Mary and her children

[FCEGM]

. . .Something else interesting is shown here, however. The idea of perpetual virginity, says Origen was because of the “wish to preserve the honor of Mary”. That is, the belief is that sex with her husband could somehow dishonour her. How could this be? Is it not more of a dishonour to not follow God, who said “the two will become one flesh” (eg Matthew 19:5)?

Or ignore God’s instructions, through Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:5 - “Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

Or was Joseph also sinless, in that he could withstand all temptation?

Clearly, God’s purpose in marriage is for sexual intercourse, and through that, for the people to become one. What is marriage without sex? . . .

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; 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. 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.

Now the plan for the Blessed Mother in marrying St. Joseph was holy and not just natural and therefore not just naturally good. The holiness of Mary’s body having this special relationship to God the Son was to be respected by her husband, as her vocation as not to become anyone’s wife and mother, but to become the Mother of God. Marriage is good and special; Christian marriage is sacred by the grace of Christ, but its purpose in being sacred is to elevate Marriage to the level of being able to sanctify the participants.

Mary was sanctified from conception in order to be a fitting dwelling place for God the Son Incarnate. Her special vocation thus precludes the good but lesser vocation of natural marriage and even the sanctified Christian marriage which is to provide the means of sanctifying the spouses. Mary, already sanctified, did not need this lesser means of sanctification, lesser, that is, in comparison with the graces of sanctification given her at her Conception and subsequent pregnancy. St. Joseph, however, was sanctified by the marriage to Mary, especially in sacrificing his personal needs in order to safeguard and support his Most Holy Wife. One does not profane (treat as ordinary) such holiness.

 

[FCEGM]

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…

Matthew 1:25 tells us that Joseph did not have relations with Mary before the birth of her Son. Why not? There was no ban on intercourse during pregnancy under the Jewish Law under normal circumstances, and if he was going to have intercourse with her after the pregnancy why not before

It was because in Jewish culture this would have meant that Joseph acknowledged biological fatherhood over Jesus. Because he refused to do this he was saying in essence that he did not accept Jesus as his biological son though he would accept him as his legal son. By refusing to consummate his marriage with Mary he was in conformity with the Jewish Law. 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. 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. (In fact, a woman caught in adultery is likewise penalized.) 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. Had Mary born any children after Jesus she would have been liable to be stoned to death under the Law. Had Joseph claimed those children to be biologically his, he could have been stoned to death also.

It would certainly have been inappropriate (which for faith is very serious) for Mary to have had other children. The Incarnation hallowed Mary’s womb because of the One present there: the Fulfillment enclosed in the Ark of the New Covenant. The first Ark was a human construction (at God’s command) containing the written Covenant; but Mary contains the very Divine Word Himself; her womb becomes sacred thereby. Once one sees the definition of what is Holy as a Divine attribute distinct from what is naturally good but not Holy, one sees the Divine logic of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. One does not use what belongs to God, as set aside for Him alone, also for a lesser, ordinary human purpose, not if one has a sense of justice for the honor of God, as doing so would imply God is to be treat on an equal par with His creatures, which is unfair to Him and a defect in our awareness of His greatness as different from what He has made, and a defect in our expressing that awareness of His Greatness and Holiness. Reason can see that, if it considers the matter in more than isolated functional ways.

cf: cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

 

[Nicene]

that is no evidence! We use the terms today, we have simply kept the meaning of the early church, and not the meaning the Roman Catholics have made it.

No offense but you haven’t “kept the meaning of the early church” but corrupted it, beginning in many corners with the corruption of the creed.

For if it is as you say you must include the gnostics, Simonians, Cerinthians, Besilidians, Carpocratians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Cerdonians, Ebionites etc. as the real churches and included in the modernist revision of the meaning of catholic. Those sects take us from 50 A.D. to 175 A.D.

Further you must include those heretics whom Peter, Paul, Jude, and John denounce. In fact in Jude he says they are like Korah. Korah was a rebel in Moses time who rejected the hierarchy God established in favor of making their own individual ones.

