mary being perpetually virgin. If you note my response to Faithful One, I correctly point out that the Bible never says Mary didn’t die a virgin. Both MaggieOH and ChurchMilitant have provided the kinds of help I am looking for. Maggie says:
Why is it important for Mary to be ever-virgin in light of the Real Presence? It is because every Marian doctrine that the Church has given us is not in fact about Mary, but about Her Son. Most Protestants, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists appear to be confused about why it is necessary for Mary to be ever-Virgin. A lot of the misunderstanding is based upon a failure to understand the Judaic customs surrounding marriage, especially what is meant by betrothal and taking someone to be a wife.
Basically, as Christians we believe that Jesus is the Son of God. In order for Jesus to be the Son of God, and be born of a Woman it had to be proved that the mother of Jesus was indeed a virgin. Hence, when it was written that Joseph did not know Mary “until” Jesus was born, the Evangelist was not in fact stating that the relationship between Mary and Joseph was altered in any way after Jesus was born. However, I put it to you, that if Mary had other children, why would the audience, made up of Hebrew people, accept that Jesus is the Son of God. There would not be any proof that this was the case.
I agree that a lot of the problems we Christians have today is in not understanding ancient Judaic customs. So, Maggie, could you tell me the ones to which you are referring? I know that a betrothal was more than an engagement, so that Mary being pregnant before being married to Joseph but after betrothal is adultery, not fornication. But are there others you can give me more info on? (Also, one of the things, thankfully, that doesn’t trip me up is that sneaky, little word “until”.) As to your last two sentences, they make really good sense. But there had to be more for the ancient Jews to accept Jesus’ true parentage. That Mary had no other children would be a necessary, but not sufficient condition. After all, just because she had no other children doesn’t prove that Joseph wasn’t the father. Lots of women have only one child. [NOTE: I am arguing the other side here in an attempt to explain the kind of information I am looking for. I KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth is the Only Begotten Son of God, the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Godhead, so please don’t somebody misread this.]
Besides the quote from Revelations, where ChurchMilitant astutely points out the bad numbering/phrasing of that section, he mentions four points. I understand points one and three. I am looking for the underpinnings of Tradition, because it had to have a source. That source is the kind of info a non-Catholic would need in order to understand that Tradition isn’t spun of wholecloth, it isn’t just pulled out of the middle of thin air. The points that ChurchMilitant makes are:
*]The Living Tradition of the Church says that Jesus was Mary’s first born and only child.
*]The NT says that Jeus brothers attempted to rebuke him and counseled him. This could not be under Jewish custom since the Eldest/first born was the authority among siblings.
*]The Living Tradition of the Church also says that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children from his first marriage.
*]IF Jesus had had other brothers and sisters he would NOT have given the Blessed Virgin into the care of St. John since his own brothers and sisters would’ve been bound under the 4th commandment and Jewish custom to take care of her. Yet virtually with his dying breath on the cross he DID commend Mary into the care of St. John.
Now, I see point two, though one might argue that if they really thought He was possessed or crazy, they would break tradition. Point four, however, is excellently taken. If Jesus had other brothers, he would NOT have given His mother into John’s care. The scripture being debated specifically says “…his brothers”, so this information about ancient Judaic customs, this underpinning of Tradition, is very helpful.
deborah
L
Lynn-D
Guest
When I was born I was considered the first born and in fact on my birth certificate it has a section in it that showed which number was the birth to my mother. On my birth certificate it says ‘first’. Would that not be firstborn. I think so.
I am a bit older than most in this forum and doubt that box exists any longer seeing as how many children are born and given up for adoption by the single mother and that of course would be a future give away should she not want to have that exposed.
Firstborn was a reference to birth order and stated no others before my mother had me I would think.
Lynn_D
clarkal:
I am a bit older than most in this forum and doubt that box exists any longer seeing as how many children are born and given up for adoption by the single mother and that of course would be a future give away should she not want to have that exposed.
Firstborn was a reference to birth order and stated no others before my mother had me I would think.
Lynn_D
V
Vincent
Guest
The question, first, should be: “Is it true?” The Church says, “Yes, we believed it ever since the beginning.”
Then the question should be: “Why was it God’s plan that she be a virgin forever?” In other words, what does this truth signify? Since God writes with the world the way we write with words, we can expect to find meaning in Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Church replies (for example), “her virginity is the sign of her faith ‘unadulterated by any doubt,’ and of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will.”
