Mary and her children

[sacredcello]

Even when I claimed that, i was told by Roman Catholics that it was not the case, that these differences could stand without RC Traditions. I am happy to finally see aRC who can admit that it all comes down to S vs S+T

I don’t believe he said that it was Scripture + Tradition that comprises the authority of the Church’s teaching. Did he? No.
Apostolic teaching (tradition) is based entirely on scripture.

I would love to read your thoughts on the previous posting about Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, based on scripture.

Perhaps after some time to reflect on it…

Good night!

 

[sacredcello]

II would love to read your thoughts on the previous posting about Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, based on scripture.

Perhaps after some time to reflect on it…

Good night!

Oh, dear. I’m sorry I asked. Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the ark of the New Covenant is not a (Edited by Moderator)" She is our Mother, given to us by Jesus from the cross.

Please be a little more respectful.

I just spent an entire year in a Protestant/Catholic bible study in which I had to endure these insults to the Blessed Mother. I am convinced that very little good can come from this sort of dialogue. It is a gift of faith to know who she is, just as our faith in Jesus and the Holy Trinity is a gift. (the latter is not specifically mentioned in the bible, but is understood from apostolic teaching).

 

[exiled]

…

Wow. Without any intention of insulting anyone, that has to be one of the most (Edited by Moderator) RC ideas that I have seen to date…

But seriously, if such an idea were the case, why did none of the inspired writers make a bigger deal about it? Why does Mary only hang around for bits, flashes, of the gospels? Why does the author of Hebrews, when talking in chapter 9 about the ark, not mention this? Why does John, when referring to the ark in heaven, in Revelation 11:19, not mention it was Mary? No, I mean actually say “And it was Mary, the Mother of God”, or some such statement?

As it is, we are left with the image of a woman, which is akin to representing the Church (Rev 19:7 and 21:9), or Israel/Judah? Or even finishing the whole Eve thing (Gen 3:15)? Leaping at once and insisting it is Mary, instead of saying Mary played her part representing this, seems to be basing your Biblical understanding on your Traditions, instead of basing understanding on the Bible.

Simply put, there is too much suspension of belief to accept that Mary is anything more than someone who was blessed by God and gave birth to Jesus.

At best, Luke used similar language to draw attention to the importance of Jesus, not of Mary. Mary was not the special one - Jesus was.

But still, all this does not go to show how the RC view of perpetual virginity is soundly based in the bible…even less so how the idea that Mary had kids is not soundly based in the bible.

Well, now I’ve read through this entire thread and find this post to be evidence of your complete determination to reject anything, any evidence, that supports Catholic teaching.
Much of what has been presented here is Biblical evidence for what we believe, and you simply do not agree with the interpretation. You’ve given evidence, too, but on neither side is there proof positive. Your unwillingness to even acknowledge that what we believe is at least reasonable betrays your true colors.
Honest people can see what the other side is saying, and sometimes even why they are saying it, but still reach a different conclusion themselves.

 

[GOP]

Hello!

I am continually coming across statements such as and think it time to put this to the test

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,
   *]Matthew 12:46-47,
   *]Matthew 13:55,
   *]Mark 3:31-32,
   *]Mark 6:3,
   *]Luke 8:19-20,
   *]John 2:12,
   *]John 7:3-10
   
   I am sure there are more, but for now, that will do
   
   Thanks!
   
   -hvg3

1. 
   You’ve got me scratching my head.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for your quick response, Randy! However, I do find it lacking in certain areas…

This question is important - because my belief does not depend on this possibility. Yours, apparently, does.

I will review your argument and my own to see if there are any weaknesses; however, I feel that my own is a fairly strong explaination of the “brothers of Jesus” issue. Sufficiently strong to give pause to the skeptic, at least.

I have attempted to provide an explanation from the exclusively from the Bible as a concession in order to help you, a non-Catholic who does not accept the validity of Church tradition, to understand.

Please understand that my own position ultimately actually rests on the historical record of the Church which has held that Mary remained ever-virgin for nearly two millenia. Your own belief is a novelty.

