Mary and her children

[NotWorthy]

hvg says,

  	 				Not at all :) If all you get from me is a desire to think for yourself, instead of being spoon-fed what to believe, then my time was worthwhile.

I do like this quote. What you call “being spoon-fed what to believe”, Catholics call “Teaching one Truth” as Jesus asked us to.

I think that one quote separates Catholic Thinking from your thinking the most.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Exacly!

The Church isn’t teaching that Perpetual Virginity is clearly taught in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly say that Blessed Theotokos is an ever-virgin. It contains many clues - but not a clear statement (same applies to the trinity as well though). However that isn’t a problem because we do not work under the “Bible-only” assumption, which is unfortunately nowhere taught in the Bible and in the end only leads to circular reasoning (as being demonstrated in the Sola Scriptura thread).

But at the same time the Bible does not say that Mary had other children. If you interpret the scriptures correctly then you will not come to that conclusion. All arguments against the perpetual virginity can be easily DEconstructed (such as the ‘until’ argument). If you understand the language and times you will have to come to the understanding that the “Jesus had brothers” conclusion is mainly based on interpretation that stems looking at the issue through “21st century glasses” and to answer on whether she had other children or not, you need will to visit other sources.

If you think that Protestants don’t believe in perpetual virginity of Mary then you’re also wrong. Many do! So it’s not a question of Protestantism vs. Catholicism but a question of an interpretation of a group of Protestants vs. another group of Protestants+Catholics+Eastern Orthodox+Oriental Orthodox. And if you wish to apply numbers, those who don’t believe in Perpetual Virginity are a minority (not that this is an argument).

Pax!

 

[Trelow]

Yeah, I understand this My question was much more specific - about mary, a normal human, somehow representing the ‘new’ ark of God’s law. That, I don’t see.

She’s not a normal human she’s the Holy Mother of God.

Jesus himself crafted her to be His mother, would He not have made her perfect? What demented person would hand their mother over to their enemy in any way?

 

[Tom]

I just started a new thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=153976) on one of your topics, the “brother / sister” question. It asks for examples from the “Bible alone” where a brother or sister is not from the same mother. Please join in, perhaps we can put to rest the question of a brother or sister must be of the same mother argument.

 

[ccfbob]

1. The Holy Spirit did not have sex with Mary! …
2. and once again, idolatry creeps in…

3…Jesus is God. For him, doing something ‘unnatural’ is ok - He is God! Mary is a human. She is not God. For her to do something ‘unnatural’ is not reasonable.
Please, do not attribute God’s characteristics to Mary…

Reply,

1. Again, I think you have fixation on sex.
2. I am not an idolator, I worship the One true God: Father , Son, and Holy Spirit (so please do not judge me, lest you be judged :dts: ). But I do Love my Momma…Ave Maria, oh wait is that idolitry, oh but that cant be, remember that the Angle said that in the Bible RIGHT! So it is OK, right?
3. My friend, all things are possible with God. God has asked many unnatural things of Man throughout history (Abraham to kill Issac, Men to feed thousands with a few fish, etc.), I thought you knew your Bible.

Another thought, you keep saying it is not in the Bible, show me in the Bible. Where did you get that? Where is that in Scripture? It is not in the Bible. :newidea:

 

[mayra_hart]

and this is a quoted again from david currie. " did other people of that time make vows of virginity and celibacy? yes, recent discoveries( such as at Qumran) leave no doubt that it was a known practice, though uncommon. but surely Evangelicals and Catholics would agree that Mary and Joseph were an uncommon couple. what common have been entrusted with the early education of GOD INCARNATE?" But again i imagine that now they are going to said that this is not in the bible either. ST. JUDE PRAYERS
May 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."

 

[victus]

Because the Roman Catholic church is not “the church of the living God”?
Because “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” does not mean “infallible”?

Skipping over the thousands of denominations, which one of them claims to be the one true church? Anglicans certainly do not…

1 Timothy 3:15 RSV

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

Notice though, it doesn’t say “of some of the truth” or “of sometimes having the truth.” The Church is true in everything that she teaches, therefore being infallible.

