mary, the eternal virgin?

[guanophore]

It could be that God did try to correct this misunderstanding but the church could not face the fact that what they have been teaching for 1800 years is incorrect.

Ok, then what happened to the powerful Christ we see in the book of Rev., correcting His Church? At what point did He become so weak or disinterested that He was unable to reveal their error to them?

Also, this theory requires that there was absolutely no one, no priest, prophet, theologian, or holy person who could “hear” the voice of God correcting the Church. That is 1800 years of obstinately deaf disciples. Now, I will grant you that there have been a number of obstintely deaf Catholics during that time, but ALL of them!?

If Jesus was able to convince Peter that the Gentiles also needed to be baptized and brought into the Church, how is it He was unable to use a similar method to correct ANYONE during all that time? Do you honestly believe there was no one who sought God?

 It could be that, that is what is happening now, God trying to correct this misunderstanding after all these yerar of getting it wrong. Why does God allow the corruption of the world to go on for so long before he flooded it and whiped out all of humanity except for Noah, his family and 2 of every animal? Why did God allow the sin of man to go on so long before he sent His Son to save the world?

God gave the promise to His Church to lead them into ALL TRUTH. He promised not to leave them orphaned, and promised that error would not be taught. How is it that He failed to keep these promises?

Such a theory seems to me to make Christ into a liar and a weakling.

 

[MartinJordan]

With all due charity and love, I wish to point attention to :Ezekiel 44:2 - Yahweh said to me, 'This gate will be kept shut. No one may open it or go through it, since Yahweh, God of Israel, has been through it. And so it must be kept shut. - New Jerusalem Bible

It many ways to me this has a lot of resonance, as Jesus was conceived in Mary through the Holy Spirit, and in the context of the Bible, I think this is a wonderful gift.

Godbless,
MJ

 

[guanophore]

Matthew and Luke also worte their gospels in Greek, and they certianly has a word for cousin at their dieposal. They didn’t use it because it was inaccurate, these were Jesus’ real brothers.

This is not the witness of history, Rev. History records that Matt. wrote in Aramaic, and there was no word for near kindred, other than brethren.

Furthermore, one must content with the fact that the Catholic Church only included books in the canon that were 100% consistent with the teaching of the Church, which was that she was a perpetual virgin. They would not include any text that was contradictory to the faith they received from the Apostles.

One must also discredit Jerome, one of the most accomplished biblical scholars in history. He refuted Helvetius on this point prior to the NT canon being formed. That means that the Church who formalized the canon was a church that received from the Apostles that Mary had only one Son.

.
Now we all believe the Bible when it says “All inspired by God.” (2 Timothy 3:16) then you must ask yourself, if when God inspired Ezekiel, He was careful to ensure that cousins and other relatives were not referred to as brothers, why would He let Matthew and Luke refer to cousins as brothers in Greek when Greek actually has a word for cousin?

Because the HS was already preserving the Truth infallibly in the Church, and there is no contradiction between this revelation, and the written.

 

[Hesychios]

not trying to challenge, but if they were joseph’s children from another marriage, wouldn’t they have been mentioned on the trip to the census around the time of Jesus’ birth?

and i am reading the Bible, which is just breeding more questions.

Being adults, or otherwise older, they might have made the trip separately with the oldest brother.

Mary, being very young and pregnant was Joseph’s special cross to bear, so to say.

 

[Plunk]

What does this mean though?..Matthew 1:24 When Joseph woke up; he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25** But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son**. And he gave him the name Jesus.

What does it mean by he had no UNION with her until she gave birth to a son?..

 

[GaryTaylor]

You have to look at Brothers and Sisters and and actual meaning. Our Lady tells us “All who recite the Rosary are “my” children, and “Brothers and Sisters” of my “only” son Jesus Christ”.

Debating Mary and the Roman Catholic following is not new and one of the first arguments that always seems to arise.