Let me give you some examples of what I mean, and I hope you will take special care to note the dates of each of the following quotations:

Early Church Fathers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Athanasius

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

---

**Epiphanius **

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

---

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

---

**Didymus the Blind **

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

---

**Ambrose **

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

---

**Pope Siricius I **

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

---

**Augustine **

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

---

**Leporius **

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

---

**Cyril of Alexandria **

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

Huldreich Zwingli

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil…I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

Heinrich Bullinger

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

 

[Trelow]

Thanks NotWorthy.

hvg3akaek, take some time on it. You’re not digesting what’s been given.

And yes, I’m talking about authority , not Scripture vs. Tradition. Scripture is a part of Tradition, not the other way around.

I hate playing bible tennis. It’s an insult to Scripture which has to be understood in it’s entirety.

But here’s some good verses to bat around if you want to study on them some more, geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/biblecheatsheet.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am happy to finally see aRC who can admit that it all comes down to S vs S+T

How can this make you happy when you come out on the short end of that stick?

The Bible itself promotes adherence to Tradition.

Church Tradition Commended

Mark 4:33-34
With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

We’re never told in the Bible what these other “similar parables” were, but Mark obviously knew that Jesus had told them. Therefore, knowledge of some of Jesus’ teaching existed outside of the written pages of the scriptures.

Mark 6:34
When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.

We’re never told in the Bible what these other “similar parables” were, but Mark obviously knew that Jesus had told them. Therefore, knowledge of some of Jesus’ teaching existed outside of the written pages of the scriptures.

Mark 16:15

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.”

Jesus instructed his disciples to proclaim the good news by preaching; he did not tell them to go home, write everything down and circulate their writings.

Luke 1:1-4

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Theophilus had been taught the gospel orally; Luke’s written account confirmed the oral teaching already received.

John 20:30-31
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John acknowledges that the disciples knew more from direct eyewitness observation than he had recorded in his writings.

John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

John reiterates that there was much more from the life of Jesus than was contained in his small book. As an eyewitness of those things, he would have been able to share those memories with those to whom he passed on the faith.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Acts 1:2-3
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 11:2

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you.

1 Corinthians 11:23

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you:

Doesn’t this indicate that Paul’s preaching was “God-breathed” (theopneustos)?

1 Corinthians 15:1-5
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

Paul declares that the teaching delivered to the Thessalonians is not that of men but is the word of God.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

2 Timothy 1:13

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:2

And the things you have **heard **me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1 Peter 1:23-25

For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, “All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you.

Peter declares that the message already preached to the Church throughout the provinces is the “living and enduring word of God”. Peter’s letter (scripture) witnesses to the Apostles’ preaching (Tradition).

2 Peter 1:20-21

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The prophets spoke the word of God first; writing it down came later.

2 Peter 2:21
It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

2 John 12

I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

3 John 13-14

I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.

---

John has much that he wants to tell the Church and Gaius in person; he clearly does not want put it all down with pen and ink. Now, if John thought the only way that his message would have any real authority would be to write it down, he would have done so. Instead, his preference is for personal, face-to-face delivery.

Jude 3
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

 

[NotWorthy]

…

Wow. Without any intention of insulting anyone, that has to be one of the most (Edited by Moderator) RC ideas that I have seen to date…

But seriously, if such an idea were the case, why did none of the inspired writers make a bigger deal about it? Why does Mary only hang around for bits, flashes, of the gospels? Why does the author of Hebrews, when talking in chapter 9 about the ark, not mention this? Why does John, when referring to the ark in heaven, in Revelation 11:19, not mention it was Mary? No, I mean actually say “And it was Mary, the Mother of God”, or some such statement?

As it is, we are left with the image of a woman, which is akin to representing the Church (Rev 19:7 and 21:9), or Israel/Judah? Or even finishing the whole Eve thing (Gen 3:15)? Leaping at once and insisting it is Mary, instead of saying Mary played her part representing this, seems to be basing your Biblical understanding on your Traditions, instead of basing understanding on the Bible.

Simply put, there is too much suspension of belief to accept that Mary is anything more than someone who was blessed by God and gave birth to Jesus.

At best, Luke used similar language to draw attention to the importance of Jesus, not of Mary. Mary was not the special one - Jesus was.

But still, all this does not go to show how the RC view of perpetual virginity is soundly based in the bible…even less so how the idea that Mary had kids is not soundly based in the bible.