Matthew 16:19 RSV

…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[FCEGM]

This article pretty much demolishes the idea that the Blessed Virgin had other children:

catholic-legate.com/articles/maryvirgin.html

A brief excerpt:

. . .What is more, the “Mary” who appears at the Cross/Tomb accounts in the Synoptics, and who is unquestionably the mother of Jesus’ “brothers” James and Joseph [Jose], is most likely the same Mary who appears in John 19:27, where she is called the “wife of Clopas” and is also apparently identified as “His mother’s sister.” Now, let us think about this. Two sisters, both named “Mary”? Not very likely. Yet, if we take the word “adelphe” here as a translation of the Jewish tribal term, and assume that Mary the wife of Clopas (and mother of James) and Mary the mother of Jesus are merely close relatives, yet not biological siblings, then it makes perfect sense that James would also be called Jesus’ “brother.” However, assuming that this woman in John 19 is indeed the same Mary from the Synoptics, and thus the mother of James, what we would then have to conclude is that this Mary was married to Joseph, had James (and Jose and presumably a whole slew of other kids by him), and then divorced Joseph and married Clopas, allowing Joseph to marry the Blessed Virgin. Or, we must conclude that Joseph was married to two women named Mary, both of them “sisters,” like Leah and Rachel. But, again, we have no Scriptural reference or tradition for any of this. And there is also the little matter of Scripture referring to James as “the younger James” (Mark 15:40), thus implying that he was younger (NOT older) than Jesus; and certainly younger than James Bar-Zebedee, who was evidently about the same age as Jesus.

 

[victus]

Or, its talking about Eve, and her distant seed, Jesus.

Genesis 3:15 RSV

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

Actually, when referring to seed in the bible it always refers to males(a man’s seed, women don’t have seed). But, here in this passage from scripture it refers to “her seed.” The woman in this passage of scripture is Mary and “her seed” is Jesus. No male seed was needed for the birth of Christ. Hence, a virgin birth. Eve did not have any virgin births. But guess who, the new Eve, Mary.

 

[NotWorthy]

HVG, why do I get the feeling that if you lived in 900BC, you’d be saying, “You guys spend too much time worshipping the Ark of the Covenant!!! It’s taking away from the Glory of God!!!”?

Oh well…

 

[Vaclav]

Friends,

You have provided overwhelming evidence on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. Our Lady should rightly be proud and honoured by her zealous defence here. It is clear that there are many who love Christ’s mother and I count myself amongst that humble group.

Yet, this path only leads to frustration. The origin of the argument asks us as Catholics to ignore the Sacred Tradition and the Living Magisterium. We are asked to, in essence, become Protestants - not even of Luther’s or Zwingli’s deference to the Church - but of the modern mold where the great minds of early Christianity and Scholasticism are thrown in the rubbish bin.

Why?

Why should anyone who has been given the gifts of Truth be reduced to puerile views when other views are given charitably and in respect and deference, but then are tossed aside as worthless?

We’ve argued the Greek meanings, the scholarly tradition that dates for millennia, and even common sense based on Jewish law, and yet all are cast aside.

I’d argue that you cannot make someone see what is clearly visible when they refuse to look. Or, to be more blunt, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him take a drink.

 

[victus]

Friends,

You have provided overwhelming evidence on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. Our Lady should rightly be proud and honoured by her zealous defence here. It is clear that there are many who love Christ’s mother and I count myself amongst that humble group.

Yet, this path only leads to frustration. The origin of the argument asks us as Catholics to ignore the Sacred Tradition and the Living Magisterium. We are asked to, in essence, become Protestants - not even of Luther’s or Zwingli’s deference to the Church - but of the modern mold where the great minds of early Christianity and Scholasticism are thrown in the rubbish bin.

Why?

Why should anyone who has been given the gifts of Truth be reduced to puerile views when other views are given charitably and in respect and deference, but then are tossed aside as worthless?

