SPLIT: Did Jesus have brothers? The perpetual virginity debate.

[Cat_Herder]

"But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately." Acts 18:26

Cat Herder using your logic which of the following do you hold to be true?

Priscilla and Aquila needed to “reform” Apollo’s doctrine because it was deficient, or
prior to the events of Acts 18 no one had the truth?

You’re trying to extrapolate from a few apostates here and there to a total apostasy of the Church. Meh.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Nor is a declaration of a supposed perpetual virginity.

You’re attacking Christ’s standing as the Messiah. Don’t do that.

 

[po18guy]

Frankly, although they may have been right about Mary, these three were wrong on so many other things that using them as a reference here seems a little selective…

They are referenced strictly for the sake of this thread. The point is to cause some pondering regarding what has happened to protestantism since its inception. Catholicism hasn’t changed.

 

[po18guy]

In Numbers Chapter 30, God gives instructions concerning those who make vows to Him. It specifically addresses vows made by young women. In some instances, the father or the husband have the authority to nullify the vow. When the vow is nullified, the young woman is released from her vow.

This chapter has not yet been discussed in relation to the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity. It may have bearing on it. The angel’s instructions to Joseph were to not be afraid to take Mary as his wife. Perhaps Numbers 30 is part of the backstory of the angel’s instructions.

You can shut this thread down and turn the Catholic Church on its head by simply naming the “children of Mary” using the bible. Not the “brothers” or “sisters” of Jesus, but the children of Mary. You will beat almost 2,000 years of theologians if you can.

 

[po18guy]

My agenda = to understand the Catholic doctrine

The Catechism and one of various books explaining the doctrine would be a great help. The catechism is $8.

You say if I believe the bible, logically I should believe Mary was ever virgin? That is not a logical answer because I’m asking you questions based on what I have read from that bible that seem, at the least to me, to oppose Mary being a perpetual virgin

This points to the error of scripture which lacks authoritative interpretation. Words can be twisted. The devil is the first in the bible to twist word of scripture during his temptation of Jesus. The bible tells us that someone with authority must interpret. Nehemiah 8:1-8, Acts 8:26-35. This is why Peter wrote 2 Peter 3:15-16.

Take a look at the number of writings that were considered as NT scripture. From that substantial stack, the Church had to winnow it down to 27 books of the NT. The Church declared those books to be inspired. End of story. That same Church declared Mary ever virgin. The founders of protestantism agreed. End of story? What has happened to protestantism since then?

What focus on sex? My focus is on doctrine and truth! That is how I ended up finding this site, I want to find out the truth and God helping me to walk in it. You proclaim something to be true and I am asking why and trying to understand why. (A bit of repetition going on now)

Because so many today are determined to show that Mary was just a normal, average woman who must have had a normal marital life - aside from birthing and raising the Son of God. Not saying that you claim this.

I really want to reply to your last sentence but I’m just not going to.

If the shoe does not fit, you need not wear it. Sorry for any implication here. I am a little battle-weary from defending the mother of God (Luke 1:43).

Yes being a bond servant means they are committed to God, but how does that say she was a virgin for life? Must I be a virgin to be committed to God?

Mary knew that she was about to be married. She knew that children were produced by marital relations. If Mary was planning on a normal marriage, why was she so surprised that she was to bear a Son? So surprised that she questioned the angel Gabriel! “How is this to be?” Why would an about-to-be-married woman ask that?

 

[po18guy]

Nor is a declaration of a supposed perpetual virginity.

Do you believe the bible? Of course! But where did the “Sacred Table of Contents” come from? The Church. Where did the perpetual virginity doctrine come from? The Church. The same Church declared both to be revealed by God. Is it the ego that believes one, but doubts the other? And, what sort of faith demands proof, in writing, before it will believe?

Remaining perpetually virgin does not require action. It requires restraint. Like that of a bond slave of the Lord.

 

[adrift]

a. Mark wrote those words of Jesus. Do you doubt him? (Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. But Jesus said unto them, “A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. …And he marvelled because of their unbelief.” Mark 6: 3-6) .

