Mary not a Virgin

[VociMike]

Doesn’t the term “brothers of Jesus” qualify as proof that Mary had other children?

I’m very curious, how many other sons do you say that Mary had?

With all due respect everyone, what harm is done if Mary had other children? Would that be some sort of evil? (Edited by Moderator as unneccesary) What say you?

It is not a question of harm or evil. It is a question of faithfully guarding and teaching the deposit of faith that was given by God to His Church. As I said in another post, the early Church did not ask for Mary to be ever-virgin. Rather, God willed it, and Mary submitted to God’s will, and God also willed that this knowledge be transmitted to the Church. Now, when God tells us something, is it our place to ignore it, or diminish it, or go against it? Why do we believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity? For one reason, and one reason only. Because God has revealed it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hoosier sez:

Originally Posted by Randy Carson forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
If I told you that there is a sale on bed linens at Walmart, would you believe me? Or would I have to write it down for you?

This is just being disrespectful and confrontational. Go find someone else to fight with.

You have a limited capacity for analogy, I see.

**

**

If the early Church said that Mary remained ever-Virgin, would you believe it? Or would it have to be written down for you?

---

The fact that it is not written down in Scripture is a pretty good indication to me that it’s not true. But feel free to add to God’s Word. Don’t expect me to join you.*

The writings of the Fathers are not scripture. Why do you make these statements? Who is mocking who here? Do we know anything about the early church from the pages of history?

**

The Early Church Fathers of the Church did both. They told their disciples about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary AND they wrote of this in their letters to the Churches and to one another.

**

Where does the Scriptures say that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

*Where does scripture say that she wasn’t? The early Christian Church said she was…how will you prove the Fathers to be liars?

Since you were not there (and they were), what documentation can you provide that what the ECF’s said is wrong?

Scripture. And I see that you can’t provide Scripture to prove them right.

The Church, from the beginning, has declared that she remained Virgin all of her life. Since eyewitnesses and those who knew Mary before she died handed these things on from one generation to the next, what evidence will you present 2,000 years later to show that the Church is in error?

Please, show me the verse that says Mary was not a virgin all her life.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Acts 1:15 tells us,

120 brothers? That’s not Mary Ever Virgin, that’s Mary Ever Pregnant!

Equivocating. I see your sense of humour there though. But still, the Bible talks about Jesus’ brothers. What about Jesus’ half brothers? Would they be his step cousins or his not quite orthodox Catholic friends?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hoosier sez:

You have a limited capacity for analogy, I see.

Then you must be blind. I just don’t accept your analogy.

**

The writings of the Fathers are not scripture. Why do you make these statements? Who is mocking who here? Do we know anything about the early church from the pages of history?

You’re the ones who say the writings are not Scripture because when I talk about Scripture you all say “look at the early church writings”. Uh…you were mocking me. I’m certain of it. Do we know anything about the early church from history? I don’t know. I’m of the mind to believe that if the Catholic church dates back to the beginning that they have been deceiving us from the beginning. I’d like to give examples why to back up my assertion but that’s not allowed. Only you guys can do that; I’d be told to start another thread.
*Where does scripture say that she wasn’t? The early Christian Church said she was…how will you prove the Fathers to be liars?

Where does it say that she was? How will I prove the early “fathers” to be liars? Well, if Scripture doesn’t say it, they lie.

The Church, from the beginning, has declared that she remained Virgin all of her life. Since eyewitnesses and those who knew Mary before she died handed these things on from one generation to the next, what evidence will you present 2,000 years later to show that the Church is in error?

Since Revelation was written in oh, what, around 90 AD don’t you think Scripture would have included the fact that Mary remained a virgin for the duration of her life? I’m sure she was probably dead by about that time though I don’t claim to know. I’m sorry. I trust Scripture more than I trust you.

Please, show me the verse that says Mary was not a virgin all her life.

Please show me the verse that says Mary was a virgin all her life.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I’m very curious, how many other sons do you say that Mary had?

I never said a number. But the Bible mentions Jesus’ brothers and a half brother or two.

It is not a question of harm or evil. It is a question of faithfully guarding and teaching the deposit of faith that was given by God to His Church. As I said in another post, the early Church did not ask for Mary to be ever-virgin. Rather, God willed it, and Mary submitted to God’s will, and God also willed that this knowledge be transmitted to the Church. Now, when God tells us something, is it our place to ignore it, or diminish it, or go against it? Why do we believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity? For one reason, and one reason only. Because God has revealed it.

Please show me chapter and verse in one of the 66 books of the canon that show God to reveal that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I never would have made this an important doctrine but some of the Catholics on here called me a heretic and they made it a doctrine that our salvation depends upon. So, chapter and verse?

 

[Mommyof02green]

Maybe this will help:

How to Explain the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (click here)

or

“Brethren of the Lord” (click here)

 

[VociMike]

I wish you would use the quote feature correctly. Otherwise it makes it difficult for others to quote you in their replies.

I never said a number. But the Bible mentions Jesus’ brothers and a half brother or two.

No, and I won’t hold you to a number, but I’d still like to get a sense of what the Mary-had-other-sons people believe. One? Two? Four? Just give me a number to work with.

Please show me chapter and verse in one of the 66 books of the canon that show God to reveal that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I never would have made this an important doctrine but some of the Catholics on here called me a heretic and they made it a doctrine that our salvation depends upon. So, chapter and verse?

Ah, but you, who require chapter and verse, cannot even give me chapter and verse where this is the required standard of evidence for Christian doctrine. You certainly cannot even give me chapter and verse that lists your 66-book canon. So why should I be held to a higher standard than you hold yourself to?

 

[Randy_Carson]

<sighs. shakes head. begins anew.>

Okay, Hoosier. Let’s start with the “brothers of Jesus” named in Matthew 13:55. Do you have your Bible handy?

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James."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)*

2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

5. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)6. Therefore, neither Apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. Jude (also called Thaddeus) is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is a brother of James.“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (Jude 1)

*8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.*When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. (Acts 1:13)Matthew 15:35 declares both James and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, but it has been demonstrated that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that when the Early Church Fathers who were disciples of Peter and John spoke of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, they knew what they were talking about!

I know you think that Catholics overemphasize Mary and her role in the economy of salvation. However, I’m going to the trouble of illustrating Protestant misunderstanding on this issue for a different purpose. I don’t care one way or the other about your devotion to Mary; my goal is to get you to realize that you have not been told the whole truth and that Protestantism is incomplete, insufficient and incoherent.

 

[runandsew]

Acts 1:13-15
When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place).

Ok if there were 12 Apostles in the room, and Mary, and a few other women, and we know that there were 3 or 4 which were at the cross, but let’s make that 20 for arguments sake, that would make the number of Jesus’ brothers to be around 87.
We would not be talking about Mary’s perpetual virginity here, we would be talking about Mary’s perpetual pregnancy.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I wish you would use the quote feature correctly. Otherwise it makes it difficult for others to quote you in their replies.

What are you talking about? I’m pressing “quote” and typing the same way one does on any other forum. Is this just some new technique developed so that the newcomers to the site can’t post?

No, and I won’t hold you to a number, but I’d still like to get a sense of what the Mary-had-other-sons people believe. One? Two? Four? Just give me a number to work with.

Doesn’t matter. I’m wrong. I’m a heretic.

Ah, but you, who require chapter and verse, cannot even give me chapter and verse where this is the required standard of evidence for Christian doctrine. You certainly cannot even give me chapter and verse that lists your 66-book canon. So why should I be held to a higher standard than you hold yourself to?

With all due respect why would I give you chapter and verse that says “Mary was not a perpetual virgin”? You should be held to a higher standard than I am because you are apparently Christ’s only church whilst I am a heretic. You are held to a higher standard if this is true

 

[Mommyof02green]

Doesn’t matter. I’m wrong. I’m a heretic

Question for you hoosierdaddy, you don’t have to answer if you don’t want too…

Have you ever been a Catholic or have you always been Non-Catholic (protestant)?

 

[ricmat]

Would a woman dare cheat on her spouse, if the spouse was the Holy Spirit?

 

[Erich]

**

hoosierdaddy:

Please show me chapter and verse in one of the 66 books of the canon…

**

Ignoring your reference to 66 (actually 73) books for the time being, I’m curious as to why you’d give any credence at all to such a “Catholic invention” as “chapter and verse”.

Did you know that the chapter divisions that are commonly used today were developed by Stephen Langton, the (Catholic) Archbishop of Canterbury, around A.D. 1227?

 

[ricmat]

Hoosierdaddy, I suspect that this has been brought up before, but just in case it has not:

1. Not everything is in the Bible. Show me the word “Trinity.” It’s not there, but we all believe in it.
2. The Bible itself does not say that it is the sole source of truth. To the contrary, 1 Tim 3:15 “The Church is the bulwark and pillar of Truth.”
3. 2 Thes 2:15 - “Stand firm and hold to the Traditions taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Many Marian teachings fall into this category.
4. The scriptures referred to in the Bible were obviously not the NT. They hadn’t been written yet. The Catholic Church had not yet sorted out which writings were inspired, and which were not.

The Bible tells us that not everything is in the Bible, and it tells us that the Church is the source of Truth, and it tells us that Tradition (some passed by mouth) IS important.

I can recommend some good books (I know that’s a cop out) that summarize really well most of the issues that Protestants have with Catholicism,

Catholic For a Reason - Volume 1 (a general overview - includes a good chapter on Mary)
Catholic For a Reason - Volume 2 (Covers Mary in detail)
Catholic For a Reason - Volume 3 (Covers the Mass)

Vol 1 is at amazon.com for $11 and is an awesome book.

 

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by VociMike
I wish you would use the quote feature correctly. Otherwise it makes it difficult for others to quote you in their replies.

The problem is that you are typing inside the quote box (the text between the “quote” and “slash-quote” tags), so that when others try and quote your words to respond to them, they get nothing in their quote box. I had to go back to your message and manually cut-and-paste the text into this message to get your words here so I could reply. Try using the quote feature on one of your own posts and you’ll see that no text gets quoted. To alternate between quoted text and your own response, just hilight the text you want to quote and click the “quote” button above (the talking text symbol as seen in cartoons).

No, and I won’t hold you to a number, but I’d still like to get a sense of what the Mary-had-other-sons people believe. One? Two? Four? Just give me a number to work with.

Doesn’t matter. I’m wrong. I’m a heretic.

That’s not a very helpful response. I’ll use Mt 13:55 and say four brothers, just for sake of argument. Now, how many of those four brothers, if any, were believers when Christ was crucified?

Ah, but you, who require chapter and verse, cannot even give me chapter and verse where this is the required standard of evidence for Christian doctrine. You certainly cannot even give me chapter and verse that lists your 66-book canon. So why should I be held to a higher standard than you hold yourself to?

With all due respect why would I give you chapter and verse that says “Mary was not a perpetual virgin”? You should be held to a higher standard than I am because you are apparently Christ’s only church whilst I am a heretic. You are held to a higher standard if this is true

I have not asked for c&v regarding Mary. I have asked for c&v which demands that every Christian doctrine be proven with c&v. And please, stop hiding behind the heretic dodge. You are my brother in Christ, and I intend to treat you as such.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Question for you hoosierdaddy, you don’t have to answer if you don’t want too…

Have you ever been a Catholic or have you always been Non-Catholic (protestant)?

It’s cool. I was baptized Catholic as a baby. I never went to Catholic school as my older sisters were pulled from it.

I was never a practicing Catholic however when I was first invited to a church of God I said it better not be a cult and I’m not changing my religion. I’m a proud non-practicing Catholic.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

---

Ignoring your reference to 66 (actually 73) books for the time being, I’m curious as to why you’d give any credence at all to such a “Catholic invention” as “chapter and verse”.

Did you know that the chapter divisions that are commonly used today were developed by Stephen Langton, the (Catholic) Archbishop of Canterbury, around A.D. 1227?

Who invented “chapter and verse” is irrelevant. It is simply a way to arrange Scripture so it is easy to find. Besides, the Reformation didn’t happen til much later. No, I didn’t know that. Thank you.

 

[Mommyof02green]

It’s cool. I was baptized Catholic as a baby. I never went to Catholic school as my older sisters were pulled from it.

I was never a practicing Catholic however when I was first invited to a church of God I said it better not be a cult and I’m not changing my religion. I’m a proud non-practicing Catholic.

Okay I was just wondering…thanks!

 

[KathleenElsie]

Why do we have to prove a negative? Shouldn’t you instead have to prove that Mary was a virgin her whole life? Where does Scripture say that Mary didn’t sin? Just as you Catholics are offended by certain things I and others say, I am offended that you would declare a “thus saith the Lord” when the Lord hadn’t saith.

The bible and tradition of Holy Mother Church tell us that her virginity was life long. So IMHO those that dispute this are the ones that need to prove that this is not so.

Also you are posting on a Catholic site. So please remember that courtesy, charity and just plain kindness is expected by all.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

The bible and tradition of Holy Mother Church tell us that her virginity was life long. So IMHO those that dispute this are the ones that need to prove that this is not so.

Where does the Bible tell us this?

Also you are posting on a Catholic site. So please remember that courtesy, charity and just plain kindness is expected by all.

Oh I’ve been more polite than I could have been. Maybe you’ll understand when someone calls you a heretic and you’re not. And you’re right. Kindness is expected from ALL. God bless.