We’ve argued the Greek meanings, the scholarly tradition that dates for millennia, and even common sense based on Jewish law, and yet all are cast aside.

I’d argue that you cannot make someone see what is clearly visible when they refuse to look. Or, to be more blunt, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him take a drink.

Well said!

 

[Philthy]

Not at all

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

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

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

And what, exactly, does this last point prove more than anything? That the bible alone does not prove too much. Do you think I’m stretching with this conclusion? IF so, please state some element of the faith contained in the NT that is undeniably “proven” in Scripture and therefore universally held by all Christians. You will reduce the 400 pages of NT into well less than a page. Hardly very efficient on God’s part.
And I just have to respond to a point you made very early on:
hvg3:

Secondly, having this great, inspired book - would it not state, within the book, that Mary were a perpetual virgin, if indeed she was? Would the authors not have been inspired to use unambiguous language to describe these events which…
Why would God inspire His own authors of His own Word to write so poorly and mistakenly, unless that is exactly what he meant?

You dont actually believe what you’ve written here. For even when the bible is explicit in what it says, you still believe otherwise. Want a few examples?

James 2:24 " You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. " Why (if you dont believe a man is justified by works) did God say such a thing if he didnt mean it? Why was he ambiguous in such a critical, salvation-related statement?

John 6:54-55 " he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. " Do you believe what is actually said, or do you change it to a “saying” which ISNT “hard to understand”?

Matt 6:14 “If you do not forgive the trespasses of others, neither will your father in heaven forgive your trespasses” Do you believe that the forgiveness of your sins is contingent upon forgiving others? Why not? Is Jesus not being explicit enough?

There are plenty more places where the bible is indeed ambiguous on important matters of faith. You know, simple stuff like, Is Jesus God? Your original reason for questioning " Would the authors have been inspired to write “ambiguously” is a good one - though it is incomplete. You operate from the assumption that the bible is the source of all Christian truth for each individual. And so your question becomes, “If the bible ALONE is the source of Truth for all Christians, would God write ambiguously on important matters?” The answer to your question becomes - no IF it were, He would not write ambiguously. But the reality is that much of Scripture IS ambiguous and even appears contradictory. We can only conclude, once we accept this reality, that the bible ALONE, therefore, was not meant to communicate the FULL truth of the Christian faith. In doing so, we realize that there will be few issues conclusively resolved by Scripture alone. History confirms this conclusion through the plurality of doctrine among Sola Scriptura adherents.
The length of this thread and the inability of either side making progress with respect to the other side, further confirms it.

Phil

 

[hvg3akaek]

Yes, if I travel to Australia it would be possible to now have dinner [as I have posted]. But no **further action **in the “I will not …until…” is implied by the word “until” You my friend are imposing a future event.

And you (and the Roman Catholic Traditions) are imposing a continual negative action. Once again, I ask - which is more likely? In your dinner example, you would not normally be expected to have dinner with me. But if my wife made the comment “I will not have dinner with my husband until I have made this post”, does that mean she will never have dinner with me?

My point is not that “they had sex” is the only interpretation. It is that (a) it is the logical and reasonable interpretation, and (b) the Roman Catholic Traditions cannot claim this verse as supportive of their stance. In fact, they cannot claim any of the listed verses as supportive - the doctrine is totally removed from the Bible. It is founded elsewhere, and the Bible is interpreted to match.

I notice you didnot address my aunts first born and only son with three sisters none of which are blood siblings…nor my nephew Jeremy. To argue from scripture the *possibilities *is absurd.

I’m sorry - I did not see the relevance. I was not arguing that Jesus being the “firstborn” meant that He had other siblings. The “firstborn” comment has no weight either way. So I left it.

It is possible that Jesus is only a man or only God [both positions argued by early Christians and both positions decelared heretical by the Church.

Well, if it is declared heretical, how is it possible?

If Jesus was not God, He blasphemed something chronic in claiming that He was God. So we get back to the “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” argument. If He was not God, He was either a Liar (but He was raised up - so not a Liar) or a Lunatic (but He shows no other signs of mental health issues, and is quite rational and wise - so not a Lunatic). Jesus has to be God, there is no other option, no other possibility.

