Question About Mary ??

[Pixie_Dust]

We don’t know that for sure. None of us were there to confirm “church history”. It’s just man’s words on paper. Your church has given you her version of “church history”. And, you have no choice but to believe what your religion tells you because to believe otherwise is to believe the RCC is wrong.

Actually, I’m not Catholic (yet) so I did have a choice to accept the Teaching Authority of the Church or remain confused about which denomination was actually teaching the whole Truth. I wrestled mightily with Marian teachings. But who can argue with 2000 years of scholarship? Not I.

I’d be interested in seeing a Scripture verse that says Mary brought forth any other children, or that the “brethren” of the Lord are also “sons and daughters of Mary.”

As far as I’m concerned, I’m going to stick with the Word of God only. I don’t care what you guys say about “sola scriptura”. God’s Word is truth. God gave us His Word and the Holy Spirit in which to understand His Word when we turned to Him in faith.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea,** let God be true, but every man a liar**; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Yep, and that Spirit seems to be the authoring a lot of confusion about what, exactly the Bible teaches. If everyone gets the same Holy Spirit to help them understand His Word, why are there so many different, often contradictory understandings floating around? God’s Word isn’t completely contained within the pages of the Bible - the Bible itself says so.

John 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

2 Thess 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word[as in, spoken], or by our epistle.

2 Thess 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

1 Cor 11:34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.

What did Paul tell them when he came to Corinth later? Is it in the Bible? Does that mean it wasn’t essential to their Christian life and growth?

Also, how did Christians before the 4th Century know what was the Word of God? What about all the illiterate people today? Are they doomed to Hell because they can’t read a Bible?

How do you know that the 27 books in your New Testament are the only ones that belong there?

 

[LJN21]

We don’t know that for sure. None of us were there to confirm “church history”. It’s just man’s words on paper. Your church has given you her version of “church history”. And, you have no choice but to believe what your religion tells you because to believe otherwise is to believe the RCC is wrong.

LOL So you can’t “Prove” it with church history because we doctored the evidence 2000 years ago? Darn you caught us! LOL

We can believe what ever we want to. We choose to believe what the Catholic Church teaches. You know that free will thing and all.

As far as I’m concerned, I’m going to stick with the Word of God only. I don’t care what you guys say about “sola scriptura”. God’s Word is truth. God gave us His Word and the Holy Spirit in which to understand His Word when we turned to Him in faith.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea,** let God be true, but every man a liar**; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Yes, God’s Word is truth. Your understanding of Gods word is up for debate though. Your personal feelings do not counter the Jewish history and customs prove your interpretations of things like “brethren” and “first-born” false.

 

[jmcrae]

You’re not done supporting your claims.

You should trace the geneologies of the “brethren” of Jesus.

If Mary was not a perpetual virgin, then she had to have been something unspeakable, since each of these men had a different father, and none of their fathers are named Joseph. (Also, one of them has a mother named Susanna - was Joseph also doing something unspeakable right in the very household of Christ?)

 

[jmcrae]

Galatians 1:6-8

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

And which one is the “new gospel” that would have been totally unknown to the Apostles? Protestantism is the new and accursed other gospel, since it didn’t begin to exist until the 1500s AD, whereas the Catholic Church was founded by Christ Himself, and is the only Church that has been around continuously, right from the very beginning until now, just like Christ promised.

 

[paarsurrey]

Actually, I’m not Catholic (yet) so I did have a choice to accept the Teaching Authority of the Church or remain confused about which denomination was actually teaching the whole Truth. I wrestled mightily with Marian teachings. But who can argue with 2000 years of scholarship? Not I.
I’d be interested in seeing a Scripture verse that says Mary brought forth any other children, or that the “brethren” of the Lord are also “sons and daughters of Mary.”
Yep, and that Spirit seems to be the authoring a lot of confusion about what, exactly the Bible teaches. If everyone gets the same Holy Spirit to help them understand His Word, why are there so many different, often contradictory understandings floating around? God’s Word isn’t completely contained within the pages of the Bible - the Bible itself says so.
Also, how did Christians before the 4th Century know what was the Word of God? What about all the illiterate people today? Are they doomed to Hell because they can’t read a Bible?
How do you know that the 27 books in your New Testament are the only ones that belong there?

Hi
And you have good reasons to what you believe.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.

 

[guanophore]

If it’s so “clear” why did no one, including the “Reformers” believe that Mary ever had other children? How is it that YOU, 2000 years later, know something about Mary that those people who actually spent time with Mary - one that even took her into his own home after Jesus’ death on the cross - did not?

Did you read the article I’ve linked twice in this thread? Are you afraid to read evidence to the contrary of your position? Afraid that the RCC might actually be right about Mary?

