Mary and her children

[ccfbob]

I started reading it, but tis long. Maybe some other time. If you think he has any relevant points which have not been raised, please post them, but so far, it seems like the same idea.

It cant be any longer than this thread, or some of your writing. Maybe it is because you don’t agree with it or it began to make sense to you and you could not face the truth, and now it’s… too long…

BTW, setting aside the “brothers” issue for a moment, let’s just look at Mary and consider her being the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Do you not think that God, being a jealous God could not have given Mary and or Joseph enough Grace to remain apart? Remember we are talking about 2 unique and singular people in Salvation History. Hey, if I were Joseph, knowing what God had done with Mary and Mary’s place with God, I would be petrified to even think of … Also, there is no marrage in Heaven, therefore no sex. Thats why Jesus was never married, he was about the Father’s business, and on a completely different spiritual level. He also says for those who can, it is GOOD (remember “Eunuchs” for the Kingdom). So why couldn’t Mary have remained a Virgin by keeping her eyes on God and Heaven as she was soooooo disposed to do His will? You say it is unnatural. So is giving up your life for sinners.

There is more to life than the flesh my friend! Infinately more! :getholy:

 

[ccfbob]

I started reading it, but tis long. Maybe some other time. If you think he has any relevant points which have not been raised, please post them, but so far, it seems like the same idea.

It cant be any longer than this thread, or some of your writing. Maybe it is because you don’t agree with it or it began to make sense to you and you could not face the truth, and now it’s… too long…

BTW, setting aside the “brothers” issue for a moment, let’s just look at Mary and consider her being the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Do you not think that God, being a jealous God could not have given Mary and or Joseph enough Grace to remain apart? Remember we are talking about 2 unique and singular people in Salvation History. Hey, if I were Joseph, knowing what God had done with Mary and Mary’s place with God, I would be petrified to even think of … Also, there is no marrage in Heaven, therefore no sex. Thats why Jesus was never married, he was about the Father’s business, and on a completely different spiritual level. He also says for those who can, it is GOOD (remember “Eunuchs” for the Kingdom). So why couldn’t Mary have remained a Virgin by keeping her eyes on God and Heaven as she was soooooo disposed to do His will? You say it is unnatural. So is giving up your life for sinners.

There is more to life than the flesh my friend! Infinately more! :getholy:

 

[hvg3akaek]

Actually, since the Church wrote the Bible, one would expect that Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand.

One would expect that, if it were the case. So, why doesn’t it? One has to then think that maybe the initial assumptions were incorrect…

Actually, the Church was called “Catholic”

And I just started a church in my backyard, where only birds are allowed to be married, and the only commandment is that we must eat green frogs 8 days a week. I am calling it the “Catholic Church”

Does that mean my church has been around for 2000 years?

((now, please note that the above example was meant to be strange/ludicrous simply to make it clear that it was not based upon anything except random thoughts in my mind! ))

Yes, they used the term ‘catholic’ before. No arguments there.

But it was used in a different sense, and the church itself was different. It is like how Christianity grew out of Judaism. Yet, Christianity has only been around for 200 years, not 3500+ years. Likewise, Roman Catholicism grew out of the early church.

But seriously, this is off track Back to Mary and her kids, ok?

Since the one Church has held the idea that Mary was ever-virgin, the only novelty is held by those who 1500+ years later deny it.

No. As has already been shown, people disagreed with it within a few hundred years of Mary. It is not a new thing.

Perhaps it might be best to do a bit of research first, then ask your questions?

but why? no one else has to!

Seriously, though - i could do that. i could spend ages looking up where to find information, then finding the actual books, then reading them, trying to locate what I was after. That could take weeks or months, with my lack of time for such adventures.

Or, I could ask you.

So, if the Protoevangelium of Jameswas an authoritative document, why is it not in the NT canon?

Do you have any document even remotely close to that age which states unequivocally that Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters? Remember, Aramaic had no word for “cousins”, so I will not accept the scriptures themselves as your proof. This issue is explained to my satisfaction (obviously, I am not alone given the course of Church history).

NT =/= aramaic.
NT = greek
Greek had a term for “cousins”
your argument =/= valid.

There are many issues here: 1) Mary’s vow of virginity and Joseph’s agreement to marry her as a protector - not as a normal husband,

• not Biblically based.

1. the fact that in becoming pregnant through another (in this case the Holy Spirit), Joseph could not have her as his wife in the normal sense according to Jewish law;

• not Biblically based.

1. Joseph is thought to have been an older widower - hence his qualification and willingness to take Mary into his home as her “husband” though he would not have sex with her due to her vow;

• not biblically based.

and 4) the action of grace in his life given to him by God who chose him to be the father on Earth of His Son, Jesus. Obviously, there are many men and women who take vows of celibacy in response to God’s call. Joseph is not unusual in this…Paul did the same.

• not biblically based.

This is difficult for us men to understand today, but that’s because we don’t have “St.” in front of our names.

Actually, I have as much right to that as any other Christian, past, present of future We are all saints.

Acts 9:13
“Lord,” Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem.

Romans 15:25
Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there.

2 Corinthians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia.

Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus

…and so on.

If anything, I think that making certain Christians ‘better’ than others by whacking a “St.” infront of their name is in direct contradiction to what Jesus said in Matthew 23:8-10.

I’m going to suggest that you think long and hard about that question.

because you have no answer?

Wrong. As has been pointed out, the Church was called the Catholic Church probably within the lifetime of the last living Apostle, John. So, from here, your disagreement is without merit.

“Roman Catholic” as used today =/= “catholic” as used by the early church.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Growing up in the Roman Catholic traditions" didn’t stop Luther from throwing out many other beliefs he had previously held. This would have been his big chance to put an end to the Marian nonsense once and for all…and he did not take it.

Curious that. :tiphat:

c’mon, he was just a man, you cant expect him to get everything right, can you? Seriously, some things are learnt and hammered in so hard that even if you break free of many of them, a few still linger on.

 

[mich2]

Because the natural state of a person in heaven is “immortal”. The ‘promise’ is that he won’t die now → after, he follows the natural state of those in heaven, and no one will die later, so he won’t.

If the return of Christ is identified in Revelation as the rider on the white horse, then, immortality is not given to everyone at that particular time. In fact,those who are waging war with the rider are actually killed by the rider.
For John to remain “until Christ returns” could potentially imply that he would die before the resurrection, being 1,000 years after the coming of Christ. Therefore, since there is no such implication involved, as the rumor claimed that John would not die at all, it seems that this renders the word “until” as having no implications of changes after a particular period of time.

The natural state of a person in marriage is “not a virgin”. The ‘claim’ is that she was a virgin up to Jesus’ birth → after, they follow the natural state of those in marriage, and married couples generally have sex, so they will.

Since the statement was to show the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah, that is, a virgin will not only conceive, but also bear a child, the author does not intend to imply anything more than the prophecy having been fulfilled. The fact that Joseph knew not Mary “until” Jesus is born fulfills this prophecy is all the author intends to convey. If you desire to believe that Mary and Joseph afterwards, had a sexual relashionship, by all means, you can, but not at the expense of the verse in question…it simply does not imply a change of state, anymore than the word used in the case of John does not imply that he will die after the coming of Christ.

Fortunately, their beliefs do not match the Bible, with is how we work out the validity of such assumptions.

They say the same concerning us…why are you so confident in believing that they are wrong and that you are right? My confidence rests in the early christian documents, not in my personal ability to interpret scriptures…

Which Lazarus are you talking about? The one in the parable (Luke 16:19+) or the one who was Jesus’ friend (John 11:1+)?

The one in Luke 16 is clearly heaven. What proof? Well, (a) he is dead. (b) we are only ever told of heaven / hell as options. (c) the rich man was in hell, but was separated from Lazarus. (d) Abraham clearly did not go to hell.