Sure the “human” part is more difficult, but also rationally showable. Neither stance is possible.

Mary is the one who bore a child by the power of the Holy Spirit, who over came [or over powered depending, etc depending upon the translation you choose]…Jesus is refered to as the Son of the Most High. The Son of God [and Son of Man] cae into the world [Incarnate - made flesh human nature, human form] with parents - Mary and God [through the action of the Holy Spirit], that makes her [defacto] the spouse of the Holy Spirit. This is the understanding through Christian history. That you challenge this understanding with 20th century sexualized connotations is your issue.

It was brought up with sexualised connotations. God being jealous of Mary/Joseph is mad - God hates divorce, if making Mary pregnant was legitimate reasons for divorce, why would God do that?

No, there is not biblical evidence for the idea of Mary being God’s spouse, and quite frankly, I find the notion that people think so rather abhorrent

And you may not like the office of pope, nor accept papal authority and infallablility does not mean that you are not holding up your authority and your interpretation as being infallable, because you are.

Wrong

It means that I am holding no one as infallible except God.

I notice in the scripture passage you are loving to quote it is Mary the mother of Jesus and the brothers [and sisters] of JEsus NOT Mary the mother of Jesus and her other sons and daughters.

Jesus was the focal point. People were surprised and sceptical of Jesus preaching, because they knew him. They knew his mother, they knew his siblings. Hence, they related his family to him. Very logical…

Also, what about Jesus giving the care of his mother to a non family member [John] at the cross? A scandal this would be…Mary would have had no need to be given into John’s care if she had had all of these [or even just one] other child…

Mentioned many times before. Brothers = not believers (see John 7), mother = believer, John = believer. Being with believers was more important than some arbitrary ‘scandal’. After all - her own son is on a cross, the lowest form of punishment from the Romans, and treated as a criminal, cursed under God, any other scandal would pale in comparison. Who knows? Maybe her children ‘disowned’ her when she kept following Jesus to His death?
[/quote]

 

[hvg3akaek]

I’m sorry, but Jesus was the seed of Adam’s, not Eve. There is no enmity between Eve and Satan. Eve was a slave of Satan’s.

oh yeah, of course. no enmity at all… Eve was delighted to be thrown out of Eden because Satan tricked her into eating the fruit…

If Tarzan saves me from falling into a pit, am I any less saved than someone else who Tarzan rescued from the pit? I think so. Jesus saved Mary before she could fall into the pit of sin.
“But all things are possible with God”. Mary didn’t do this on her own. No Catholic claims that. “my spirit rejoices in God my savior.”

So Jesus saved her before he died? Why did he have to die then? Why not save everyone likewise? Why not save all of his church likewise? That would have been a shining example to the world! Or at least, save the leaders like that - holy leaders would have been much better than the sinful bunch that lead us currently…?

If you think Catholics are spoon-fed what to believe and that we all don’t think for yourselves…

you mean you seriously read those passages without any RCT bias, and still come to the conclusion that they say that Mary was always a virgin?

I think you’ve been spoon-fed on what Catholics teach and believe.

yeah, no. Oh, wait - maybe you have been spoon-fed on what you think i have been spoon-fed on what Roman Catholics have been spoon-fed on?

I don’t go to a Math teacher to learn English. You shouldn’t go to others to learn what the Catholic Church teaches.

hence why i am here. unfortunately, what Roman Catholics here claim they are taught and what they can give me seem to differ somewhat…

 

[mich2]

And again -I agree! The verse does not state that they did have sex afterwards. It also doses not state that they did not. Using it to prove either way is erroneous.

Agreed…actually, I’ve never heard of a catholic using the verse in question to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

But, put together with all the other verses in my first post, it highly suggests that there was sex in the marriage after Jesus was born!

