C
- Status
G
Goya
Guest
po18guy;10607017]
**"Since “the bible” tells us that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort the scriptures (2 Peter 3:16), we must therefore listen to the Church (Matthew 18:17). Paul set the scriptures aside and went to the Church to settle the circumcision question (Acts 15). The Church decided and the matter was settled for all time. The Church teaches that Mary, having declared herself to be the bond slave of her own Son (Luke 1:38 with no expiration date), had no other children. No other child of Mary is named, either in Sacred Tradition, or in Sacred Scripture. None is mentioned when Jesus remained behind in the temple (Luke 2:44). None is mentioned at the wedding feast in Cana (John 2:1-2). None is mentioned at any of the crucifixion accounts. None is mentioned, period. Since it was known at that time that Mary had no other children, it would have been nonsensical to mention it in scripture. It was common knowledge, following from Gabriel’s word to Mary that she would bear “a Son” - singular (Luke 1:31). Mary, for her part, was almost incredulous that she, even though preparing for marriage, would have even one child. If she were planning on children, why would she dare to ask this fearsome supernatural spirit being (who just arrived from God’s throne) how she was supposed to have a child? (Luke 1:34) She knew that relations with man produced children, yet she was shocked to hear that she would have “a Son.” That is worth pondering.
Keep in mind also that some modernist Christians believe that Mary was some random woman chosen simply because she had a womb (a patently sexist notion) - also contradict Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and the other reformers. From where do these modernist believers get their authority to make such a claim? Clearly, it is their egos, and nothing more. Remember that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort the scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). In the very next sentence, Peter cautions against listening to such foolish persons (2 Peter 3:17).
As to the poorly thought out argument of Matthew 13:55 which claims to “prove” that Mary had other children (while conveniently ignoring John 19), those brothers and sisters were the children of the other Mary, wife of Clopas, and close relatives of Christ. Need more? We see in Genesis 11:8 that Abram and Lot were uncle and nephew. So, in Genesis 13:27, why does Abram call Lot his “brother”? Hint: it was the language, which had no word for cousin.
…**
Simply awesome. Well done, sir.
(note: I indented and bold-pritned your post to better draw attention to your excellent words here, rather than using the quote feature).
**"Since “the bible” tells us that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort the scriptures (2 Peter 3:16), we must therefore listen to the Church (Matthew 18:17). Paul set the scriptures aside and went to the Church to settle the circumcision question (Acts 15). The Church decided and the matter was settled for all time. The Church teaches that Mary, having declared herself to be the bond slave of her own Son (Luke 1:38 with no expiration date), had no other children. No other child of Mary is named, either in Sacred Tradition, or in Sacred Scripture. None is mentioned when Jesus remained behind in the temple (Luke 2:44). None is mentioned at the wedding feast in Cana (John 2:1-2). None is mentioned at any of the crucifixion accounts. None is mentioned, period. Since it was known at that time that Mary had no other children, it would have been nonsensical to mention it in scripture. It was common knowledge, following from Gabriel’s word to Mary that she would bear “a Son” - singular (Luke 1:31). Mary, for her part, was almost incredulous that she, even though preparing for marriage, would have even one child. If she were planning on children, why would she dare to ask this fearsome supernatural spirit being (who just arrived from God’s throne) how she was supposed to have a child? (Luke 1:34) She knew that relations with man produced children, yet she was shocked to hear that she would have “a Son.” That is worth pondering.
Keep in mind also that some modernist Christians believe that Mary was some random woman chosen simply because she had a womb (a patently sexist notion) - also contradict Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and the other reformers. From where do these modernist believers get their authority to make such a claim? Clearly, it is their egos, and nothing more. Remember that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort the scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). In the very next sentence, Peter cautions against listening to such foolish persons (2 Peter 3:17).
As to the poorly thought out argument of Matthew 13:55 which claims to “prove” that Mary had other children (while conveniently ignoring John 19), those brothers and sisters were the children of the other Mary, wife of Clopas, and close relatives of Christ. Need more? We see in Genesis 11:8 that Abram and Lot were uncle and nephew. So, in Genesis 13:27, why does Abram call Lot his “brother”? Hint: it was the language, which had no word for cousin.
…**
Simply awesome. Well done, sir.
(note: I indented and bold-pritned your post to better draw attention to your excellent words here, rather than using the quote feature).
G
Goya
Guest
It should be worth noting, that even IF this protestant apologetic had any merit–it would do much more to further the special status of the Blessed Virgin Mary, than to undermine it–for if she had other children, and they rejected Christ…and she stayed by His side through the passion/crucifixion, Resurrection, and Pentacost…despite having had other children, who had expressly rejected Him…
…why that would actually buttress her status as co-mediatrix all the more–not undermine it in the slightest…
For then she would have doubled down on her “Yes”, with a painful, sacraficial, self-denial of not only her own interests…but her own [other] children–for the sake of the Salvation of Man, and the Lord’s redemptive mission.
Alas, we can stake claim only to the Truth as it was revealed to us–which is, that the Blessed Virgin Mary was perpetually virgin–according to Sacred Tradition…which itself, birthed Sacred Scripture (New Testament, anyway)–Divine Revelation, begotten by and through Divine Revelation.
…why that would actually buttress her status as co-mediatrix all the more–not undermine it in the slightest…
For then she would have doubled down on her “Yes”, with a painful, sacraficial, self-denial of not only her own interests…but her own [other] children–for the sake of the Salvation of Man, and the Lord’s redemptive mission.
Alas, we can stake claim only to the Truth as it was revealed to us–which is, that the Blessed Virgin Mary was perpetually virgin–according to Sacred Tradition…which itself, birthed Sacred Scripture (New Testament, anyway)–Divine Revelation, begotten by and through Divine Revelation.
S
snarflemike
Guest
But you’re leaving out the critical part:
“And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”
Mary lived the rest of her days in the home of John.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Jesus did not finish the law. He did not institute a new law.
The Law of the Jews said an eye for an eye. The law of Jesus, the law of love says pray for your enemy and feed him. The law of love contains all the law of the Jews and infinitely more.
Jesus raised the bar. He made it much more difficult, but he gave us the Church and the sacraments to assist us in doing so.
-Tim-
S
Steveabrous
Guest
The Protevangelium of James was written around 150 A.D. It is the earliest writting known to discuss the issue and it falls on the “Perpetual virginity” side of the coin.
Writng something down back then was not like it is now. Something had to have long, widespread belief and a history of oral tradition for it to be found important enough to take the time to write it down. 150 A.D. is only 80 years removed from when Mary was still on earth. To me that shows it was part of the original belief concerning Mary. It would be idiotic to think this document began the belief in her perpetual virginity. Which is essentially what you are saying.
Give me quotes with sources to back this claim up. I am aware of no early church writing that disputes the Perpetual virginity of Mary. Perhaps heretical ones, maybe, but they can’t be considered “Early church fathers”
E
Erich
Guest
From Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant:
In Matthew 1:20, Joseph is told by the angel Gabriel to “not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home” (paralambano gunaika). This wording is VERY different from what the angel told Mary, i.e., that “the power of the Most High will overshadow you”. Taking a woman into your house is not language that describes marital intercourse, whereas “to overshadow” or “to lay one’s power over” a woman was a euphemism for sexual intercourse, and there is ample Jewish rabbinic literature to support this. Furthermore, the Greek for “overshadow”, episkiasei, is used in Matthew 17:5 to describe what the bright cloud does at the Transfiguration, which is used to indicate God’s Presence like in Exodus 24:15-16; 40:34-8 and 1 Kings 8:4-11. In other words, God’s Presence overshadowed Mary’s womb before Joseph could have marital relations with her. This is why Catholics believe that Mary already belonged to God, not Joseph.
…
Now, if God’s presence “overshadowed” Mary, why did Joseph refrain from intercourse at all? The answer is that even he recognized her special consecration as God’s living vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant. Note that because God’s presence overshadowed the tabernacle, Moses was not able to enter: “Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode therein, and the glory of the the Lord filled the tabernacle.” (Ex 40:34-35)Just as Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle due to God’s presence, Joseph was not able to have marital relations with Mary because God’s presence, in the same way as in Exodus 40:34-35, had overshadowed her. Another example is seen in Uz’zah, who aroused the anger of God simply for touching the Ark: “And when they came to Na’chon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the Ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uz’zah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the Ark of God.” (2 Sam 6:6-7)Don’t think that Joseph wasn’t aware of this story - the fact that Uz’zah was killed immediately simply for reaching out to steady the Ark being shaken by the oxen. He knew that Mary, as the New Ark of the Covenant, was not to be touched, either. This is why Joseph refrained from intercourse with Mary during her miraculous pregancy and afterwards as well, because if God’s Presence had indeed “overshadowed” Mary’s womb, Catholics believe that Mary’s womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44: “This gate shall remain shut: it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered it; THEREFORE, it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord.” (Ez 44:1-3)
E
Erich
Guest
There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture 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.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.
Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: 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*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”
Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!
So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)
Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)
Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!
We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’.
Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’
Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…
So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.
P
PeterGStanley
Guest
Theres a good write up on it at catholic culture .org that attempts to explain if Joseph was married or not previously and that the gospel might be referring to his children from that marriage : catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9298
S
snarflemike
Guest
Doesn’t seem ambiguous in the least to me.
It’s John. He identifies himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in his gospel. And he is the one disciple who didn’t run away (if he ran away, how could Jesus have said “behold your mother”?).
There’s no rule about how many gospels have to mention something for it to be true.
Yes, those words could only have been written after Mary died, so that fits in well with the fact that it was written last.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
There are actually far more problems that arise by thinking Joseph had children by a former marriage, then the one easy problem of the “brothers of the Lord” difficulty that it supposedly resolves.
It is also an ancient belief that Joseph, like Mary was a perpetual virgin. This would go far in explaining the mysterious and holy marriage that Mary was in where “she did not know man” And remember, her saying this was inclusive of the future, which is why she said it to the Archangel Gabriel. Mary was saying to Angel, I do not now, nor will I ever “know man.” That understanding is the only way her question makes sense. The ArchAngel never said the child would be born in any special sort of way until Mary asks her question. After all, Mary was already married to Joseph. What devout married woman, being told by an Angel of the Lord, that she would have a son, would even ask such a question, unless there was a serious problem with the proposal? Mary’s question is the key to understanding hers and Joseph’s perpetual virginity.
P
pablope
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
po18guy
Well-known member
I am so happy that you don’t think I was beating you over the head with this response! I get awfully weary from well-meaning but ignorant attacks on God’s revealed truth. Do our non-Catholic brothers and sisters ever actually read the bible that they thump in our faces? Do they ponder - like Mary - the likelihood that the Church (and even the protestant reformers) might just have had it right?
As is the case with all of life, ignorance flashes like lightning while truth plods along slowly.
po18guy
Well-known member
John notes (John 2:11) that this was the first of Jesus’ miracles. Therefore, one who ponders in their heart like Mary must wonder just how she knew that Jesus held the solution to this problem somewhere within His being. They who ponder must consider that wine doesn’t just grow on trees! It takes time to produce, and labor. Something was revealed to her, and to her alone, causing her first to approach Jesus regarding this problem, and then to instruct the servants to “do whatever He tells you.” Continuing our pondering, we must wonder how she knew that Jesus could do anything at all, since this was the first of His miracles.
There is just something about Mary.
J
jbeck43
Guest
Really excellent explanation. Thanks Tim.
K
khuldar
Guest
Yes, I used to be one of those Christians, Many thanks the Blessed Mother that she loved me anywayWell, I do get fired up when our Blessed Mother is involved! Why can’t Christians - especially Christians! - look into Catholic teaching on the slight chance that it just may be correct?
The research doesn’t take long to do which makes me sad. There is alot of misconceptions out there about our Blessed Mother.
P
Pilosopo
Guest
Thanks for your responses po18guy and Erich.
On what may seem to be a separate note, I can’t help but think of virgins and celibates occupying some upper echelon of holiness.
Well, celibacy is not an easy thing.
And, I must admit that the Wedding at Cana and the miracle of festive wine is a testament to plenty.
To all those who are responding to God’s call through the celibate/ virginal life, the Lord bless you indeed.
po18guy
Well-known member
Ask a Latin Rite Priest. They will tell you that celibacy is a gift. Our Lord’s own words from Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
The Mary that is said to be the sister of the Virgin Mary–I doubt if two daughters would be named Mary in the same family.
Wouldn’t that point to the possibility that she was the Virgin Mary’s sister in law or brother in law’s wife?
I think that Joseph had a brother and that this Mary was his wife.
It might be a stretch but I can see a scenario where Jesus’s brothers weren’t siblings but they may have grown up together–the two Mary’s living in the same household or maybe close to each other–in fact maybe the other Mary’s husband who was Joseph’s brother might have died and this is why the two families were close to each other.
Is my thinking on this possible?
Wouldn’t that point to the possibility that she was the Virgin Mary’s sister in law or brother in law’s wife?
I think that Joseph had a brother and that this Mary was his wife.
It might be a stretch but I can see a scenario where Jesus’s brothers weren’t siblings but they may have grown up together–the two Mary’s living in the same household or maybe close to each other–in fact maybe the other Mary’s husband who was Joseph’s brother might have died and this is why the two families were close to each other.
Is my thinking on this possible?
- Status