Jude 1:11: Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.

Numbers 16, 26, 27, Sir 45. Jude certainly believes in the church is the hierarchal order established by the Lord and those who left her like Korah, grasping power for themselves instead of what God established. The theme sounds familiar; reformation 1500, reinvention, revisionism 1830 to today.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[SPH1]

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

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!"

You’ve renounced the absurd notion of “sola scriptura”, good.

So the issue becomes how Christ and the Holy Spirit guide the Holy Church into properly interpreting Scripture.

Or, who really has the guidance of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Nicene]

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?

Actually this is interesting because in the other thread (which I hope to get back to this afternoon) in your reply you denied the Body of Christ, the church, as a reality and said it was only symbolic. You can’t have it both ways.

The other presumptive mistake you make is that it is only the hierarchy of the church who protects the deposit of faith when it is in fact not only them but we right here, laity and hierarchy throughout the centuries. If every bishop and the pope were to die today guaranteed that the deposit of faith would not die with them as we the laity would also protect the deposit of faith being stewards of Gods varied grace.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Trelow]

Proof from the bible:

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
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.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Either that, or kept the Bible in a language most people did not understand (eg…latin?) whilst inventing “Traditions” that (poorly) explained away the errors.

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. Scripture readings at the Mass were in the vernacular and the scholars used the most popular language of the time – Latin.

hvg3akaek:

Chew on this: If the Bible had anything that contradicted Roman Catholic teaching, but you had been taught that the Roman Catholic teaching was correct, would you want to cut out the offensive part of the bible, or just say “Ah, but your interpretation isn’t infallible. Ours is!”?

But your interpretation contradicts even the Protestant Reformers.

hvg3akaek:

His views, and the Bible’s views

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

 

[Vaclav]

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?

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.

Moreover, even Martin Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity:

From That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew

we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity… But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin

And Zwingli from his sermon of 17 September 1522 entitled The Eternal Virginity of Mary:

I firmly believe that [Mary], according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.

I have no reason to question this teaching on the Blessed Virgin, especially given the prominence of it for most of the history of Christianity and by the best theologians in history.

As has been stated the Greek words adelphos and heos simply do not translate perfectly into the English words “brother” and “until.”

 

[hvg3akaek]

I am saying what I said before: The Jews called it like they saw it and were wrong about 1) their assumption that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus and 2) they were wrong to assume that Jesus had biological siblings.

Unbeknown to them, Mary and Joseph had no other children.

Mistaking the fact that one of their sons (Jesus) was actually not fathered by Joseph, but a miracle from God = believable and acceptable. Who was to know that?

Mistaking some cousins for family members = not believable or acceptable. They knew Jesus and His family. It was not a society like today, where we may not know the intimate workings of our neighbours life. The society back then was very “high-context” and very group-related, they knew a lot about their immediate neighbours, and they would know of the children Mary gave birth to.

Since Scripture says that Mary did not bore other children, how do you come to the conclusion that she did?

Verse please!

 

[hvg3akaek]

If Mary was not a virgin after the birth of Jesus, then she was still a virgin during her marriage to Joseph up and till the birth right? What would have been the point or purpose of that? Was sex forbidden between husband and wife during pregnancy or something? Do you have a good answer to that question?

Mary was not married to Joseph until after she got pregnant.

She was only betrothed (promised in marriage - sorta like today’s engagement, but much stronger, as it required divorce to break) (Matt 1:18-19)

Really, I thought you would have been able to work that one out

 

[cor]

Mary was not married to Joseph until after she got pregnant.

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.

 

[hvg3akaek]

But having the Holy Spirit does not mean you can interpret and understand Scripture, does it?

Fully 100% accurately? That is, Infallibly? No, I would say that Jesus never promises that.

But some understanding? An ability to interpret/understand? Yes. Yes it does.

John 14:25-26
All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Do I have the Holy Spirit?

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!

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Would it do any less for me?

Just ask Peter.

I am sorry - could you point me to his answer?