It is not Mark being doubted but your flawed understanding of what Mark wrote. I have a question for you. Is every mention in the Bible of brothers mean that they share a parent?
Why did Jesus’ family not believe that He was the Messiah?

b. In light of Mark 6: 3-6, Jesus’ family (brothers, cousins, kinsmen, whoever they were) had rejected Him. Had they rejected Mary as well because she chose to go with Him? I don’t know. But since she was with Him in Jerusalem and they were not, to whom would Jesus assign her immediate care? Why not a cousin, an uncle, a close kinsman? Well, they had rejected Him.

You ask why Jesus didn’t state it some other way: I decline to put words into His mouth.

Call this theory flawed if you wish, but no one else has addressed the issue of Jesus being rejected by His own family and the ramifications of that rejection

I also believe you are misunderstanding the verse you quote. You left out this

1 And he went out from thence; and he cometh into his own country; and his disciples follow him. 2 And when the sabbath was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man these things? and, What is the wisdom that is given unto this man, and what mean such mighty works wrought by his hands?

Who is doubting here? It does not say His family. Who is doubting here is His neighbors. Are you saying that James and Cleopas rejected Him? That His family had doubts and didn’t understand is true but to say they all rejected Him would also not be true. Speaking of His family the way that they address Him in Mark 3:21; John 7:3-4 demonstrates that He was younger than his “brothers”. The culture would not stand for the disrespect demonstrated of an older person by a younger person.

 

[inkaneer]

a. Mark wrote those words of Jesus. Do you doubt him? (Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. But Jesus said unto them, “A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. …And he marvelled because of their unbelief.” Mark 6: 3-6)

Matthew has these words of that same situation:

[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

UnityofTrinity:
Revelation 4:4 describes the elders “who sit around the throne.” The Douay version has them sitting on seats. At any rate, they are not sharing the throne with God and in no way should it be inferred that bowing to them or worshipping any one else is permissible. Mary is not mentioned in this passage in connection with the throne.

You say that no Catholics worship Mary. I don’t understand because I have heard of ‘latria’ or ‘dulia’ (I’m not sure which one applies to Mary).

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

UnityofTrinity:

1. Revelation 4:4 describes the elders as seated ‘around’ the throne, not on the throne with God. The Douay version has them sitting on seats, not thrones. This verse in no way says that bowing or worshipping any one other than God is permissible. Mary is not mentioned in this scene.

You say that no Catholic worships Mary. I have heard of ‘latria’ or ‘dulia’ (not sure which one applies to Mary).

I find it hard to understand why R.C.s would apply the title “Queen of Heaven” to Mary. Jeremiah 44:18 identifies the “Queen of Heaven” as a pagan idol the Israelites were brazenly worshipping. Why would Jesus want his mother addressed by that title?

Can you provide a Scripture reference to David’s mother as queen mother?

Not sure right now what’s going on with my quote button ??? If the original post does not show up, this is in reference to Post #219. If it shows up correctly, then never mind.(

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

UnityofTrinity:
Response to Post #219

1. The OT Ark of the Covenant is represented by the Law; the NT Ark of the Covenant is Jesus Christ whose sacrifice fulfilled the Law for us. Hebrews 10: 9-10 - …He sets aside the first (that is the Old Covenant/the Law) to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." The OT Ark contained the manna (Jesus is the Bread of Life), the staff of Aaron that budded (Jesus gives us new life) and the Law (Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law). That is why He perfectly represents the OT Ark of the Covenant.

 

[paul_c]

Response to Post #219

1. The OT Ark of the Covenant is represented by the Law; the NT Ark of the Covenant is Jesus Christ whose sacrifice fulfilled the Law for us. Hebrews 10: 9-10 - …He sets aside the first (that is the Old Covenant/the Law) to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." The OT Ark contained the manna (Jesus is the Bread of Life), the staff of Aaron that budded (Jesus gives us new life) and the Law (Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law). That is why He perfectly represents the OT Ark of the Covenant.