She cannot concede this point Pixie Dust, because that would mean that other errors taught to her might also come to light, and it may become plain that Catholicism has been right all along.

So, if it is established that the “brethren of the Lord” were not Jesus’ brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?

Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: “I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl” (4:9).

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed—but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

 

[Pixie_Dust]

She cannot concede this point Pixie Dust, because that would mean that other errors taught to her might also come to light, and it may become plain that Catholicism has been right all along.

That’s exactly the quandry I found myself in, and now I’m up to my elbows in the Tiber.

 

[Lev23]

First of all, that is a psalm of David.
It applies in some aspects, prophetically, to Jesus of course.
But even scripture does not record that David was LITERALLY cast off my his mother’s sons!! This is a form of hyperbolic speaking here. Or are you suggesting that the only was Jesus could BE the Messiah is IF Mary had other kids?!?!?!?!?!?

Have you read all of Psalm 69 ?? The author speaks of his guilt.
Jesus had no sin and no guilt, so obviously ALL of Psalm 69 cannot LITERALLY be applied to Jesus !!

God bless,
Jaypeeto4

You bring up a good point, but we all know there were no chapters or verses in scripture at the time of Jesus.

What we know as Psalm 69:8-9 are actually part of the same sentence.

The Apostles John and Paul use the latter half of the sentence that makes up Psalm 69:8-9 in reference to Jesus.

John quotes Psalm69:9 in reference to the disciples remembering Jesus clearing out the Temple. "Zeal for your house will consume me."

Paul also quotes from Psalm69:9 in Romans15:3 in referening that even jesus did not please himself. "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me."

The following verse 4 in Romans 15 says- "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope

Verse 8 of Psalm 69, which is part of the same sentence as verse 9, says "I am stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother’s sons;…

John definitely refers to even Jesus’ own brothers not believing in him in John7:5.

So…

…are there any ECF writings that instructs believers that the first half of the sentence that makes up Psalm69:8-9 does not refer to Jesus or Marys perpetual virginity?

Thanks

 

[Lev23]

John quotes Psalm69:9 in reference to the disciples remembering Jesus clearing out the Temple. "Zeal for your house will consume me."

Sorry, forgot to mention this is in John 2:17.

Thanks

 

[holy_wood]

From the NT verses below, it is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Act 1:14
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

O.K. you want to use this verse to show that Mary had other children, then I suggest we do a follow through.

13"And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,[a] with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
Matthias Chosen

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples** **(altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty) ****"

Lets analyse this, shall we. At this gathering there are the 11 Apostles], Jesus mother]. That makes 12 and** the women**], probably the same 3 women present at Christ crusifixion, but for arguments sake lets say there were a dozen or 2 dozen present.

This would mean that Christ bretheren would number arouned 80 or 90.

Mary would have been in perpetual labor. :whacky: :hypno:

Instead of being a perpetual virgin. :nun2:

 

[kmcgonigle]

I think it is very evident in Scripture that Mary had no other children. I happened to think of John 19:

“26
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
27
Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.”

If Mary had other children, especially ones that followed Jesus and His ministry, they would have been ashamed to have their mother live with someone else.(another disciple). I think it is so evident that there really was no need of further explanation in Scripture. It was common knowledge among the Apostles.

Peace,
Kevin

 

[Allweather]

The evidence that Mary had no children apart from Jesus really is overwhelming. But one has to wonder why the Protestants labor so feverishly to try to “prove” that she did? What’s the point of that?

 

[holy_wood]

Mary’s Virginity

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary.

Until nonsence

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

 

[Sabda]

ok … i will bite.

where in scripture did it say that Mary took this vow that cast her into a life of virginity.

and i would also like to know which of the “church fathers” (as you all call them) wrote about this subject and the dates when written. apparently James is one of them … is this James the brother of Jesus or another ??

Where in Scripture does it talk about Mary’s OTHER children? The fact is Scripture says NOTHING about it. In Strong’s Greek and Hebrew concordance it states that berthern can mean a variety of things. Blood brothers, cousins, and kin. It does not ONLY mean blood brothers.

I put Num 30 out there because another poster stated that it was highly frowned upon for a Jewish woman to not have sexual relations with her husband. The fact is that is simple not true and Numbers 30 proves it.

There were many Church fathers that wrote about this subject. Here are a few who mention it.

St Athanasius - Discourse against the Arians (358-362)
Mentions Mary is Ever-Virgin

Didymus The Blind - The Trinity (381-392)
Stated that Mary remained always and forever an immaculate virgin

St Epiphanius of Salamis - The Man Well-Anchored (374)
Mentions Mary is Ever-Virgin and that she is holy

St Epiphanius again
in Panacea Against All Heresies (374-377)
“Was there ever anyone of any breeding who dared to speak the name of Holy Mary, and being questioned, did not immediately add, “the Virgin?” For by such added names the positive proofs of merit are apparent… And to Holy Mary, Virgin is invariably added, for that Holy Woman remains undefiled.”