Well, the rest of the verses identified the names of the brothers of Jesus; they were James, Joseph, Jude and Simeon. How would you respond to the argument that the sister of Mary, wife of Clopas,was the mother of James and Joseph, the brothers of Jesus? Early christian litterature identify Simeon, son of Clopas, who in turn was the brother of Joseph, succeeding James, the Lord’s brother as bishop of Jerusalem. We know the early christians had on hand the list of all the successors of the Apostles in all the churches. Now, if Joseph’s brother was Clopas, then, his wife, Mary, being the sister -in-law of Jesus’ mother, was identified in the scriptures as the the sister of Mary. Now, if Mary of Clopas has at least three children, having the exact same names as the brother of Jesus, what would be easier to accept? The cousins of Jesus are idenitfied as being his brothers, or that Jesus had brothers and cousins bearing the same names?

Or…hold it…it was a parable!!

Jesus was not explaining the specifics of what heaven would be like. His purpose was elsewhere.

But this doesn’t take away the fact that the Jews, who lived during the time of Jesus, believed in this spiritual place called Abraham’s bosom.

No, there is no no biblical support. Support does not mean “referenced something that could have the same meaning as an idea that is totally removed from the Bible”.

However, Abraham’s bosom was believed, by the jews, to be a place within Hadies (hell). Whatever logical conclusion can become of this, will need to ressemble the Catholic’s doctrine of Limbo (Limbo of the Fathers, not Limbo of unbaptized infants)…I don’t see any way of escaping this, except, perhaps, to deny that such a place exists at all. However, here, one would have to prove that Jesus did not believe in such a place, and that would, in my opinion, be next to impossible to prove.

Ah, gotcha Different James, then, would be the logical conclusion.

I’m not sure what you mean by this; but, yes, there are different people named James in the scriptures. There is the son of Zebbede,there is also the apostle called James the less, and then, there’s the Lord’s brother. I believe the apostle, James the less, is the Lord’s brother. According to tradition, they both were martyred in the exact same way.

Hippolytus claims that James the less (apostle) 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.

…Eusebius writes concerning the martyrdom of James, 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)

Notice that both the Lord’s brother and the apostle were martyred in Jerusalem by being stoned, and both were buried beside the Temple.

Andre

 

[hvg3akaek]

There in lies the problem.

(a) is not true. Catholic teaching is not “based on the bible.” It doesn’t need to be. It will not however be in contradiction to a correct interpretation of the bible.

Great! That is what I wanted to hear, instead of the past ~10 pages of people arguing contrarily

Naturally, I don’t agree with anything after not “based on the bible” ] but that’s not what this thread is about.

As far as (b) goes we are only disputing “your” interpretation of the bible with regards to the perpetual virinity of Mary.

OK then, how about:

[hvg3’s] understanding of Mary is in direct conflict with Scripture?

or:

[the] understanding [that] Mary [was only a virgin until (some time) after giving birth to Jesus] is in direct conflict with Scripture?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

you mean you seriously read those passages without any RCT bias, and still come to the conclusion that they say that Mary was always a virgin?

Alright, let’s try reading the passage with no Catholic “bias”. In other words lets:

1. Read the passages literally as there is nowhere else to go since I’ve already rejected any other understandings…
2. …which includes rejecting the understanding taught by great Christian scholars and theologians from ancient times.
3. Pretend like Bible just fell from the sky and was already written in English.

You are right. It’s so obvious now . Mary was not ever-virgin because the Bible CLEARLY mentions Jesus’ brothers. I mean, when the Bible says that he had brothers the author clearly meant that he had blood-brothers, right? :whacky:

Now, have you seriously read those passages without any Protestant bias? :ehh:

Pax.

 

[Trelow]

Great! That is what I wanted to hear, instead of the past ~10 pages of people arguing contrarily

The bible is based on Catholic teaching.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Remind you?

Remind you?

That sorta means that you had to have heard it the first time, doesn’t it? :yup:

The Holy Spirit can’t remind YOU of anything Jesus said while he was on earth 'cause YOU weren’t there.

Jesus is speaking to a select few, and this verse applies only to those who were with Him during those three years.

Hope this helps. :tiphat: