Mary's perpetual virginity

[clh1217]

Since you didn’t even try to answer my question in your reply to my question, I’ll post it again:

I notice that you still haven’t explained why this large family allowed their mother to go live the rest of her days with an unrelated male, and furthermore one high up in the “cult” that got their eldest brother executed.

A good analogy today would be a Muslim woman sent by her eldest son to live in the house of a Jewish man for the rest of her days. Would her Muslim sons allow that, you think?

Jesus cared about Mary’s FUTURE.

His brothers at the time of His death did NOT EVEN BELIEVE that He was the Son of God.

Why on this earth would Jesus entrust Mary…His beloved and blessed Mother to a group of people that did not even believe Him?

Why don’t you tell me that?

At least now, with his most beloved disciple, Jesus is assured that HER best interest will be cared for and that she will not have to endure the daily unbelief of the rest of the family…and the absolute grief it would cause her.

…since when did Jesus care insulting peoples “beliefs”??? He spoke the Truth!

 

[VociMike]

Jesus cared about Mary’s FUTURE.

His brothers at the time of His death did NOT EVEN BELIEVE that He was the Son of God.

Why on this earth would Jesus entrust Mary…His beloved and blessed Mother to a group of people that did not even believe Him?

In the first place, your claim that at the time of his death his brothers did not believe Jesus was the Son of God is entirely non-scriptural. There is absolutely no scriptural evidence of this claim, it is merely a tradition of your faith system.

Now, if they did not believe Jesus’ claims at the time of his death, why would they allow their mother to go live in the home of an unrelated male who was high up in the blasphemous cult (remember, they were Jews who didn’t believe Christ was the Son of God) that got their brother executed? For all they knew, her mother was in danger of physical harm and/or spiritual death by associating with that blasphemous cult leader.

Further, if Mary was indeed a sinner as your faith systems asserts, why did she leave her children to go live with John? Why didn’t she just refuse? Or why didn’t she come back to her children’s homes later?

Secondly, granting just for argument that what you say is true, did they come to believe later? Did any of Jesus’ brothers become Christians later? And if so, why wouldn’t Jesus allow Mary to return to the homes of her Christian children?

 

[LilyM]

In the first place, your claim that at the time of his death his brothers did not believe Jesus was the Son of God is entirely non-scriptural. There is absolutely no scriptural evidence of this claim, it is merely a tradition of your faith system.

Now, if they did not believe Jesus’ claims at the time of his death, why would they allow their mother to go live in the home of an unrelated male who was high up in the blasphemous cult (remember, they were Jews who didn’t believe Christ was the Son of God) that got their brother executed? For all they knew, her mother was in danger of physical harm and/or spiritual death by associating with that blasphemous cult leader.

Further, if Mary was indeed a sinner as your faith systems asserts, why did she leave her children to go live with John? Why didn’t she just refuse? Or why didn’t she come back to her children’s homes later?

Secondly, granting just for argument that what you say is true, did they come to believe later? Did any of Jesus’ brothers become Christians later? And if so, why wouldn’t Jesus allow Mary to return to the homes of her Christian children?

On the contrary, if James ‘brother of the Lord’ was a blood sibling, then he DID believe in Jesus and the only sensible course would’ve been for Jesus to entrust Mary to him, not John.

 

[VociMike]

On the contrary, if James ‘brother of the Lord’ was a blood sibling, then he DID believe in Jesus and the only sensible course would’ve been for Jesus to entrust Mary to him, not John.

You mean Jesus wouldn’t have dishonored his mother by tearing her away from her other children in this time of loss and grief, but would have entrusted her to one of her other Christian sons? Yep, makes sense to me, I must admit.

There is no sensible explanation for Mary living the rest of her days in John’s house if she had other children. But I’m sure our SB friend will try anyway.

 

[LJN21]

NO.

It just drives it home all the more how unscriptural the PV of Mary is.

There is NO evidence, with the exception of unfounded ‘evidence’ that you (with the help of being indoctrinated by the Catholic Church) has pulled from nothing. It was the Churches idea that she was the “Handmaiden” of God. God allowed her to be a wife, the the mother of Jesus. God chose Jesus to come into this world in the most humble of ways, why deny Jesus his humble large family that is found and scripturally CORRECT to be biological?