St. Jerome - Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of The Blessed Virgin Mary (383) [need I say more ]
States: “You say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock.”

St Augustine of Hippo - Sermons (391-430)
States: “Let us rejoice, brethren; let the nations exult and be glad. It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought Him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when He was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man? It was fitting for God to be born thus, when He deigned to become man.”

St Augustine again
Holy Virginity (401)
States: “In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And He wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom He took upon Himself the form of a slave.”

St Augustine again
Heresies (428)
States: Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband."

Do you really need me to continue? There is an abundant supply of writings on this subject if you care to look them up.

for an earlier question … no i would believe a story that my grandfather told me if it happened when he was young because as you know stories grow and change with every telling.

Then you must have a real problem with the Bible and ALL of the historical writings. Since they are copies of copies of copies of copies…

 

[kujo313]

kujo - anti-Popes are just that. ANTI-Popes. They’re not legitimately Pope. There NEVER has been more than one legitimate Pope at a time, regardless of the existence of others calling themselves Pope. And faithful Catholics don’t believe the doctrines of any anti-Pope either.

Are you saying that if a “pope” teaches something that is clearly anti-biblical or anti-Christ, then you are not to believe it?

 

[LilyM]

Are you saying that if a “pope” teaches something that is clearly anti-biblical or anti-Christ, then you are not to believe it?

kujo, Popes may teach things that are EXTRA-biblical but nonetheless true doctrine (since even the Evangelist John made CLEAR AS DAY that not everything Jesus taught was written down!).

I’ll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head unless you want to be banned from this forum again. I’ve never called even the most unbiblical of your beliefs (sola scriptura and assured salvation, for example) either ANTI biblical or ANTI Christ, and for anyone calling themselves Christian to use such language of another is totally out of line. I’ll thank you to apologise for those offensive comments before going any further.

Now, in their teaching capacity as Pope (as opposed to statements they may make as private persons) what they teach is protected and guaranteed truth. Christ promised to preserve his church in all truth thanks to the Holy Spirit, and has done so since the time of the Apostles, so if his promises mean anything it must be so.

 

[Allweather]

Are you saying that if a “pope” teaches something that is clearly anti-biblical or anti-Christ, then you are not to believe it?

I believe that is true, we are not to believe something that is obviously anti-Christian even if taught by a pope. Take a look at a particular teaching of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, which hasn’t been well-received by a bulk of western Catholics. That is firmly Scriptural, and Christian teaching, but a huge number of western Catholics pretty much ignore it. My point is that Popes don’t have armies or police forces to enforce their teachings. They can lead, but people don’t always follow.

But let’s do get back to the anti-popes. A couple of days ago I asked you, Kujo, to tell us who the anti-popes were, and to tell us what doctrines they taught that we Catholics follow. I’ve not heard from you on this point. Here’s another chance for you to inform us.

 

[holy_wood]

I believe that is true, we are not to believe something that is obviously anti-Christian even if taught by a pope. Take a look at a particular teaching of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, which hasn’t been well-received by a bulk of western Catholics. That is firmly Scriptural, and Christian teaching, but a huge number of western Catholics pretty much ignore it. My point is that Popes don’t have armies or police forces to enforce their teachings. They can lead, but people don’t always follow.

But let’s do get back to the anti-popes. A couple of days ago I asked you, Kujo, to tell us who the anti-popes were, and to tell us what doctrines they taught that we Catholics follow. I’ve not heard from you on this point. Here’s another chance for you to inform us.

Seriously guys, can we drop this anti-pope stuff. It has absolutely no bearing on the topic of this thread.

p.s. I think Popes should have an army, that would be awsome.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

The evidence that Mary had no children apart from Jesus really is overwhelming. But one has to wonder why the Protestants labor so feverishly to try to “prove” that she did? What’s the point of that?

To spite the Catholic Church…

 

[kujo313]

And which one is the “new gospel” that would have been totally unknown to the Apostles? Protestantism is the new and accursed other gospel, since it didn’t begin to exist until the 1500s AD, whereas the Catholic Church was founded by Christ Himself, and is the only Church that has been around continuously, right from the very beginning until now, just like Christ promised.

The “Church” was born on Pentecost.
Acts 2:

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 ‘ And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
21 And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved.’

Read on. No mention of Mary, rosaries or scapulars.

WHEN was the last time people in your congregation acted like they was drunk when they was actually drunk in the Spirit?

Read Acts 3 and Acts 4. Mary mentioned? Nope! How DARE Pope Peter not mention the “mother of god”?

Maybe because it’s not about her at all? She can’t do anything now?
It’s either Jesus or Hell. It’s not “Mary or Hell”.