Yet, do to her apparitions and miracles at Lourdes and Fatima among many other places over the past 200 years. There is more weight and emphasis placed on her “now” than ever before. And the Rosary is more powerfull than at any other time in history. So when Our Lady said to us, “Only Our Lady of the Rosary can help you now” You are very safe in taking that literally because she meant it literally. Revelations 12:1 "is: the topic of all the Popes who visit Fatima.

Whats amazed me the most in life is those of no faith or other faiths or of little faith. Who when in time of turmoil and conflict, or when facing death, will automatically turn to God who they don’t know for help? If they know nothing else, they know these three words “God Help Me”?

In the last days in time we have much knowledge at our fingertips. There comes much responsibility with this knowledge. Ignorance will not be Bliss.

The way of the old church was “Blind Faith”. And I’m positive many elders here remember it well. The knowledge was passed from word of mouth. Much knowledge wasn’t past on in favor of importance and order. Yours was not to ask “why” but simply just do it. A hard road to follow for certain. Yet when your fathers, fathers, father, father all followed the same path and firmly believe in the ways of the Catholic Church. You had to respect there better thinking.

Today the knowledge surrounds us and challenge’s us as every movement. The emphasis in the war of Souls is very accute. And the simple fact is? The Catholic Faith must follow its destiny in the Co-Redemtion of Souls through Jesus Christ. Souls are at stake, why do you think many spend countless hours on others here, on that which they already know? They aren’t trying to convience each other or appear wise and smart. They are giving to you what was freely given to them, Eternal LIFE. Mary tell us, “Many Souls go to Hell because there is no-one to Pray for them”? That sentence alone “defines” the Catholic Faith.

The state of mind which confront the Catholic Church today is very fustrating. Yet we must all remain rooted in faith and in the better thinking and beliefs of the church. Pray the Rosary and let those who have a better understanding of the things of this world which we don’t understand, guide us through the battle field.

 

[mark_a]

It could be that God did try to correct this misunderstanding but the church could not face the fact that what they have been teaching for 1800 years is incorrect.

Rev,

I’m curious if the problem between us is not so much whether or not Mary had other children, but that the Apostolic Churches’ (all of them) infallibly guarantee that she is a perpetual virgin.

 

[guanophore]

Rev,

I’m curious if the problem between us is not so much whether or not Mary had other children, but that the Apostolic Churches’ (all of them) infallibly guarantee that she is a perpetual virgin.

I think this is an astute and accurate observation. I have participated in dozens of Mary threads since I came here, and they inevitably boil down to the issue of authority. I think this is why the Marian doctrines are so essential. In addition to the fact that they are inexticably tied to the nature of Christ, they are a sign of contradiction on the issue of Authority. Part of it is the authority of the Church to define dogma, and part of it is the Authoritative nature of Sacred Tradition. Both of these are a sticking point among many of our separated brethren.

 

[elvisman]

Give me proof positive that Mary stayed a virgin. Where is it Biblical? Where in the Bible does it say that Mary stayed a virgin? HIstorians have proof positive, you don’t.

Historians DON’T have proof positive. In the case of John - they rely on Church Tradition - NOT history.
All they can do is make an educated guess.

YOU, on the other hand, make your assumptions by a heavily flawed lack of hermeneutical ability. You see things in a tunnel and have no real understanding of linguistics. This is why you see things the way you do.

Like I challenged you before - and on a previous thread - show me one line in Scripture OR Tradition that says Mary had other children.
You do that and I will join your church today.

 

[Nicea325]

Historians DON’T have proof positive. In the case of John - they rely on Church Tradition - NOT history.
All they can do is make an educated guess.

YOU, on the other hand, make your assumptions by a heavily flawed lack of hermeneutical ability. You see things in a tunnel and have no real understanding of linguistics. This is why you see things the way you do.

Like I challenged you before - and on a previous thread - show me one line in Scripture OR Tradition that says Mary had other children.
You do that and I will join your church today.