The point of my post was simply to answer your question, “What is this Mary and the Ark thing”. I answered it, you just say, “Wow, you guys are out there”!

 

[NotWorthy]

Please be a little more respectful.

I just spent an entire year in a Protestant/Catholic bible study in which I had to endure these insults to the Blessed Mother. I am convinced that very little good can come from this sort of dialogue. It is a gift of faith to know who she is, just as our faith in Jesus and the Holy Trinity is a gift. (the latter is not specifically mentioned in the bible, but is understood from apostolic teaching).

Please don’t misinterpret Hvg’s words.

He’s not casting stones at Mary, he’s casting stones at what we “have elevevated Mary to”.

 

[clmowry]

Really? I truly am sorry if you feel insulted and if this in anyway drives you from this Forum as a place to pursue the truth.

That said, at the risk of insulting you further, I’ll offer the following.

Why is it that when given a perfectly rational explanation for the question at hand you dismiss that argument so vehemently with arguements that simply have no more validity than the arguments you are dismissing?

Until quite recently, the perpetual virginity of Mary was never in doubt.

It’s a novelty. The primary purpose of that teaching today is to try and “prove” that the Catholic Church teaches something dogmatically that is false.

Why is it so important to a protestant that Mary had sex and Jesus had brothers?

From a protestant perspective what does it have to do with the Gospel?

What other purpose does taking the position serve other than an attempt to disprove Catholic teaching?

The point is that neither the Catholic nor the Protestant position can be “proven” from scripture.

As with many of the positions taken by Protestants and Catholics both sides can be supported by versus of scripture and the various interpretations presented for those versus.

When taking Scripture in its entirety it is completely rational and logical to beleive in Catholic teaching.

When reviewing the plethora of “interpreted” beliefs on any given subject, it is perfectly reasonable to accept that Appostolic Tradition as handed down by the Catholic Church as a necessary rule of faith.

Previous posters have laid out a perfectly rational explantation to the texts in question that is in alignment with the long standing Christian Tradition.

You haven’t even acknowledged that it “could” be a correct interpretation.

You’ve instead insisted that it must be wrong because there are some places in the old testament that use some compound words that probably mean cousin? And there are greek words for cousin that could have been used even though the greek translation would have been from a language that would have used the word “brother” rather than “my fathers sisters brothers son” everytime they wanted to say “cousin.”

Sorry, but I don’t “see” an effort to “learn” anything. I can’t see into your heart any better than you can into mine. So I’ll take you at your word.

Take this for what it’s worth, but it is certainly reasonable to conclude from reading your posts that you are here to present your truth and dispute Catholic teaching.

If you really are here to learn Catholic teaching, you might want to take this observation into account when formulating your posts.

Of course I could be wrong. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

Chuck

No desire to learn? How wrong you are, that is just one of the many things I long for. A greater knowledge, a greater understanding, to learn as much as I can.

Come to the wrong place? Well, I am sorry - but I was directed here by a Roman Catholic friend of mine, so bring your disagreements up with him

Don’t care what the truth is? How hollow (and insulting) a statement is that! Could I not simply turn it around and say that it is you that has no care for the truth? I will not, for I do hope that is not true, and I have no wish to insult you. But clearly, my entire motivation here is for the truth - if I was not worried about the truth, I would not be posting here at all!

And yes, I am seeking answers. Because Roman Catholics keep claiming to have them, but they do not satisfy, they do not hold up to scrutiny, and they do not hold up to the Bible.

 

[clmowry]

Actually, I’m happy to see the same thing.

This is precisely what it comes down too.

Once you get to this point you’ve got a postion to move ahead.

I’m not a Catholic appologist, I’m mostly just an “opiniated observer.”

What I’ve seen continually in this forum is a demand (from the protestant side) to “Prove it to me from Scripture Alone.”

In general, it just can’t be done. If it could then every “rational” Christian would believe the exact same thing.

It’s obvious that they do not.

To me this is precisely the reason the the Catholic faith is so compelling. It’s not that Catholic teaching is “easier” or “feels better.” It’s that it is for all practical purposes “unchanging” in its teachings.

Its the “Tradition” as handed down through the centuries that “is” the difference.

