Mary and her children

[water]

Just a thought - while a few wants to say Blessed Mother Mary has more children and at the same time they themselves deny being Her children.

Are you Her child? I know I am.

 

[hvg3akaek]

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.

nor do you have any to the opposite. What we do have is that they didn’t believe around John 7. Thats a point closer to my side than yours…

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.

Well, this is cyclic at best.

It is Roman Catholics who build traditions and teachings out of things - if such a tradition did arise, it would be within RC. But, RC’s believe that Mary had no children, so the only place it could arise would be somewhere where it would not arise.

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.

Proof?

If what he did for her was loving, was caring for her, there would be no dishonour.

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.

They would have locked her in her room? Would that not be a dishonour to her? Would they have beaten her if she tried to escape, or knocked her unconscious and dragged her back home? Would they have treated her as a slave to prevent her from being ‘dishonoured’?

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!

…that their ‘insane mother’ had spent too long with anyway. Maybe they had given up on her, let her go her own way. Another reason for her to need somewhere to live now… After all, how long had she been following Jesus around for? How long since she had lived at home for a good period of time?

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.

For you, perhaps. But then, I would suggest that you do not have an “open mind”. You cannot even accept the possibility of my point…
As to the Muslim…my little knowledge of them would suggest that they would probably try to kill her. This may well be incorrect, but most Christian converts of Islam do fear for their lives. In Muslim-run countries, anyway.

 

[Nicene]

Proof?

If what he did for her was loving, was caring for her, there would be no dishonour.

Showing disrespect for his mother? And in public? What proof do you offer that Jesus needed to rebuke his mother in public? Scripture please.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[victus]

hey hvg3, could you show us again where it says Mary(Jesus’ mother) bore other children? I must have missed that.

 

[hvg3akaek]

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

And yet, these ‘brethren’ did not believe…

John 7:5
For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

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!

Wow! Well, I guess I will have to renounce my ideas now, and accept that she clearly never had other children…

…or would, except that I have already replied to this idea before.

 

[hvg3akaek]

**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.

Agreed! However, it does sound more likely that there was sex after Jesus was born. Not proof, no, but suggestion, yes.

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.

OK, a few problems here.

Once Jesus returns, thats the ‘end of everything’, right? There is no longer earth and heaven, there is no longer any death, there is just God’s new creation, his people living with him, and those outside outside.

So, the idea of being able to “remain until [Jesus’] return” does not mean live forever, but live forever in this creation. That is, not be able to die. The idea is that he cannot die “now”, “here”, because of Jesus’ (misread) claim, he cannot die “after” because there will be no more death.

That is, the “until” is stating that the condition (not die) runs for a period of time (now => Jesus’ return), from which the normal situation would apply (heaven - no death).

Likewise, the “until” in Matthew stating that the condition (no sex) runs for a period of time (start of marriage => Jesus’ birth), from which the normal situation would apply (in marriage - sex).

That is good exegesis. Not proof, just heavily suggesting.

From these verses, it clearly makes it possible to imply that Mary did indeed have other children.

Thankyou. I guess this is another point against the initial statement, part two!

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”.

The problem is, it is like trying to prove that Jesus wasn’t the Christ, using the Koran.

As to “Abraham’s bosom”… I am hesitant to ask, but what else could it mean but his chest? What else was it but a sign of comfort/friendship/care?

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.

The problem here is that as of John 7, Jesus’ brothers did not believe. Thus, those referred to as 'brothers of Jesus" at this stage were not part of the disciples - the 12, or others. Thus, they were different people.

The rest of your arguments have already been made, and addressed.

 

[hvg3akaek]

As for the “Until” argument, I understand that John Calvin supported St. Jerome as against Helvidius (sp?), saying he was a fool to interpret “until” as necessarily meaning that Mary had sex afterwards.

I agree, blindly stating that it was a black-and-white situation would be a bit stiff-necked. However, just as it does not necessarily mean she had sex afterwards, it also does not necessarily mean she didn’t. And, with the natural, normal ideas of marriage, the former is more logical. So to claim against it, more evidence is needed…

Here’s my question: Where are the supposed “descendants” of Mary today? With all of her “children”, there should be lines today who can trace themselves back to their great, great, great, etc. grandmother: Mary, mother of God.