Just ask the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Why does the Holy Spirit ask Phillip to interpret for the Eunuch? Why couldn’t He have just entered the Eunuch Himself?

Ah, that’s a ‘chicken and the egg’ question Which comes first, our repenting and our turning to God, or God giving us His Holy Spirit?

Why ask Phillip? Clearly, because the Ethiopian did not know God, and thus did not have His Holy Spirit.

As to “why couldn’t God…” - who says He couldn’t? Are you imposing restrictions upon God?

Nothing says that He couldn’t have done that - the Bible merely says that He didn’t do that.

 

[mayra_hart]

is jesus have brothers as some fundamentalist believe where they went during christ cruxifixion? do they decide to run and hide…?and why none of them were with mary during that ordeal?.. an i quoted just a reminder david currie use to think like all fundamentalist before he convert… “Why was this fact about Mary never included in scripture? P robably because it was commonly known. She was still alive when the bible was been written. It was easy to determine the facts. Just ask her or the many people who knew her. Tradition tells us she was under the care of JOHN until she died in jerusalem around A.D.49.” so what happen when mary died where is the rest of the so call brothers of jesus. ? did they hide too? and yes david currie have his facts wrong too. a former baptist. why he suddenly know think as a roman catholic ST. JUDE PRAYERSMay the Sacred Heart of Jesus be Adored, Glorified, Loved & Preserved throughout the world, now & forever. Sacred Heart of Jesus, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Worker of Miracles, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Helper of the Hopeless, please pray for me. Amen."

 

[hvg3akaek]

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

And the same could be said of the assumptions you are making. You believe “brothers” necessarily means the biological sons of Mary, and we’ve given you ample examples of the other probabilities.

Other possibilities, not probabilities

In my mind, if I had been given the enormous task of raising the **Son of God **(let’s pause on that a moment), if I had experienced what the Holy Couple did at the Nativity (the wise men and their gifts, shepherds, etc), if I had had to flee to Egypt to avoid Herod’s order, living out a “normal” married life would have been the farthest thing from my mind!
These were devout Jews who’s entire life was focused on the coming of the Messiah! He comes, and to your house!! The Kingdom of God is at hand!

Great - but that’s all in your mind. You already have part of it wrong - the wise men never visited the ‘nativity’. they arrived some years later - not only did their travels take time, but when Herod found out how long they had been travelling, and when the boy was born, he had all the kids ~2 years and younger killed

Of course, you are also not seeing that being “devout Jews” meant that they believed in the purposes of marriage. They believed that in marriage, the husband and wife should come together and be one. Bit hard for that to happen if there’s no sex allowed. Plus, children were a blessing - wasn’t Mary blessed? Then she should have lots of children!

Sorry, all need or desire for anything else in this life goes away!
If Jesus Christ were in your house, would you do as Martha and go about your regular business, or would you do as Mary and remain at His feet and in His service?

A pointless question, for if Jesus was in my house, it would mean that He had returned, and this existence as we know it would be over!

Likewise, Jesus in His years of ministry would merit a major difference in response to Jesus before His ministry.

 

[hvg3akaek]

If you use this type of exegesis for John, that is, John will be changed from being a mortal to being an immortal “without going through the process of dying”, then, in my opinion, the same should be implied for Mary as well; that is, Mary, at the birth of Jesus becomes a mother while still remaining a virgin. If the implication of John is that he will never experience death, then, what is wrong in assuming the scriptures **suggesting ** the same for Mary; therefore implying that she will always remain a virgin?

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.

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.

It’s more like trying to prove that Jesus is divine by showing (proving)that the early christians, the followers of the apostles, understood the gosple in the such a way. You know as well as I do, that some christians, in using scriptures only, denie the divinity of Christ through their own private interpretations…

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

Where was Lazarous, after he died? The scriptures speaks of Abraham’s bosom… was he in heaven, or was he in hell? What proof do we have?

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.