We’ve all got a bible, we can all read it, we all take something away from it.

I’m just not convinced that I can conclude that my interpretation of the text is always true. So I like to try and understand what the Church teaches and see if that makes sense, “before” I assume that my understanding is the better one.

I used to be much smarter than I am now and was pretty much sure that I was alway right. Thank God I’m not nearly as smart as I used to be.

Chuck

Thanks I won’t hold it against you.

Thank you, so much, for this statement!

That was my main reason for not making this thread sooner. I have many disagreements with how the Roman Catholic Tradition runs, but ultimately, every one of them comes back down to scripture vs scripture & tradition. And thus, I only started posting in a "sola scripture’ thread.

Even when I claimed that, i was told by Roman Catholics that it was not the case, that these differences could stand without RC Traditions. I am happy to finally see aRC who can admit that it all comes down to S vs S+T

 

[VociMike]

I think it is rather safe to assume that many kids means sexual intercourse has occurred. The gospel writer would need to know no more than Jesus had siblings to make this statement. That’s even before we look to God’s inspiration of his writing

But Matt 1:25 says, in your understanding, that they had relations immediately after Jesus was born. The only public proof of that would have been that Mary had a child 9 months after Jesus was born. What proof do you have that Mary had a child 9 months after Jesus was born. If you cannot prove that, then your understanding of Matt 1:25 is in error.

naturally, however, I will turn the question back on you:

Did you ever stop to think how the gospel writer could possibly know that Joseph and Mary didn’t have relations whilst she was pregnant? Did they make a point of telling him? Was he there?

You tell me. You’re the one who brought the passage up. You tell me how he knew what he knew.

 

[VociMike]

that is a very poor argument there. I am glad that you only made it a “point to consider”, that is good.

From John 7, we know that Jesus’ brothers did not believe. Mary apparently did. Why could this not simply be looking after her in a Christian setting, as opposed to the Jewish setting her own sons would provide?

No, it is an excellent argument.

In the first place, you have no evidence that Jesus’ “brothers” did not believe at the time Jesus was crucified.

In the second place, there has never been a Christian teaching or tradition that believing mothers are to live with unrelated believing men rather than with their unbelieving children. If Jesus did this, then the early Christians would have copied it and taught it. But such teaching, such behavior has never been seen, in the early Church or at any time.

In the third place, Jesus would have violated his own commandment and committed grave sin by dishonoring his mother in this way. To send a woman into the home of an unrelated man, to tear her apart from her remaining children for the rest of her life, would have been a terrible dishonoring of her.

In the forth place, the unbelieving children would simply not have allowed their mother to go live with an unrelated man. Mary’s sons would have physically prevented her, or removed her from John’s house. But we know she stayed in John’s house for the rest of their days.

This forth point bears further analysis. If the brothers were unbelievers, then they throught Jesus was insane. They further thought that their insane brother had started a blasphemous religious cult which had become the enemy of their Jewish faith (don’t forget who had Jesus killed - the Jewish leaders). And yet you want us to believe that these Jewish men allowed their mother to go live in the house, not of an unrelated Jewish man, not in the house of an unrelated Roman, but in the house of one of the leaders of the blasphemous cult which their insane brother founded!

No person with an open mind could believe this. It would be as if Muslim sons allowed their mother to go live in the house of an unrelated Jewish man. It is, that is to say, completely inconceivable.

 

[victus]

Hello!

I am continually coming across statements such as and think it time to put this to the test

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,
   *]Matthew 12:46-47,
   *]Matthew 13:55,
   *]Mark 3:31-32,
   *]Mark 6:3,
   *]Luke 8:19-20,
   *]John 2:12,
   *]John 7:3-10
   
   I am sure there are more, but for now, that will do
   
   Thanks!
   
   -hvg3

1. 
   Interestingly enough, is that the brethen of the Lord are always referred in the four gospels after Jesus call the first disciples.

 

[NotWorthy]

Paul refers to the recipients of his letters as “Brothers”.

In Acts, 120 Apostles, women, and brothers of the Lord are gathered together. After eliminating the Apostles and the woomen listed, that means Jesus had somwhere around 100 brothers. Either, “Brother” means more than simply brother (even in the Greek), or Mary was “Our Mother of Perpetual Pregnancy”.