Again - if the descendants were part of the ‘protestant’ way of thinking, they would not really care. They would not want to wave flags or anything, realising that mary was just another human being. Blessed, yes, but along with so many others.

f they were part of the ‘roman catholic’ way of thinking, then they would either ignore/explain away the relationship, or else, believe it to be one in terms of ‘brethren’, or ‘cousins’. And that would not be as important.

After all, some of the claims have been that the people were cousins of Jesus, or step-siblings. Both of these still would have had ancestors - why aren’t people making those claims?

 

[Michael_Howard]

Agreed! However, it does sound more likely that there was sex after Jesus was born. Not proof, no, but suggestion, yes.{/quote]

John Pacheo from the Catholic Legate explains the greek ‘heos’ (until) here quite well:

“When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus” (Matthew 1:24-25). Normally, the word ‘until’ denotes a cessation and reversal of the action in the clause immediately preceding it. Hence, Joseph had conjugal relations with Mary until after Jesus was born. The Greek word ‘heos’ (‘until’), however, does not necessarily mean that the state before the event does not continue after the event. In other words, just because the word ‘until’ is used in the passage does not necessarily mean that Joseph had subsequent sexual relations. Hence, Mary’s virginity was not necessarily lost after the birth of Jesus. There are many references which vindicate the truth of this claim. The list presented here is a sample: Genesis 8:7, 26:13, Numbers 20:17, Deuteronomy 2:15, 34:6, 2 Kings 6:25, 1 Chronicles 6:32, 2 Chronicles 21:15, 2 Chronicles 26:15, Judith 14:8, Judith 15:5, Tobit 2:4, Psalm 57:1, Psalm 72:7, Psalm 110:1, Psalm 123:2, Psalm 141:10, Psalm 142:7, Ecclesiastes 2:3, Song of Solomon 1:12, 2 Samuel 6:23, Isaiah 14:2, 33:23, Ezekiel 24:13, 1 Maccabees 5:54, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 28:20, Romans 8:22, 1 Corinthians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 15:25, Ephesians 4:13,1 Timothy 4:13, 1 Timothy 6:14, Revelation 2:25-26. All of these references show that the word ‘until’ does not necessarily indicate a reversal in the main clause. Quoting from Psalm 110, the Book of Hebrews says this of the Son: "But to what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet’? (Hebrews 1:13) Obviously, Jesus will remain at the right hand of the Father after His enemies are made a stool at His feet.

Hope this helps

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **NotWorthy** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2210020#post2210020) 				
  		*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!

Wow! Well, I guess I will have to renounce my ideas now, and accept that she clearly never had other children…

…or would, except that I have already replied to this idea before.

What? With this?

Matthew 12:49
Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.

Acts 1 happens after this. For Christians, the term “brother” was changed from what the Jews used. You cannot confuse a Christian “brother” (care of Acts 1:14) with a Jewish “brother” (care of Matthew 12:47)

But in Matthew, these are still Jews. They are not Christians yet. And Matthew is written to who? Jews, for at this time, Jews and Christians were still united, even if tenuously.

 

[water]

My uncle’s kids call me “brother”. I call my aunt’s kid “brother”. The guy at the church called me “brother”. The guy on the street whom I don’t know also calls me “brother”.

The last time I check my birth certificate, we all have different parents.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Think about the modern meaning of until that you are ascribing to this verse. In the modern usage, it implies that the action is perform at the moment of mention. For instance:

There are some problems with your idea that “until” means an “instant” change. See below.

Jerry was single until his wedding day. - at the moment of mention, his wedding day, he immediately became married.

Jerry was married at 1pm. An “instant” reading of “until his wedding day” would mean that for the 13 hours prior ti his wedding, Jerry was actually already married…

Ellen fasted until noon. - at the moment of mention, noon, she immediately ate.

An “instant” reading of this one would mean that at 11:59:59am, she had food on her fork, poised at her mouth…or some such scene.

Why not at 12, she got up, went to the kitchen, opened the fridge, grabbed some stuff to eat, then made herself some lunch, and ate. Food only entered her mouth at ~12:23:47pm.

The usage does not imply that sometime in the future, not immediately but definitely in the future it must occur. For instance:

Hank couldn’t see until he put on his glasses. - thie doesn’t imply that he put on his glasses and then a week later could see. No, at the moment of mention, putting on the glasses, he could immediately see.