Therefore, “Abraham’s bosom” or “Abraham’s side” is simply “being with Abraham”, in Heaven.

This was what I meant;your argument comes from scriptures only, interpreting scriptures. And one cannot do any better by using such method of exegesis. if Abraham’s bosom exists in Heaven, then, what was the purpose for God’s Son to become incarnate and sacrifice His life in saving us from our sins, if the souls of those who died before the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, already were able to enter Heaven?
You would find that there are extrabiblical jewish litteratures, existing during the time of jesus, which identifie Abraham’s bosom as existing within the bounderies of Hadies…that is, Hell…not Heaven.
Nowhere can this revelation be found in scriptures. This makes the catholic, unbiblical doctrine of Limbo as having biblical support, since this is precisely what Abraham’s bosom is… the catholic doctrine of Limbo.

I am sorry…are you saying that for the 12th apostle, they chose one of the 11? Would that not defeat the entire purpose of choosing 12th??

I’m sorry for not being clear enough. After Judas died, Matthias was chosen to replace him. However, Matthias was chosen because he was a follower of Jesus from the beginning.
Now, we also know that James is, not only an apostle, but one of the three pillars, along with Peter and John. How did he become such a prominent figure if he, at one time was an unbeliever? How could he have become superior to most of the other apostles? Where does the scripture reveal his great conversion?
My point is simply that the first century christian document (gosple according to the Hebrews), which identifies James as one of the twelve, is supported in the fact that scriptures identify him as being one of the three pillars in the Church.

Andre

 

[hvg3akaek]

I wont go into your rainbow quotes, as they do not offer anything new. However:

The thoroughly modernist revision of Christian belief, which began with the restoration movement of the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Evangelicalism, and Seventh Day Adventists was nowhere found nor supported in christianity protestant or catholic.

Mormons and JW’s are very much not Christians. JW’s believe that all of “Christendom” are going to be the first zapped when Jesus returns for the third time. And the LDS only started because Joseph Smith was “told” that every other church in the world had fallen into apostasy.

Neither of those groups are Christian.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Augustine

"[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called catholic,' when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (*Against the Letter of Mani Called The Foundation’* 4:5 [397 A.D.]).

Augustine, fortunately enough for him, said that before 400AD, thus before Roman Catholicism had become what it is today. What he was talking about, and what exists today are simply not the same beasts.

Everyone wants to claim that they are "catholic’ but the term is properly applied to the one Church that Jesus founded. That Church, and that Church alone is “one, holy, catholic and Apostolic.”

Indeed t is. However, you still have not convinced me that the “one Church that Jesus founded” is the Roman Catholic one today

but this is no longer about Mary, is it?

 

[hvg3akaek]

You are well off the mark here, judging higher things – indeed Divine Mystery – by lower things, the ordinary working of humanity, rather than the reverse. God is Holy, and anything else that is holy is such by a special relation to God making that holy. Thus creation is not holy, although it is good;

Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

it is made out of nothing and not out of the substance of God. Marriage is made holy by the Sacrament of Matrimony, otherwise it is very good and special.

well, the idea that it is a ‘sacrament’ is another point of contention

By Mary’s womb being physically touched by the Body of God the Son, there is a special relation of her womb to God far beyond the goodness of married love, which is intended by God for intimate love of spouses and the creation of new life.

To use the now holy womb which contained God Incarnate for another lower by very good purpose would be totally inappropriate, just as the use of the chalice at Mass for drinking one’s soda at lunch. Why? Because it would profane what is sacred and what has only a Divine use.

This is not Biblical. There is no scriptural backing up of it, there is not even any real logic to it.

Actually, the rest of your post sadly follows suit.

Please: this thread is about Mary and her kids/perpetual virginity, and if each side is backed up by the Bible, or in contradiction to the Bible.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Matthew 1:25 tells us that Joseph did not have relations with Mary before the birth of her Son. Why not?