Actually, you know that the OT ark of the covenant was not the law but the box that contained the law. And that’s why Mary can be described as the new ARk, because she contained Jesus in her womb. Jesus in not the container…

 

[Tomb54]

1. Revelation 4:4 describes the elders as seated ‘around’ the throne, not on the throne with God. The Douay version has them sitting on seats, not thrones. This verse in no way says that bowing or worshipping any one other than God is permissible. Mary is not mentioned in this scene.

You say that no Catholic worships Mary. I have heard of ‘latria’ or ‘dulia’ (not sure which one applies to Mary).

I find it hard to understand why R.C.s would apply the title “Queen of Heaven” to Mary. Jeremiah 44:18 identifies the “Queen of Heaven” as a pagan idol the Israelites were brazenly worshipping. Why would Jesus want his mother addressed by that title?

Can you provide a Scripture reference to David’s mother as queen mother?

Not sure right now what’s going on with my quote button ??? If the original post does not show up, this is in reference to Post #219. If it shows up correctly, then never mind.(

Found this which might help –
Latria is sacrificial in character, and may be offered only to God. Catholics offer other degrees of reverence to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to the Saints; these non-sacrificial types of reverence are called hyperdulia and dulia, respectively. In English, dulia is also called veneration. Hyperdulia is essentially a heightened degree of dulia provided only to the Blessed Virgin. from wikipedia. Maybe not best place for reference but it does talk about both words.

Also I found references to Queen mother in the Davidic Kingdom but not directly to David’s mother but this would still have been the set up with David since it is still part of the Davidic kingdom

(This was after King Jehoiachin and the queen mother, the court officials and the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the skilled workers and the artisans had gone into exile from Jerusalem.) Jeremiah 29:1-3

Also see it at 1kings 15, 2 kings 10, and 2 Chron 15. Some translations show it only as Queen but then sometimes shows it is the mother of the king.

Hope this helps some.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hmm. Scripture refers to King Nebuchadnezzer as “King of Kings”. Gee, I thought JESUS was the King of Kings. How can we refer to Jesus as “King of Kings” when Scripture refers to a mere mortal–and not even a member of God’s chosen people --with the title King of Kings? Surely if a mere mortal–one who was worshipped by his own people–was called "king of kings’, we should NEVER refer to anybody and especially not to Jesus as this. Wouldn’t it be as though we assumed because ONE being was given the title and ‘worshipped as a god’, that it would be confusing and look as though we thought Jesus was ‘just another god’ if we gave Him a title that belonged to a false god first?

But we say, “Well, gee, pagans might have gotten it wrong, but there really IS a King of Kings” (and of course, there is). . .

Are you saying that there is no way that there could ever be a Queen of Heaven because a scriptural passage refered to one of the MANY pagan ‘goddesses’ of some cult as such, just as Greek mythology refers to HERA as ‘queen of heaven’ and Roman mythology to JUNO as ‘queen of heaven’, etc.?

Is there no way that there could be a queen of heaven? A true one? If not, why not?

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

Because regardless of the he/she dispute, no one disputes that Jesus did the crushing. No one is removing Christ from the discussion.

The point is that both Jesus and Mary are placed at total enmity with the devil. That is in an undisputed part of the verse.

Joshua bowed before an angel and Jesus and Paul assert that glorified humans rank above the angels. (In fact, Paul was quite clear that even your great-grandmother would judge angels, see 1 Cor 6:3). Mary would obviously be at the top of the hierarchy of saints, and therefore above all other saints and the angels and inferior only to the Trinity. If angels are worthy of veneration then so is She. See discussion here.

Again, since the Bible endorses the honoring of angels and saints, and no one disputes that the worship of adoration is due to the Trinity alone (so no one is doing what John did wrong in Revelation 19:10), you are attempting to create a controversy where there isn’t one.

Jesus did not bear Himself into the world. He could have descended from Heaven the way He ascended after the Resurrection. Instead, He took his human nature from Mary and chose to dwell in Her. That was His call to make. Maybe you should go ask Him why He did that.

That’s something to ask your Bible experts. I don’t think they’ll be able to answer it, though.