Or even better - Hank couldn’t see until he found his glasses. The mere presence of them allows him to see!

Apply this usage, which you advocate, to the verse “but knew her not until she had borne a son” and it gets very strange. Are we to believe that they had relations that night right after Jesus was born - which is the moment of mention?

No, no, no!!!

I will happily agree that it does not mean the above But then, your examples do not mean “until” as above, either.

This usage is the older meaning, used almost exclusively (I say almost because I have not encountered anywhere that this is not the case, but I have not exhaustively searched) in Scriptures. This usage describes a condition up to a point in time, but makes no indication of the condition afterwards. For instance, in the Old Testament we see alot of:

And such and such a marker stands until this day. - we cannot take it to mean that that very day the marker came down. But, it is very likely that over the course of thousands of years that the marker could have succumbed to weather or hostile forces.

That is actually a poor example, as the ‘this day’ continually changes. Simply put - the speaker cannot say it has lasted longer than ‘this day’, as they do not yet know.

There are a mere 401 uses of the word “until” in the NIV. (yes, that was sarcasm )

A quick survey of them is below:

#1 - Genesis 3:19
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

=> Clearly, we will not be sweating with our brow to eat our food once we are dead?

#100 - Joshua 7:13
"Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, 'Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow; for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: That which is devoted is among you, O Israel. You cannot stand against your enemies until you remove it.

=> Could they stand against their enemies afterwards?

#200 - 2 Chronicles 9:6
But I did not believe what they said until I came and saw with my own eyes. Indeed, not even half the greatness of your wisdom was told me; you have far exceeded the report I heard.

=> He believed after he came and saw, yes?

#300 - Matthew 2:13
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

=> When they were told, they didn’t stay longer, did they?

#400 - Revelation 20:3
He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

=> This one is even answered for us - “after that…”

Anyway, form my very brief survey of the verses, I did not find one use of “until” that matched your suggestion. Yes, I only looked at…5 out of 401, but I did just grab some every now and then. They are definitely there. Should we go through them all?

 

[mayra_hart]

and i quoted from the book born fundamentalist born again catholic by david currie " As i studied the issue of mary"s virginity, i realize that there was no proof either way in scripture. So why not accept that jesus was the only child of mary, just as the churchhas always maintained? even the major PROTESTANT REFORMERS accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity. On reflection, Mary’s perpetual virginity makes the most sense.Even without a vow of celibacy, can anyone doudt that Joseph would have refrained from marital relations with the woman who bore the very SON OF GOD?" i think mr currie did a great job. Luke 23: 27-29.

Mary shares Jesus’ suffering as He carries the cross through the streets of Jerusalem.

 

[hvg3akaek]

I would love to know your rendering of Genesis 3:15.

Genesis 3:15 (NIV)
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

or

Genesis 3:15 (ESV)
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

The problem with your view is that you apparently think that just anyone…even non-Christian (Hindu, etc.)…can simply pick up a Bible, read it and come to perfect understanding. It is a mistaken view.

It is indeed a mistaken view. Of “sola scripture”. For we do not claim that at all!

One major problem with the notion of “sola scriptura” is that it leaves out God (the Holy Spirit) as a necessary ingredient of discerning truth. It is not possible to properly interpret Scripture without the aid of God. That is what Protestantism lacks.

Who has the Holy Spirit? Just one person (the pope)? Just the top group (bishops)? Any specific group within the church? Or everyone who follows Christ?

Luke 11:13
If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

 

[Bishopite]

quote=hvg3akaek;2208793]Thankyou I appreciate that.

Great! I am eagerly awaiting it

Well, look at history, you mentioned the early church, well post first century and prereformation who and where were these Christians? And who were these disciples of the Apostles? And what does there writings reveal? It reveals Catholic teaching, that’s why the early creeds (which were what the church believed) i.e., Apostles and Nicean creeds say…one holy Catholic and Apostolic church. This is “evidence” and there is much more to offer.

Seriously, it is not “what I have been taught the Bible says”, but “what I read of the Bible”. And do not worry, it is not only the Roman Catholic churches I find lacking, but the Protestant ones too. They all are made up of sinful beings - it is no surprise that they are all lacking.

So, you are limiting yourself to the only valid interpretation of scripture?

And yes, there is disagreement between denominations over what certain scriptures mean - the same happens within and between Roman Catholic churches as well.