Elvisman I too will join,if Rev can provide such evidence. But I can tell you this much,we will be waiting for a looooonnnnnnggg time before we join Rev Kevin’s church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Elvisman I too will join,if Rev can provide such evidence. But I can tell you this much,we will be waiting for a looooonnnnnnggg time before we join Rev Kevin’s church.

I’ll join too if that’s the case. I’ll even bring my mom. Man, think of the explosion in membership that we potentially have here. . .

 

[Nicea325]

I’ll join too if that’s the case. I’ll even bring my mom. Man, think of the explosion in membership that we potentially have here. . .

Great idea Tantum! I’ll bring my parents,my brothers and their familes and my girlfriend and her two kids. Wow! Rev Kevin’ church will need to built a larger church,since we will be joining.BUT we need that important piece of evidence to join…

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rev kevin
Give me proof positive that Mary stayed a virgin. Where is it Biblical? Where in the Bible does it say that Mary stayed a virgin? HIstorians have proof positive, you don’t.

Okay if you want to play that game,where in the Bible does it say that Mary DID NOT remain a virgin,because there is concrete evidence she had more children?

 

[elvisman]

Okay if you want to play that game,where in the Bible does it say that Mary DID NOT remain a virgin,because there is concrete evidence she had more children?

His challenge is deeply flawed in that, you cannot prove a negative. It would be like me asking you to prove that Jesus never killed anybody or that he was not married - or that he never ate spaghetti with meatballs!

This ridiculous charge that Mary had other children was already argued almost 2000 years ago by better apologists and theologians than RevKevin:
****Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine, Jerome, Didymus the Blind, ****Leporius **and Cyril of **Alexandria to name a few . . .

 

[Nicea325]

His challenge is deeply flawed in that, you cannot prove a negative. It would be like me asking you to prove that Jesus never killed anybody or that he was not married - or that he never ate spaghetti with meatballs!

This ridiculous charge that Mary had other children was already argued almost 2000 years ago by better apologists and theologians than RevKevin:
****Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine, Jerome, Didymus the Blind, ****Leporius **and Cyril of **Alexandria to name a few . . .

I know and many like Rev Kevin insist she had children,because it is natural to have sexual relations. They simply reject everything that has been argued for centuries and clearly shown she did not have more children.

.

 

[Dokimas]

Implicit or explicit?

both

 

[Dokimas]

I have given you nothing BUT Biblical evidence.

***Conversely ***- you have not provided one shred of Biblical evidence that Mary gave birth to anybody other than Jesus.

I will issue that challenge again that I issued a couple of months ago:
Show me one, single, solitary line of Scripture that proves Mary had other children.

**You *couldn’t ***answer it then, and you can’t do it now because it doesn’t exist.

I’ve not said she gave birth to anyone. I’ve given the verse that, at least implicitly, says she did not remain a virgin. (Matthew 1:25) If Mary and Joseph ‘experienced’ their marriage, what’s the probability she had children?

 

[Dokimas]

Unfortunately elvisman,many will use the on-going argument about the terms: brother, until and first-born.

If they are the brothers of Jesus, which is a pretty desent bet, that doesn’t prove they were Mary’s children.

 

[Dokimas]

**Yup - no matter *how ***many times you refute that stuff, it keeps coming *back *. . .

Maybe it’s only refuted in the eyes of catholics? Maybe it’s not really refuted at all?

 

[elvisman]

I’ve not said she gave birth to anyone. I’ve given the verse that, at least implicitly, says she did not remain a virgin. (Matthew 1:25) If Mary and Joseph ‘experienced’ their marriage, what’s the probability she had children?

Doki** – we already had this exchange a couple of months ago in the other thread about Mary’s virginity.**

Matt. 1:25** proves NOTHING about virginity because the word “until” doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. It says:**
“He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.”

Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”:**

2 Samuel 6:23** tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.**
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died*?***

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."'
**Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool? He is ETERNALLY present at his right hand. **

**The problem here is that the anti-Catholic attempts to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago. It simply doesn’t work, friend.