Would this include James? We know that Jesus chose twelve apostles to be the foundation of His church .After Judas died, the apostles replaced him with a disciple **who had to have been a follower of Jesus from the beginning. **.
St Paul became an apostle after receiving a revelation of the risen Christ, and through his work, became a powerful apostle.However, he identifies the pillars of the church as being three apostles, he, being excluded; although James, the Lord’s brother being one of the pillars. If James was an unbeliever, what happened in order for him to have experienced such a powerful change, in order for him to become one of the three pillars of the church, being above most of the apostles? The scripture is totaly silent on any type of conversion experienced by James, althpough we know a great deal about the conversion of Saul.
Having first century documents ( gosple of the Hebrews) identifying James as being one of the twelve clearly solves the problem, doesn’t it? How could James be one of the three pillars of the church, above most of the apostles, if, in order to replace Judas, a disciple who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His minitry, had to be chosen? Simply, that, James was already one of the twelve.

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??

 

[mayra_hart]

**Did Jesus have Brothers and Sisters? ** FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first-born son. By this time, St. Joseph has died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no “blood brother,” He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple. Interestingly, the Orthodox Churches solve this problem over brothers and sisters by speculating that St. Joseph was a widower who had other children before he married Mary. These brothers and sisters would really then be half-brothers and half-sisters. Perhaps this notion is why St. Joseph sometimes appears elderly in paintings. Actually, this whole confusion is not new. About 380, Helvidius suggested that the “brethren” were the children born of Mary and Joseph after Jesus. St. Jerome declared this as a “novel, wicked, and daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” In his On th e Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary, St. Jerome used both Scripture and the fathers, like Saints Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr to refute Helvidius. Later, the First Lateran Council (649) definitively declared that Mary was “ever virgin and immaculate

 

[hvg3akaek]

Why don’t you and I compare the early church (the next generation of disciples of the Apostles) post first century and prereformation with your Protestant beliefs and my Roman Catholic beliefs and see who “doctrines” agree with whom.

Why bother? Why not go back to the Bible, and see what ‘doctrines’ agree with it? Not a good case so far on this one

Helvidius thought that also in the fourth century but Jerome already knew the truth and corrected his heterodoxy. Even Protestant theologians hail Jerome as one of histories greatest scholars.

great scholar =/= infallible

Here is a link where Jerome corrects Helvidius.
cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm

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 could mean this, so therefore we are right”.

Interestingly, though, it sounds like he does not believe in purgatory
“…must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says “In sheol who shall give you thanks?” [Ps. 6:5].”

quote]Baptism? How about the Church of Christ, they and some Lutherans and Anglicans assert the need for Baptism and some reformed as well, that’s why all but the Church of Christ practice padeo baptism.

So, what about baptism do you think is fundamentally important?

 

[hvg3akaek]

If they just read the OT and knew Jesus was the true Messiah then why would they need Paul to show them He was?

They might not have heard of Jesus yet? They might not have heard all that he had done? In essence, they had not heat been able to read the NT?

Sola scriptura is not found in the OT nor the NT nor post Apostolic period until Martin Luther created it.

[purgatory] is not found in the OT nor the NT nor post Apostolic period until [someone] created it.
[contraception is bad] is not found in the OT nor the NT nor post Apostolic period until [someone] created it.

Is this a valid reason for dismissing the above three ideas? Or do you want to choose a different argument?

Luther and Calvin also believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, I might add.

Don’t. It has been done many times, and has no weight in the discussion. My dog doesn’t believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Should I add that too?

(and no…i am not comparing Luther and Calvin to my fictional canine. I am comparing the relevance (or, rather, the irrelevance) of the above statements)

 

[Trelow]

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?

 

[exiled]

Okay guys,
hvg3akaek seems to think he has an infallible answer to every point made here at CAF.
Many, many have given the most logical, well thought out responses to his objections, but in return we get stonewalled by his (apparantly) infallible interpretation.
He’s not listening to anything anyone is saying, either from the earliest church fathers or any one of us. Sooooo…where does that leave us?
I guess we just hope that another reader will see the Scripture and ECF evidence that has been posted and have the humility to let the Holy Spirit lead them where they do not wish to go (not unlike Peter)