Can you give some examples?

however, the important thing is that the differences not be vital. There were disagreements within the early church - for example, the eating of food sacrificed to idols. That does not matter, and if some wish to abstain from it, how does that effect their salvation? Then, there are major things that we must agree on - such as the divinity of Jesus. Fortunately, every protestant church I have experience with agrees with this. (individual persons within the church may not, but that is the same within Roman Catholicism).

Well, then what are the “essentials?”

Actually, I cannot find the verse where it says that Paul had to show them what the scriptures meant…

Acts 17:2 Paul reasons with the scriptures.
Acts 17:11 the Bereans come to know the true teaching of the scriptures from Paul.
“The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews. These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so.” The Bereans came to know Jesus Christ in the OT scriptures NOT by self study alone (sola scriptura), but by Paul revealing the truth to them. Within Protestantism there is no ceratain criteria by which we know what is the truth. Also, notice where it says “brothers” in verse 10. Does that mean blood brothers?

 

[hvg3akaek]

It is simply one of the many beautiful teachings of the Church that other Faith’s don’t adhere to.

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

You mean like noting the difference in “novelties” and “whacky”?!?!?

Yup! I mean, those little fun novelties you get in showbags sure are whacky some times, aren’t they?

Sometime our emotions get in the way, and we think any attack on the teachings of Mary is an attack on Mary. My apologies for any “rude accusations” due to this.

Thanks Don’t worry, I will not hold it against anyone!

I think the most interesting part of the protestant position is that the next in line (if Mary had other children) assumes the throne.

…

From a protestant perspective, according to Jewish law, James immediately became King upon Jesus death.

Of course, “from a protestant perspective” Jesus is always King…the whole returning-from-the-dead showed that. And of course, “from a protestant perspective”, Jewish laws no longer held. And finally, “from a protestant perspective”, the kingdom was not ‘of this world’. It needed no king or ruler on earth, no pope to be the head of the church. no priests or high priest between us and God. It simply was God, then us.

 

[Blinky]

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

If someone reads this passage and assumes that James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are the biological brothers of Jesus, then they must also assume that Jesus is the biological son of the carpenter (Joseph).

 

[hvg3akaek]

Showing disrespect for his mother? And in public? What proof do you offer that Jesus needed to rebuke his mother in public? Scripture please.

What proof do you offer that Jesus rebuked his mother? (scripture please )

hey hvg3, could you show us again where it says Mary(Jesus’ mother) bore other children? I must have missed that.

Sure Its easy enough to miss, as people often come in to the topic without reading it fully

Here is what you are after!

 

[hvg3akaek]

What? With this?

Sorry, I did something tricky there - two links right next to each other

The first was in reference to what you quoted - Jesus changing the meaning of the term “brother”. If the Jews outside also meant it in the same way, Jesus’ reply would have made little sense.

The second was pointing back to the first one (that is, the last post is the third time i have addressed the same comment…)

If someone reads this passage and assumes that James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are the biological brothers of Jesus, then they must also assume that Jesus is the biological son of the carpenter (Joseph).

Or, that it was the Jews belief that he was the biological son of Joseph.

Which is much more likely

 

[hvg3akaek]

and i quoted from the book born fundamentalist born again catholic by david currie " As i studied the issue of mary"s virginity, i realize that there was no proof either way in scripture. So why not accept that jesus was the only child of mary, just as the churchhas always maintained? even the major PROTESTANT REFORMERS accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity. On reflection, Mary’s perpetual virginity makes the most sense.Even without a vow of celibacy, can anyone doudt that Joseph would have refrained from marital relations with the woman who bore the very SON OF GOD?" i think mr currie did a great job. Luke 23: 27-29.

Mary shares Jesus’ suffering as He carries the cross through the streets of Jerusalem.

So someone said that there was “no proof either way”? Do you agree with him, that there was no proof either way??

It would be great if we could reach this conclusion, but it still feels like Roman Catholics think that there is proof.

As to “why not accept that Jesus was the only child of mary”? Because it is based upon tradition, it has less for it than against it, and it leads to all kinds of dishonour for God.

 

[Blinky]

Or, that it was the Jews belief that he was the biological son of Joseph.

Which is much more likely

Which makes the Jews wrong about Joseph being the biological father of Jesus …

and wrong about Jesus having any biological brothers.