I think the question, “Why was it necessary?,” is tricky. God can do anything He wants. It is fitting, though, that she remain a virgin all her life, typologically speaking: as the Second Adam is perpetually a virgin, the Second Eve is perpetually a virgin.
Br. Anthony Opisso’s article explaining the talmudic background behind Mary’s perpetual virginity is really fascinating.
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
I never said you didn’t believe it. It was just a general comment. Don’t have a cow.
Scott
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Clarkal says:
Consider this…Just where did the apostles get all the infant narrative information that they included in their writings? They weren’t there, were they? Who was?
Who recounted the appearance of the angel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin? Or Joseph’s feelings and visions? The recorded statements of Simeon and Anna and Elizabeth at those events? Am I the only one who sees the obvious here?
Pax vobiscum,
Clarkal,
Consider this…Just where did the apostles get all the infant narrative information that they included in their writings? They weren’t there, were they? Who was?
Who recounted the appearance of the angel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin? Or Joseph’s feelings and visions? The recorded statements of Simeon and Anna and Elizabeth at those events? Am I the only one who sees the obvious here?
Pax vobiscum,
T
tjw163
Guest
Okay. Let’s try this one. Luke 1:31 and 1:34. Now, I don’t claim to be a Greek scholar, so this one may backfire, but the whole purpose of these fora is to allow for discussion among people.This is a real question. I don’t understand why it is important that Mary had no other children, other than to be evidence for perpetual virginity. That Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth does not change whether or not she remained a virgin. So why is there such a fuss? And can you cite the scriptures that say Mary was ever-virgin?
deborah1313
Luke 1:31 – (the angel Gabriel speaking to Mary) “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” (emphasis added)
Luke 1:34 – (Mary’s reply to Gabriel) “How can this be, since I have no husband?” (Note… the phrase “since I have no husband” in this passage is often translated as “since I do not know man”)
Here’s the logic as I see it… Mary says that she does not know how she WILL conceive in her womb and bear a son. Yet she is betrothed to Joseph at the time she says this. Surely, if she intended to marry Joseph and have “normal” relations with him in the course of their marriage, the idea that she will conceive in her womb and bear a son should not have presented any major issues for her.
But as Lk 1:34 indicates, Mary is surprised by this statement. Why might she be surprised? An ancient tradition of the Church states that Mary had previously taken a perpetual vow of virginity. So perhaps the reason for her marriage was more to arrange for her protection than to have a “normal” marriage with sexual relations and babies. Or perhaps there’s another reason. But if Mary is surprised by the statement, it seems to me that it could only be because she never expected to have any children in the future, because she never expected to have marital relations.
Okay… now all you Scripture scholars and Koine Greek language experts out there can tell me whether or not I am reading this passage correctly. But that’s just my two cents. Hope it made sense too. (sorry for the bad pun… couldn’t resist!)
Peace,
Tim
M
MaggieOH
Guest
very good deductions
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
And on my cousin’s birth certificate where he was an only child the box would be marked the same way.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Church Militant:
There is only one eye witness who was present at the birth of Jesus alive after Jesus ascended into Heaven, that is Mary. Only Mary would be aware how Joseph felt when he discovered that she was pregnant. Mary was the eye witness to the comments from Simeon and Anna. She was present when Elizabeth rant to her and spoke about the “Mother of my LORD”. She was also the eye witness to what Jesus said when he was lost and found in the Temple, and only Mary knew the feelings that came over herself when she and Joseph discovered that he was not with the caravan of travellers.
Other probable sources for information would be the kinsmen of Jesus, for they would have the family records that pointed to their own relationship to king David.
Maggie
These are substantial reasons as to why the Lucan source is Mary.
There is only one eye witness who was present at the birth of Jesus alive after Jesus ascended into Heaven, that is Mary. Only Mary would be aware how Joseph felt when he discovered that she was pregnant. Mary was the eye witness to the comments from Simeon and Anna. She was present when Elizabeth rant to her and spoke about the “Mother of my LORD”. She was also the eye witness to what Jesus said when he was lost and found in the Temple, and only Mary knew the feelings that came over herself when she and Joseph discovered that he was not with the caravan of travellers.
Other probable sources for information would be the kinsmen of Jesus, for they would have the family records that pointed to their own relationship to king David.
Maggie
- Status