Because (a) they were not married when he found out, and (b) to fulfil prophesy

By not having intercourse with Mary before the birth of Jesus he is acknowledging in principle that he was also forbidden to have intercourse with her thereafter.

Proof, please

A woman found to be with child that is not her husband’s is forbidden forever more to him and to the man who impregnated her. Under Jewish law, because Mary was found to be with child before she had consummated her marriage to Joseph she was forever forbidden to him. He could keep her as his wife but he was not allowed intimate relations with her.

Again, proof please

Had Mary born any children after Jesus she would have been liable to be stoned to death under the Law.

Actually, she was liable for this from the first child. That is why Joseph was going to divorce her ‘quietly’, so as to not cause shame or a stoning. In marrying her, he hid this from everyone else, and thus everyone else accepted it was his child, no stoning needed.

Had Joseph claimed those children to be biologically his, he could have been stoned to death also.

Proof please

Additionally, how would they know? How would anyone know that Jesus was not Joseph’s son, and thus know that Joseph needed stoning after Jesus’ first sibling?

 

[victus]

Please: this thread is about Mary and her kids/perpetual virginity, and if each side is backed up by the Bible, or in contradiction to the Bible.

Well, since the Bible doesn’t say Mary bore other children, and that Matthew 1:25 (“until”) does not imply sexual intercourse after Jesus was born, I see no contradiction in Church teaching with regards to the Bible.

 

[NotWorthy]

This does intrigue me. What about this doctrine is ‘beautiful’ to you? What is it that makes it so great?

You don’t see the Beauty in God’s Word? I know you see it in the NT. But I mean the way God has connected the OT and the NT in so many ways.

You quite appropriately commented on Luke “may have” linked the Ark with Mary, but it was to show the Glory of Jesus. Why of course, that’s so!!! That’s so with every teaching of Mary. It doesn’t take away from His Glory, it helps us to understand His Glory more. But I digress.

I’m talking about the way the OT is fulfilled in so very many ways in the NT. Not just with Mary (BTW, do you see how Mary is the New Eve?).

I’m talking about Jesus at the Festival of Lights saying, “If anyone thirsts, let them come to me…” Do you see Ezekiel in there where he discusses the water coming from the heart of the Temple? Do you see this fulfilled when the spear is thrust in Jesus’ side, and the water flows from the Heart of the Temple?

I could go on and on, but I simply find these teachings Beautiful!!! They give me but a brief glimpse into just how much God Loves us, not matter how unworthy (or should I say “not worthy”?) we are.

 

[Michael_Howard]

Because (a) they were not married when he found out, and (b) to fulfil prophesy

Proof, please

Again, proof please

Actually, she was liable for this from the first child. That is why Joseph was going to divorce her ‘quietly’, so as to not cause shame or a stoning. In marrying her, he hid this from everyone else, and thus everyone else accepted it was his child, no stoning needed.

Proof please

Additionally, how would they know? How would anyone know that Jesus was not Joseph’s son, and thus know that Joseph needed stoning after Jesus’ first sibling?

Dr. William Hendriksen, the former Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan: “This conclusion cannot be based merely upon the negative plus “until.” That wording does not always introduce an event (in this case: she gave birth to a son) whereby the earlier situation (the couple had no sexual relations) is reversed (they now begin to have sexual relations).” From The Gospel of Matthew, p. 144.

 

[Journeyer11]

So, please, can someone explain to me, using the Bible, how Mary could still be a virgin all her life, and not contradict the following passages?

1. Matthew 1:25,
2. Matthew 12:46-47,
3. Matthew 13:55,
4. Mark 3:31-32,
5. Mark 6:3,
6. Luke 8:19-20,
7. John 2:12,
8. John 7:3-10

Can I first ask, why you depend on the Bible for proof that Our Blessed Mother, Mary was not a virgin? What does the Bible bring to this discussion? Let’s say, for argument sake, that each of those passages proves Mary not to be a virgin…What does that mean to you?? I"m just curious…Thanks.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Proof from the bible:

Matthew 16:17-19

Either Jesus is a liar, or the gates of hell have prevailed in spreading the false doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity for 1800 years.

Or the more likely notion, that He’s right, and you’re wrong.

((nice straw man…))

Or, you have a rather inaccurate idea of what the ‘gates of hades’ prevailing actually means. And it has nothing do to with Mary’s virginity.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Most people who could read or write understood Latin; but that’s for another thread and has been brought up many times here. Most peasants of the time could not understand read or write.

Hence, the nice and inclusive thing would have been to read it in a language that thos who cannot read it themselves would understand.

Leave the latin reading for the scolars

But your interpretation contradicts even the Protestant Reformers.

And who claimed that they were infallible?

The Bible’s views are the Catholic Church’s views.

Yet to be shown.

 

[YADA]

Not one of the early protestant reformers believed that Mary was other than “ever virgin” Calvin and Luther accepted the perpertual viginity of Mary.

The OP wants to imbue scripture with meanings that are not present in scripture but only in the interpretation of said scripture.

I won’t sit down to dinner with the OP until after I post this message…

Now whether I ever sit down to dinner witht he OP after I post this message is irrelevent…

One poster said the meaning of until had changed…this is not true. The word until can only restrict what comes before… It can have no definitive action upon the actions that come after.

The term “First Born” has no impact upon whether there is a second, third or thirteenth child.

My cousin Michael was my Aunt’s “first born” child. He was also her oldest child and only son. He was not her only child. My aunt and uncle adopted three little girls. In that sense Michael was the oldest of four children. But only one of the four was her first born. If they had adopted te gils first, Michael would have been her “first born” even if he would have been the youngest, not the oldest.

A woman [like my sister in law] who bears one child and one child only still has a “first born”. My nephew Jeremmy is my brother’s wife first born, only born, only child, only son. If my brother refers to Jeremy as his “only son” that does not mean he has a sister! To infer such would be to impose something upon the statement that is not there…the same with the OP.

 

[hvg3akaek]

The earliest Christians considered Mary to be a virgin in perpetuity. Ignatius of Antioch wrote of her perpetual virginity in 107 AD, afterwards came Athanasius, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome…and a host of other early theologians.

:nope:

me: “So, please, can someone explain to me, using the Bible, how Mary could still be a virgin all her life, and not contradict the following passages?”

Right, but once she was married why did they not have sexual relations prior to the birth. She was married before she gave birth, right? So there was a period of time in which they were married while she was pregnant. Why not have sex while pregnant? See, you didn’t actually answer the question.

see here.

 

[Michael_Howard]

:nope:

me: “So, please, can someone explain to me, using the Bible, how Mary could still be a virgin all her life, and not contradict the following passages?”

see here.

This still begs for an answer:

Dr. William Hendriksen, the former Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan: “This conclusion cannot be based merely upon the negative plus “until.” That wording does not always introduce an event (in this case: she gave birth to a son) whereby the earlier situation (the couple had no sexual relations) is reversed (they now begin to have sexual relations).” From The Gospel of Matthew, p. 144.

 

[victus]

Hey hvg3,

1 Timothy 3:15 RSV

…the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

If this passage from scripture is true, then why is the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary’s virginity wrong?

Why don’t protestants fulfill this passage of scripture? Is it because there are thousands and thousands of different protestant denominations, that each say their church is the true church, but yet teach something different from the protestant church around the corner.

 

[hvg3akaek]

So basically you’re saying that we can’t prove it from the bible, and you can’t prove it from the bible, so you must be right, because for the last 2000 years we’ve been yanked about by whore of revelation and you’re gonna save us from our doctrines of man?

Not at all

The issues prompting me to start this thread were the ideas that:

(a) Roman Catholic beliefs about Mary are firmly based upon the Bible; and
(b) Protestant understanding of Mary is in direct conflict with Scripture

No one has managed to do anything about the second point, and so far, a solid biblical foundation for the first point is also unproven.