Thats not found scripturally either, your just asserting that in to scripture because thats what you want to read. When its read in the light of Jewish customs its obvious what “Handmaiden of God” meant. Forget Catholic teaching for a moment and go back and read Jewish teaching. Another interesting study point might be to go back and find out what the “Reformers” thought about Marys Virginity as well.

 

[clh1217]

Thats not found scripturally either, your just asserting that in to scripture because thats what you want to read. When its read in the light of Jewish customs its obvious what “Handmaiden of God” meant. Forget Catholic teaching for a moment and go back and read Jewish teaching. Another interesting study point might be to go back and find out what the “Reformers” thought about Marys Virginity as well.

what is not scriptural about jesus coming in a humble way?

Why should I care about what anyone “thinks” when scripture spells it out?

I am not “asserting” anything.

Just not reaching in and saying something that scripture doesn’t say.

 

[clh1217]

You mean Jesus wouldn’t have dishonored his mother by tearing her away from her other children in this time of loss and grief, but would have entrusted her to one of her other Christian sons? Yep, makes sense to me, I must admit.

There is no sensible explanation for Mary living the rest of her days in John’s house if she had other children. But I’m sure our SB friend will try anyway.

Why would she want to be with others that are unbelievers?

Would they care for her like Jesus would?

 

[clh1217]

On the contrary, if James ‘brother of the Lord’ was a blood sibling, then he DID believe in Jesus and the only sensible course would’ve been for Jesus to entrust Mary to him, not John.

no. You are wrong. Sorry…

Jesus had younger brothers and sisters. The gospels written by Matthew and Mark give the family members as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas as well as mentioning that Jesus had at least two sisters (Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3). James was probably the second child of Joseph and Mary. So James was very close to Jesus as they grew up together.

However, the New Testament clearly shows that as James was growing up, he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, all of Jesus’ brothers rejected their brother as being the Messiah or even that Jesus was a prophet. For example, Mark writes, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household” (Mark 6:4).

A more detailed version of James rejecting Jesus as the Messiah is found in the gospel of John. Six months before Jesus was crucified, the gospel of John records that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him. “Jesus brothers said to him,” You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." ***For even his own brothers did not believe in him" John 7:3-5). ***

 

[VociMike]

Why would she want to be with others that are unbelievers?

Offer your scriptural evidence that (a) they were all unbelievers at the time of Christ’s death, and (b) they remained unbelievers until Mary’s death.

 

[clh1217]

Offer your scriptural evidence that (a) they were all unbelievers at the time of Christ’s death, and (b) they remained unbelievers until Mary’s death.

I did in the previous quote about until Jesus death…

I never once implied they were unbelievers until Mary’s death…

 

[Michael_G]

To strongly refute anyone who says the Blessed Mother had relations, one has to use the writings of the Fathers of the Church,
Keep in mind that up to the appearance of Martin Luther, the whole world believed that Mary was Ever Virgin.
cont…

Yes , Scripure cannot demonstrate from the language use that Christ had or did not have true brothers. Church fathers do show this

your statement about Martin Luther is wrong, 1-3 centuries later when Protestants would start teaching Mary had other children.
**Protestant reformers believed the Catholic position regarding the “perpetual virginity” of Our Lord’s mother: **

For example, Martin Luther said, “Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb… This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin
after that.” [Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, p. 23]

Christwas the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins
brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).

John Calvin said, “Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of
Christ.” (Calvin is reported as translating adelphoi as “cousins” or “relatives.”) [as quoted in Bernard Lemming, “Protestants and Our Lady,” Marian Library Studies, nos. 128/129, Jan./Feb. 1967, p.17]

And Zwingli wrote: I firmly believe according to the words of the Gospel that a pure virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and remained a virgin pure and intact in childbirth and also after the birth, for all eternity. I firmly trust that she has been exalted by God to eternal joy above all creatures, both the blessed and the angels. [as quoted in Augustin Bea, “Mary and the Protestants,” Marian Studies 83, April 1961, p.1]

ZWINGLI:
“To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God…and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’… God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels–it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be…to God alone…”

“I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that SHE REMAINED, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied VIRGIN, for ETERNITY.”