You are inquiring on the nature of glorification, that is, what happens to us after we enter heaven. See the link above.

Protestantism specializes in rejecting spiritual realities like the saints and the sacraments, which is why you are asking these questions.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 2:7-16[/BIBLEDRB]

The conclusion that it is permissible to bow or worship someone other than God cannot stand. Joshua did not bow to an angel. In Joshua 5:13-15, there is no mention of the man being an angel. In fact, the man identifies himself as the Commander of the Army of the Lord. A drawn sword in His hand, He says, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” These are the same words God spoke to Moses. The identity of the man is provided in Rev. 19:14 - “The armies of heaven were following Him.” This is the Word of God, Jesus Christ. Joshua’s encounter was with the Pre-Incarnate Christ, not an angel.

In Rev. 19: 9-10, John fell to worship the angel. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you … Worship God! …
I’m not sure what you mean when you say R.C.s don’t do that, we only worship God, but it’s ok to worship angels and therefore, Mary. Are you saying, 'we worship God alone, but it’s ok to worship angels, saints, and Mary a little bit? There is no mention of the shepherds in the field bowing or worshipping, even when the heavenly host appeared. Mary did not worship Gabriel when he appeared to her. Can you show me specifically where the Bible endorses the worship of angels?

Re: Ezekiel 40 - 48. I do know what ‘my’ experts say about Ezekiel’s vision. What I am trying to learn is what the R.C. experts say about it. Yes, Mary is the Gate they say. But beyond that …? If Mary is the East Gate, then who is the north gate in v. 4? What are all the exits of the sanctuary in v. 5? Who are the Levites that serve in the sanctuary? Why are precise measurements of the altar, sanctuary, courts, etc, given? What is the proof that the prince is really Jesus? Who are the other princes mentioned later?

If one little part of Ezekiel’s vision is the basis for Marian doctrine, shouldn’t the rest of the vision be interpreted as well? Maybe it is somewhere and you will come across it.

As for your contention about Protestants not understanding spiritual matters…?? I don’t really know where you are coming from on that one. I could provide a long, long list of spiritual truths/realities that I believe. You don’t know me and you don’t know my heart, therefore, you would be wise not to cast judgment so readily.

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

Actually, you know that the OT ark of the covenant was not the law but the box that contained the law. And that’s why Mary can be described as the new ARk, because she contained Jesus in her womb. Jesus in not the container…

Sigh… Yes, I know that. Jesus is the ‘container’ within Himself of the Manna, the staff of Aaron, and the Law.
R.C.s choose Mary as their NT Ark, fine, I choose Jesus.

 

[po18guy]

Sigh… Yes, I know that. Jesus is the ‘container’ within Himself of the Manna, the staff of Aaron, and the Law.
R.C.s choose Mary as their NT Ark, fine, I choose Jesus.

How dare you judge the Eastern Orthodox church in such a brazen manner? What sort of anti-Eastern Orthodox websites have you been visiting? I have no idea where you got all of your anti-Eastern Orthodox Church views.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Sigh… Yes, I know that. Jesus is the ‘container’ within Himself of the Manna, the staff of Aaron, and the Law.
R.C.s choose Mary as their NT Ark, fine, I choose Jesus.

Then who or what is the Messiah’s Gate?

When God promised that He would pass through that gate… Did He lie?

Did His word return void?

 

[paul_c]

Sigh… Yes, I know that. Jesus is the ‘container’ within Himself of the Manna, the staff of Aaron, and the Law.
R.C.s choose Mary as their NT Ark, fine, I choose Jesus.

I would think you would understand that Jesus is not the container but God incarnate. for which the mana, the staff of Aaron and the commandments symbolize… Mary was the container, more precious than the Gold of the ark…

 

[po18guy]

Then who or what is the Messiah’s Gate?

When God promised that He would pass through that gate… Did He lie?

Did His word return void?

You are asking someone who is all eaten up with anti-biblical private interpretation, further restricted by razor-thin theology, to begin to probe the depths of revelation. Let’s see how that works out!