And, yes, I looked it up. No where is she given that title!

 

[mich2]

**Matthew 1:25a

“…but he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.” (NIV) **

As pointed many times on this thread, this statement doesn’t prove either case.

John 21:22 "…if I want him to remain until I return…"

Since, due to this statement, a rumor was started that John would not die, clearly, the word “until” cannot be used to demonstrate that Mary did have a sexual relationship after Jesus was born. The problem is for non-catholics to use this verse as proof that Mary had other children. I would say that it is bad exegesis on the part of non-catholic for arguing about this verse.

*]Matthew 12:46-47,Matthew 13:55 Mark 3:31-32, Mark 6:3, Luke 8:19-20 John 2:12,

This is the strongest argument at hand. From these verses, it clearly makes it possible to imply that Mary did indeed have other children.
Therefore, the argument against these verses is a bit complex.
Catholic doctrines, as you know, does not come from “scriptures only”, and I believe that it is important that we shouldn’t limit ourselves to scriptures only in trying to understand it’s meaning. For example, Jesus spoke of the place called “Abraham’s bosom”. If we let scriptures interpret scriptures, then, we won’t get far in understanding this doctrine. In such a case, we need extrabiblical jewish litterature to help us along.
Now, as for the brother’s of Jesus; early christian documents claim that they were not the children of Mary (Jesus’ mother). There is also not one single document (scriptures included) which identifies the brothers of Jesus as being sons of Mary (Jesus’ mother). Early christian documents claim that Simeon, son of Clopas, who, in turn was the brother of Joseph, became the bishop of Jerusalem after James, the Lord’s brother, died.
In John’s gosple, it reads; at the foot of the cross, there, standing, was the sister of Mary,called Mary, wife of Clopas. If Clopas was the brother of Joseph, then, his wife (Mary) would have been the sister-in-law of Jesus’ mother, being why the scriptures would call her the sister of Mary (the Lord’s mother).
This Mary is also believed to be the mother of James and Joseph. Here, we have a woman who has at least three children, James, Joseph and Simon, having the exact same name as the brothers of Jesus, who are clearly identified as being his cousins. What would be the odds of Jesus having brothers and cousins bearing the same names?
A first century christian document, by the name of the Gosple of the Hebrews, which, according to some, was the original gosple of Matthew, written in Hebrew, Identifies, James, the Lord’s brother as being present at the last supper, therefore, identifying him as being among the twelve apostles.
According to Hegesippus (see Eusebius, l.c.), James was a cousin, and his father an uncle, of Jesus
James the son of Alpheus (one of the twelve) is said to having been martyred in the same manner than James, the righteous (Lord’s brother)

Hippolytus identifies that James was stoned to death in Jerusalem:

**And James the son of Alphaeus, when preaching in Jerusalem, was stoned to death by the Jews, and was buried there beside the temple. **

…the same is said for the Lord’s brother.

So they went up and threw down the righteous one. Then they said to eachother, ‘Let us stone James the Just,’ and they began to stone him, since the fall had not killed him. But he turned and knelt down, saying, ‘I implore you, O Lord, God and Father, forgive them: they do not know what they are doing.’ While they were pelting him with stones, one of the priests amongthe sons of the Rechabites, to whom the prophet Jeremiah bore witness, cried out, ‘Stop! What are you doing? The righteous one is praying for you.’ Thenone of them, a laundryman, took the club that he used to beat out clothes and hit the Just on the head. Such was his martyrdom. They buried him on the spot by the temple, and his gravestone is still there by the temple. He became a true witness to both Jews and Gentiles that Jesus is the Christ” (Eusebius

St Paul wrote that, when he went to Jerusalem, the only apostle he saw besides Peter, was James, the Lord’s brother. While it is true that others were also called by the name of apostle, the naming of Peter makes it somewhat more probable that the twelve are those who’m he was refering to especially for the fact that when St Paul arrived in Jerusalem, he was greeted by Barnabas, who is also called an apostle.
While the upper does not prove the perpetual virginity of Mary, it’s argument is certainly more in favor than against it, it seems.

Thanks!
-hvg3

Andre