(Above quotes from: Zwingli, G. R. Potter, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976)

early church fathers
"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary,…Origen,Commentary on John,I:6(A.D. 232),in ANF,X:300

, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Athanasius,Orations against the Arians,II:70(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:386-387

. was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit." (Epiphanius of Salamis The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

*“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin” Basil,***Hom. In Sanctum Christi generationem,5(ante A.D. 379),in OTT,207

" …, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son." Ambrose,To the Christian at Vercellae,Letter 63:111(A.D. 396),in NPNF2,X:473

Prayers from the Liturgy of Saint James
**Thy saints, guarding us from everything evil, and preserving us for continually **pleasing, and worshipping, and glorifying Thee, the Father, and Thy only-begotten Son, and Thy all-holy Spirit, now and always, and for ever.
Commemorating our all-holy, pure, most glorious, blessed Lady, the God-Mother and Ever-Virgin Mary,60 and all the saints that have been well-pleasing to Thee

 

[jpy15026]

Yes , Scripure cannot demonstrate from the language use that Christ had or did not have true brothers. Church fathers do show this

your statement about Martin Luther is wrong, 1-3 centuries later when Protestants would start teaching Mary had other children.
**Protestant reformers believed the Catholic position regarding the “perpetual virginity” of Our Lord’s mother: **

Thank You…

 

[Michael_G]

to all points.

The Church…

…
But, the Church that is spoken of within scripture, is not exclusively the "C"atholic church.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

You are mistaken. Do you know what the word catholic means, universal, for all people in all ages in all places.

Do you know at what point one can see that the Chrisitian church called them selves Catholic in writing,and most assuredly long before by word of mouth??

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it**. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch**,[Epistle to the Smyrneans](file:///C:/CCD/churchfathers/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#a), 8:2(A.D. 110),in [ANF,I:89](file:///C:/CCD/churchfathers/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm#sym)
“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” [,Martyrdom of Polycarp](file:///C:/CCD/churchfathers/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-13.htm#a)16:2(A.D. 155),in [ANF,I:42](file:///C:/CCD/churchfathers/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm#mar)
"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said."[ ](file:///C:/CCD/churchfathers/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-58.htm#a)[Against HeresiesIrenaeus,](file:///C:/CCD/churchfathers/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-58.htm#a),1:10,3(A.D. 180),in [ANF,I:331-332Book I](file:///C:/CCD/churchfathers/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm#Irancath)

 

[LJN21]

Jesus had younger brothers and sisters. The gospels written by Matthew and Mark give the family members as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas as well as mentioning that Jesus had at least two sisters (Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3). James was probably the second child of Joseph and Mary. So James was very close to Jesus as they grew up together.

Srsly?

Well, there are two James in the NT so I assume your not talking about Jame the Son of Zebedee but James the Less.

Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome.

Alright so he was the son of a woman named Mary, got that.

Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.”

Isn’t this also talking about James the less? Seems his fathers name is Alphaeus.

But wait theres more. Look up Alphaeus in your concordance, while your there check out Cleophas. They both say father of James the less.

John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.”

Looks to me like James and Joseph were sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas, not Mary the wife of Joseph.

Acts 1:13 “…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and Jude the brother of James…”

Hum… well, there goes that one since neither of the James are blood brothers of Christ but if thats not enough:

Jude 1:1 “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James…”

Next

Luke 6:15 “and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,”
Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean…”

Now wasn’t Jesus Nazarene?

The sisters part:

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Suppose the mother of Salome is the wife of Cleophas agian?

 

[VociMike]

I did in the previous quote about until Jesus death…

Which post? All I saw was an assertion that they did not believe six months before his death.

I never once implied they were unbelievers until Mary’s death…

If even one of them became a believer before her death, why would she not then have moved back into that child’s home?

And let’s not forget the other part of this question. If the brothers and sisters were not believers, why would they have allowed their mother to go live with an unrelated man, and furthermore one who was high in the blasphemous, heretical cult (from an unbeliever’s point of view) that their brother had founded and that had gotten him killed?

Would you let your mother go live in a cult that had caused the death of your brother, and that taught rank heresy punishable by death? And plenty of Christians died from persecution between the time of the crucifixion and the time that Mary died, so the threat was more than just academic, it was quite real. And it would only have taken one son, or one daughter’s husband, to remove her from the dangerous cult. But that didn’t happen.

