Mary- other children

[Church_Militant]

John1717’s copied anti-Catholic website source said:

It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. The following is a list of some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.

* 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
* 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
* 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
* 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
* 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
* 160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
* 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
* 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
* Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.

This very list proves our point. All these church fathers are the very Catholic sources by which we document the canon prior to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 & 397. All you’ve done is display out homework for us.

I notice that your preacher-friend here fails to list Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of that city and personal disciple of St.John. The time line should include him with Justin Martyr. I’m sure it’s an intentional neglect though, since Ignatius’s writings give us the first evidence that the early Christians were indeed already called Catholic, thus blowing a HUGE hole in his whole premis and this way shows his biased scholarship, making his whole dissertation questionable.

 

[RehLlits]

To answer all or most of your questions.

I know what the early Church believed because I read inspired Scripture which is the first source and then non nspired historical works of the early time. And when I read current belief statements of the RCC I can see clearly what you believe now. We all have this valueble resource at hand.

Post #174 was all about this verse:
2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us.

Paul talks about holding on to traditions that were written and already taught by the aposltes. The key words are already taught.

So then going back to the main point. From knowing early church teaching and the teachings of the current RCC; I believe the traditions got polluted from the original overtime. Thats probably why I am a Protestant lol.

 

[Church_Militant]

RehLlits:

As an evangelical Christian I believe the early RCC was on the ball with all of its teachings and was the original Church of Christ. But then the RCC started polluting the original message in the 3rd and 4th century (some historians believe it to be a little earlier).

I believe they did not hold fast to the traditions they were taught both in written (Scripture) and oral (Creeds and other oral traditions).:crying:

So I believe it like the Scriptures say that it is not the building that is the Church of Christ but the people. The people that put there full trust in Christ for there salvation. These people have existed throughout time, but they were not officially call the Church of Christ till the day of Pentecostal (?) .

This is typically called “The Great Apostasy” theory (generally espoused by JWs, SDA, and Pentecostals) and has no historical basis in fact whatsoever. The early church always responded to heresy and apostasy as is documented many many times in their writings, yet there is absolutely no evidence that the things the Catholic Church teaches ever came under such condemnation. In fact the writings of the early church fathers unanimously show that what they believed was indeed Catholic…like the Eucharist, apostolic succession, and others. Dishonest anti-Catholic scholars use edited histories and false accusations to disparage the Catholic Church. I find it hard to understand how anyone can accuse us of following the traditions and teachings of men when they do it with their preachers all the time. Just because some preacher mounts his pulpit and says that something is so they accept it as if it’s Gospel. I also fail to understand why others cannot simply preach their “Gospel message” without disparaging other religions. Will their Gospel not stand without their attacks on other people? If not I would find those messages very seriously flawed. I will also point out that I have never heard such coming from the homilies in any Catholic Church I have ever attended. (Thanks Be To God!)

 

[MaggieOH]

I have been reading the additions to this thread and find that the subject matter is off topic. The discussion is interesting but please start another thread before the moderators lock this one up.

MaggieOH

 

[dennisknapp]

RehLlits:

To answer all or most of your questions.

I know what the early Church believed because I read inspired Scripture which is the first source and then non nspired historical works of the early time. And when I read current belief statements of the RCC I can see clearly what you believe now. We all have this valueble resource at hand.

Post #174 was all about this verse:
2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us.

Paul talks about holding on to traditions that were written and already taught by the aposltes. The key words are already taught.

So then going back to the main point. From knowing early church teaching and the teachings of the current RCC; I believe the traditions got polluted from the original overtime. Thats probably why I am a Protestant lol.

But you failed to provide PROFF. Read what the early Christians taught and compare this to your current beliefs. Do they agree?

Peace

 

[Mickey]

RehLlits:

So then going back to the main point. From knowing early church teaching and the teachings of the current RCC; I believe the traditions got polluted from the original overtime.

One thing I am certain . RehLlits and John 1717 must believe that the Catholic Church was polluted at some point in time. If they did not believe this pollution theory, they could not justify their own belief system. Their rhetoric is reminiscient of the reformed baptist.

 

[sfp]

I find it quite amusing that one will consider our current scriptures inspired and authoritative (albeit with many different translations), but that they will deny Mary’s perpetual virginity in the same sentence.

Any quick study of Church history will tell them that there was much discussion and controversy over which books were to be considered inspired, but yet there is no documented evidence that anyone disputed the fact of Mary’s perpetual virginity until well after Martin Luther’s time.

Anyone can read what the beloved Martin Luther had to say about Mary. I urge you, please read…
chnetwork.org/journals/mary/mary_5.htm

It’s also funny how Catholics are accused of “rationalizing” their beliefs with logic rather than scripture (as if to say Catholic beliefs contradict scripture, which they do not). Look who’s talking…everyone I’ve ever known or heard about to convert to Catholicism did so due to intense study of scripture and sacred tradition and church history (with much personal anguish). On the contrary, every convert “away” from the church openly admits that their conversion was due to the fact that they just can’t grasp a certain (or many) doctrine(s) of the Catholic Church.

This says a lot to me.

Re: protestants accusing Catholics of their “traditions of men…”

Every denomination has it’s own traditions of church discipline, but if you’re not willing to read the beliefs of the Church Fathers who lived during the time of the apostles, then you are not ever going to allow yourself to know the truth.

How about this…instead of saying, “You hypocritical Catholics…,” why don’t you ask a Catholic Scholar or Priest, “Please explain that belief to me? It appears to contradict scripture, so why does the Church teach it?”

I promise you there is a very good reason that makes complete sense if you’ll just “listen.” It’s certainly not something that should make you “hate” Catholics or get all worked up about.

Peace!

 

[Benadam]

RehLlits:

To answer all or most of your questions.

I know what the early Church believed

From knowing early church teaching and the teachings of the current RCC;

This can only be said if you are backed with the authority passed within the conduit of human life that proceeds from Christ when it was established on earth.

by what authority can you claim to ‘know’ something unless you claim you are ‘like’ that which you claim to know?

This could be insulting if it wasn’t so like a teenager who thinks he knows his parents better than they know themselves and is of the opinion that if they knew what was good for them they would listen to their teenagers is teaching.

We will see Him as He is because we will be ‘like’ Him.

So, if you claim to be your own authority, and this is what you say when you claim to ‘know’ the meaning of scripture without submitting to one, you’re claiming to be ‘like’ Him

That is my problem with anything you may say because otherwise ‘you’ pollute the meaning of scripture and catholic teaching with yourself because ‘you’ claim to be a higher authority than either by claiming to ‘know’ what they reveal.

The basis of your thinking relies on the false notion that the life that proceeds from the Church was overcome and the continuity and oneness that Christ prayed for was denied. In other words the gates of hell prevailed and at some point the True Church lost substance and the Body of Christ was scattered like ashes on the mountains of humanity.

Now the Body of Christ can be reformed because now we know it’s true image isn’t expressed by His People but is found in the written testimony of their tradition.

 

[catholic2]

glow8worm:

How exactly can I convince a non Catholic that Mary was a virgen her whole life? My friend insists Mary couldn’t have possibly lived her whole life as a virgen, and be married to Joseph.

My friend also insists that Mary had other children. He is convinced of this because of the passages in the Bible that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Where are the passages that the word in hebrew is the same for brothers and cousins? And which passages does Jesus refer to all human kind as His brothers and sisters?

1. Non-canonical sources indicate that Mary took a vow of chastity as a child.
2. Also from non-canonical sources, Joseph is an elderly person, to take more of a caregiver role than of a husband respecting Mary’s vow of chastity.
3. Mary’s response in Luke 1:22 to Angel Gabriel’s announcement makes sense only if #1 and #2 are true. A normal response without 1&2 would be “Oh so I’m going to
   have a boy from Joseph?” instead Mary’s response was “How can this be since I know no man?”
   Mary was already betrothed to Joseph at the time, and betrothal at that time was the first of two steps to marriage. Usually a betrothal would last not longer than a year before the man took his wife to his home. A betrothal was permanent so much so that it would take a divorce to break it, just like a completed marriage.
4. In Hebrew or in Aramaic, the dialect spoken at that time, there is no word for cousin. Instead they would have to say “the son of the brother of my father” to indicate a cousin. So they simply used “brother”. And in the case of the four named brothers of Jesus, at least two of them are children of another Mary. The Greek word does have a word for cousin, but the new testament writers followed the Aramaic structure. If Mary and Joseph did have children together, then the Greek would have called the siblings “half-brothers”
5. That Joseph was out of the picture it seems before the wedding at Cana, indicates that he had already died. There seems no other kind of death other than old age possible for him. It would be a mockery of Jesus’ mission as stated in Isaiah 61:1-2 and in Luke 7:22 … “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the good news proclaimed to them.”
   Some accounts place Joseph at 111 years of age at his death. This would make him about 80 to 90 years of age when he was betrothed to Mary about 14-15 years of age.
6. The Church’s teaching on the perpetual virginity…infallible dogma.