 

[Michael_G]

Where are these references (taken from the New Testament) written in your handy dandy Old Testament?

Hebrews 11:5
5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and “he was found no more because God had taken him.” Before he was taken up, he was attested to have pleased God.

John 10:22
22 The feast of the Dedication was then taking place in Jerusalem. It was winter.

Hebrews 11:35
35 Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection.

Matthew 23:1-2
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.

Yes these are very good, and there are a number of others.

This one is tops:

**How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and 1, 2, and 3 John?
How do we know Matthew wrote, Mathew, Luke wrote Luke ect. These books do not in them selves identify who wrote them. The only way we know who the author is for any of these books of the Bible is from sacred Oral tradition that Paul tells us all to pay attention to, the church the early church fathers.

Bible Alone cannot stand since they do not even know who wrote the Gospels apart from the church…
**

 

[LilyM]

no. You are wrong. Sorry…

Jesus had younger brothers and sisters. The gospels written by Matthew and Mark give the family members as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas as well as mentioning that Jesus had at least two sisters (Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3). James was probably the second child of Joseph and Mary. So James was very close to Jesus as they grew up together.

However, the New Testament clearly shows that as James was growing up, he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, all of Jesus’ brothers rejected their brother as being the Messiah or even that Jesus was a prophet. For example, Mark writes, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household” (Mark 6:4).

A more detailed version of James rejecting Jesus as the Messiah is found in the gospel of John. Six months before Jesus was crucified, the gospel of John records that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him. “Jesus brothers said to him,” You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." ***For even his own brothers did not believe in him" John 7:3-5). ***

It’s like talking to a wall. James ‘the brother of the Lord’ was, and the Tradition on this has ALWAYS been perfectly clear, one of the APOSTLES fer crying out loud, he was the very same Apostle James who wasn’t the brother of John.

James was thus with Jesus his ‘brother’ from the beginning of His ministry like the rest of the 12 and NEVER disbelieved in Him even if others of Jesus’ kinsfolk did. Nowhere does scripture say that ALL of Jesus’ brothers were unbelievers, even if some of them were. I’d like to see where it says that ALL of them were, and I’d like to see in particular where it is even hinted that James ever was.

 

[VociMike]

It’s like talking to a wall.

Yes, because their whole belief system is at stake. It’s a very human response. But it’s still worthwhile for a few reasons (which I’m sure you already understand)

• Others are lurking and wanting to know if the Catholic Church has answers to these questions that are at least reasonable, even if not slam dunks.
• The poster himself may be open, down deep, to the Catholic truth. Every convert to Catholicism was at one point saying “no way, not me, not them!”
• In any case, the poster will learn that the case against the Catholic Church isn’t as cut and dried as he has always been led to believe, and that he will get back an argument based on Scripture and Church history for every one of his questions/challenges.

 

[clh1217]

You are mistaken. Do you know what the word catholic means, universal, for all people in all ages in all places.

Right…"c"atholic DOES mean that!!

"C"atholic is the "R"eligion of "C"atholocism.

 

[clh1217]

Which post? All I saw was an assertion that they did not believe six months before his death.

If even one of them became a believer before her death, why would she not then have moved back into that child’s home?

I don’t know. Obviously God did not deem it important enough for us to know or understand that at this time in our journey home.

And let’s not forget the other part of this question. If the brothers and sisters were not believers, why would they have allowed their mother to go live with an unrelated man, and furthermore one who was high in the blasphemous, heretical cult (from an unbeliever’s point of view) that their brother had founded and that had gotten him killed?

I don’t know.

Obviously God did not deem it important enough for us to know or understand that at this time in our journey home.

I just know what scripture SAYS.

Would you let your mother go live in a cult that had caused the death of your brother, and that taught rank heresy punishable by death? And plenty of Christians died from persecution between the time of the crucifixion and the time that Mary died, so the threat was more than just academic, it was quite real. And it would only have taken one son, or one daughter’s husband, to remove her from the dangerous cult. But that didn’t happen.

…no it didn’t happen.

I do not live in that culture either.