 

[Angainor]

sfp:

What if our founding fathers of the USA had hammered out the constitution, and they ordered that copies be passed out to all households for their own interpretations? (No supreme court) That is what is proposed when someone suggests we all have the ability to interpret God’s Word (written, as well as what has been passed down by sacred tradition).

Cool, constitutional theory. One of my favorite topics.

You imply that the Supreme Court has all authority to interpret the consitituion. That is what we are told all the time, but let me ask you this:

What if the Supreme Court came out with a decision tomorrow that said “The Constitution says all men with last names starting with “C” are forbidden to drive an automobile on Tuesdays.” What would happen? It’s hard to say exactly what would happen, the Congress might impeach the judges, or Federal, State, and Local governments might choose to simply ignore such a ruling. One thing is for sure, one way or another that ruling would not be enforced.

If we agree that such a ruling would not stand, then we agree that there are limits to the Supreme Court’s power to tell the rest of us what the Constitution does or does not say. If there are limits to their power, then they do not have absolute authority to interpret the Constitution. It should be obvious that the Constitution does not single out all Mr. C’s.

So exactly who does have ultimate authority to interpret the constitution? I already gave a hint.

 

[Angainor]

MaggieOH:

Now, when Jesus taught the Apostles he also taught them everything in the Old Testament Books of the Prophets that pointed to Him as the Messiah. The “Virgin” was to be with child and bring forth Emmanuel, that is “God is with us”. That prophecy that is found in Isaiah is fulfilled with the birth of Jesus. I have pointed you in the direction of the Book of Ezekiel because it is written that where the Lord passes through, the gate will remain shut and none will open it or pass through it. This I believe is a direct reference to the one chosen to be the Mother of the Lord, because Jesus was in fact born in the normal way, having gestated in the womb of Mary, and passed through when the time of gestation was finished (BTW I have a great x-ray photo of my youngest son in the womb and at 12 weeks that little figure is very clear. If we had a picture of Jesus in the womb in the same way there would be no way we could doubt that he was born in the normal way).

As for that, my view of the prophecy satisfies me. Human beings normally enter into this world through the gate of ordinary biological conception. Yes, I believe that a baby that is 2 minutes old has already entered into this world. I believe life begins at conception.

Jesus took a different door, that is the door of incarnation. No one else has entered that door. It remains shut.

But beyond that, the prophecy does nothing to enlighten me as to what caused Mary to remain Virgin. I do not believe an event is ever caused by a prophecy. Prophecies simply describe events that will happen, if you follow me.

In this forum two parallel causes of Mary’s perpetual virginity have been advanced and I have not been able to piece them together. 1) Mary remained virgin because she took a celebacy vow in her youth. 2) Mary remained virgin because Joseph would not dare have relations with the spouse of the Holy Spirit, indeed it is unthinkable that the Ark of the New Covenant would be shown such irreverance.

Considering that a) I do not find marital relations to be particularly irreverant b) I think Joseph was really married to Mary and the concept of “spouse of the Holy Spirit” is flowery description and not much more c) I don’t know Mary’s vow to be true and d) I have a satisfactory alternate interpretation of Ezekiel; I really have no reason to think Joseph and Mary did not have a normal marriage.

 

[RehLlits]

Ok I am getting irritated by the straw men some of you pull. So please if you like to make opinions do so but do not share them with me. You know the old saying “opinions are like… and everyone’s got one.” So please give opinions backed with facts and stop pulling straw men.

Now Dennis asked a great question:

But you failed to provide PROFF. Read what the early Christians taught and compare this to your current beliefs. Do they agree?

How do I know the early church teaching? I know them because whatever inspired Scripture teaches the original RCC taught (whether it was called that or not). So if inspired Scripture teaches anything different from the current RCC teachings then that would mean that the RCC was polluted over time with traditions of men and not of God. That happened in history before with the Pharisees. I believe history repeated itself.

So now the central question is: Does the inspired Text teach that Mary had no other children? If it does then the RCC was polluted with this docrine over time. This goes for all the other Marian docrines and also for our means of justification before God. If any of these doctrines are not taught by the inspired Scriptures then the RCC was polluted over time.

Do you understand my point now? So the key question is not if the original Church taught it but if inspired Scripture did because the original church would have taught it then.

 

[hurdlr23]

I am a Catholic as well. Why is everybody up-in-arms whenever somebody suggests that Mary is not a virgin? As a married woman, I do not think that sexual relations with her HUSBAND would be wrong. Also, I read in Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code that there are sources that speak of Jesus’ brother James. Historians of the erea generally agree that Jesus did in fact have siblings, number unknown (hey, it was a long time ago). All I am saying is that I was tought that Mary was without sin. And I personally beleive she could have had other children after Jesus and still be without sin, as is natural.

 

[MaggieOH]

hurdlr23:

I am a Catholic as well. Why is everybody up-in-arms whenever somebody suggests that Mary is not a virgin? As a married woman, I do not think that sexual relations with her HUSBAND would be wrong. Also, I read in Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code that there are sources that speak of Jesus’ brother James. Historians of the erea generally agree that Jesus did in fact have siblings, number unknown (hey, it was a long time ago). All I am saying is that I was tought that Mary was without sin. And I personally beleive she could have had other children after Jesus and still be without sin, as is natural.

It would seem to me that there is something lacking in the catechesis if you have not been taught that Mary is ever-Virgin. This is also the standard of the “greatest” of the Protestants Martin Luther and John Calvin. They at least understood the implications of Perpetual Virginity.

As far as the “sources” are concerned, let me deal with them one by one. First of all, the Apostles and the sources close to the Apostles never taught that Jesus had brothers and sisters and in fact the Scripture (I am going Scripture alone on my defence of the Perpetual Virginity) proves the opposite to be the case, that the men named in the Scripture have a mother and father mentioned in the Scripture - “the other Mary” and “Alphaeus” or “Clopas”. Second, the only ancient source for this heresy has come from Helvidius who made this claim that Mary had other children becaue he could not manage to read Scripture in the whole of its context. There are no historians in that era who said that Mary had other children. Third, the issue is not about Mary. It is about the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If Mary had other children then the claim that Jesus is the Son of God is dashed to the ground. Fourth, please read the other posts that have minutely detailed why Mary did not have other children.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Angainor:

As for that, my view of the prophecy satisfies me. Human beings normally enter into this world through the gate of ordinary biological conception. Yes, I believe that a baby that is 2 minutes old has already entered into this world. I believe life begins at conception.

Angainor we are not arguing the moment of life here. What you say is correct. Life begins at the moment of conception. (look I know you can tell the presence of a baby within hours of being impregnated ) However, we cannot say that the baby that has just been conceived has entered into this world. That is why there is so much argument about defining when life begins. I agree with your premise that the baby within the womb is alive from the moment of conception but it has not come into the world as we know it. Until it is safely delivered there is always the chance that it will not make the distance for whatever reason, including strangulation from the umbilical cord. :crying:
Againor:

Jesus took a different door, that is the door of incarnation. No one else has entered that door. It remains shut.

But beyond that, the prophecy does nothing to enlighten me as to what caused Mary to remain Virgin. I do not believe an event is ever caused by a prophecy. Prophecies simply describe events that will happen, if you follow me.

Ok so you have a problem understanding the whole of the mystery of the Incarnation. Your response tells me that you are stuck on something and it is not clear what is causing you to be stuck. Perhaps it might be your comment “I do not believe that an event is ever caused by a prophecy.” It is something that seems to be standing in your way of understaning why this could apply to Mary.

I agree that prophecies describe events that will happen. If you are familiar with the prophet Isaiah in particular you should be able to see that he is talking about his present time and that he is interpreting the signs of his times, but at the same time Isaiah is prophesying future events, that is there are prophecies in Isaiah that point to the Messiah. Well this is what I am saying about these verses in Ezekiel.

Mary is the gate that Jesus had to come through to be in the world in the Flesh. She is that gate because Jesus was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, and he was nurtured in the womb and born in the normal way. Mary had a normal pregnancy. Jesus, who is both God and Man, therefore passed through the gate and the gate (Mary) is shut so that none shall enter and none shall pass through.

Why not think of this in terms of Ezekiel 43:1

“He took me to the gate, the one facing east. I saw the GLORY OF THE GOD of Israel approaching from the east”.

I know you have trouble seeing the connection but I need you to think about what is said here in terms of Luke’s Gospel:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, the angel answered and the Power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow.” (Lk 1:35)

The glory of God is the Shekinah, so I ask you what was it that overshadowed Mary?. Mary was approached by God, so that you have the following in Ezekial:

“The Glory of God arrived at the Temple by the east gate… I saw the Glory of Yahweh fill the Temple…” (Ezekiel 43:4)

Can you understand that it was the Shekinah that came upon Mary?

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Angainor:

Considering that a) I do not find marital relations to be particularly irreverant b) I think Joseph was really married to Mary and the concept of “spouse of the Holy Spirit” is flowery description and not much more c) I don’t know Mary’s vow to be true and d) I have a satisfactory alternate interpretation of Ezekiel; I really have no reason to think Joseph and Mary did not have a normal marriage.

Angainor,

I can see that you are really hung up on these points and they continue to be a stumbling block. Have you followed through on what I had to say about the Book of Numbers? Mary’s question is interpreted to mean that she had made a vow of celibacy. If she was expecting to fulfill her marriage (she was betrothed and already considered to be the wife of Joseph, thus he already had the right to be intimate with her when the angel came to Mary).

To your second point that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, I would submit what Scripture says in Luke’s Gospel, because in Hebrew, the word for overshadow is a euphemism for intimacy between a couple. Thus Mary, through her overshadowing by the Holy Spirit, is espoused to the Holy Spirit. Yet the angel told Joseph in a dream that he was to go and take Mary for his wife. There is no mention in what is recorded that there is permission given for Joseph to have an intimate relationship with Mary.

I submit that your alternate explanation for Ezekiel is not satisfactory and that you have failed to study this portion of the Book of Ezekiel to see how it applies to the coming of the Lord, through the womb of the Woman (Mary).

I hope to post more on the subject. You are going great by the way. Keep up the questions.

Maggie

 

[Xavier]

SPOKENWORD:

HI
ANGAINOR. I agree, there are nine other commandmants that we should be dwelling on.Yes, one is as important as the other but the question is are we truley obeying the other nine in our dayly walk. Most of us I am sure have trouble keeping them. Jesus said if you really love Me you will obey Me. God Bless

Ding.ding. ding
We have a winner.
For Catholics it is neccesary that Mary remain a perpetual virgin.
For the rest of us it is not important as in who cares.

 

[Xavier]

TheGarg:

That has got to be the most irreverent, blasphemous thing I have ever heard.
This is one of my major beefs with prots. You all assume that you are somehow equal to Jesus or God, that somehow there is no need to be reverent.
This of course comes from living a life in “gathering spots” where the Eucharist is not present. You people would scratch you behind and tear the back of your pants out, right in front of him, without any attempt at holding back. To you, Jesus is a “buddy”, or an equal.

HE is our L-O-R-D, and should be given the respect as such. you can him haw around all you want, but let scripture back me up----
Luke 3:16
John answered them all, “I baptize you with Or in] water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

John understood the magnitude of who and what Jesus is, unlike yourself adn anyone else who would make the same self-serving statements like yours.

Why should you be opposed to having relations with your wife after God brought the Lamb through her???
Let me spell it out for you, Because G-O-D was present in your “wifes” womb.That makes it a holy sanctuary where YOU, a man, are NOT worthy to enter.
The ONLY Man worthy enough to be born in and pass from that sanctuary was the Son of God.

I can’t even fathom how someone would even consider it.
I believe Joseph understood that there were bigger things happening there than his personal desires, or what he felt he deserved. You prots could take a lesson from John the baptist, Joseph, or your nearest faithful Catholic.

May the peace, guidence, and mercy of God be on you.

THERE IS NOTHING UNHOLY, IRREVERANT, OR SHAMEFULL
I REPREAT SHAMEFULL OF HAVING SEX WITH YOUR WIFE.

 

[Xavier]

Lorarose:

First I would steer him towards Old Testament verses concerning the Ark of the Covenant.
Paricularly how CAREFUL the jews had to be when they were around it. They were scared of it! One man died because he touched it while preventing it from falling - but he was not allowed to touch it!
It was so powerful because the presence of God overshadowed the Ark.

Just like Yahweh overshadowed Mary and conceived the second person of the Holy Trinity.
Now imagine you are Joseph - an honorable jewish man.
He learns that his virgin wife has conceived the messiah through the Holy Presence of Yahweh!!

No - I have no trouble at all thinking Joseph would refrain from sex with the mother of the messiah.

We are all to be Arcs of the New Covenant----God does not dwell in temples made of hands but in the hearts of those that call Him their own.

 

[Xavier]

Lisa4Catholics:

Would you want an annulment from the Mother of the second person of the Holy Trinity?Also Jesus says the Church is His Bride and I am sure you won’t even go there.The problem is spoken you want to reduce the gifts and Mystery’s of God to a human level.You can’t do it.Humility is neccesary to accept these things.God Bless and come home:crying:

His Church is His congregation.

a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

1. 
   *]an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
   *]the assembly of the Israelites
   *]any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
   *]in a Christian sense
   1. 
      *]an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
      *]a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
      *]those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
      *]the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
      *]the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven