The not so virgin Mary

[Janet1983]

Actually, you’re wrong. The article did NOT fail to mention Mathew 1:24-25. Infact, it’s even under the heading, “Fundamentalist Arguments”.

Go back and READ the article. ALL the way through.

Question: Why is it necessary to read someone’s article (and private interpretation) when the Bible states clear that she did not have any relations with him until she gave birth? You may interpret that the one or the other way, but Scripture verses talking about His borthers are clearly indicating that she did not stay untouched after giving birth to Jesus. Matthew 1:24-25 does in fact not state whether or not she stayed a virgin, but in connection with other verses we see that she only stayed a virgin during her pregnancy and then she acted like any other good Jewish wife did…

Here is the Catholic translation by the way…
24 When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.
25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

 

[Insight]

If Mary was a regular woman giving childbirth via a normal delivery, she technically would still be a virgin b/c she had not had sex. But physically her body would bear no sign or proof of virginity i.e. the membranes and tissues would be ruptured by the childbirth itself

The Revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden, Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, Venerable Maria de Agreda and Maria Valtorta all describe a Miraculous Birth of Jesus. They all have similar depictions of a bright light engulfing Mary, when the light dissipates, Mary is holding baby Jesus.

God Bless

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mary is the Ever-Virgin. This is dogma and cannot changed. Mary had no other children than Jesus Christ. There is no proof that she had others. Second, if she did, why did Jesus gave Mary to John instead of his siblings? Surely, his siblings would be the one to look after Mary.

Third, where are the so called, brothers and sisters of Jesus when he was twelve yrs old? Mary and Joseph lost Jesus in the temple. There are no mention of younger brothers or sisters. There are kins, or cousins mention but the so called brothers and sisters of Jesus are no where to be found in the Bible. NO WHERE.

Lastly, how come the so-called “Brothers and Sisters” of Jesus, are not referred to as “Sons or Daughters of Mary and Joseph, the carpenter?”

The biological brothers and sisters of Jesus is nothing more than a misinterpretation by MODERN Protestant Christians who twist the Bible to their own DESTRUCTION.

 

[Janet1983]

Part 1 of 2

Mary is the Ever-Virgin. This is dogma…

Dogma? And?

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise:

Matthew 1:24-25 - " Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Matthew 12:46-47 - " While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."

Matthew 13:55 - " Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

Mark 6:2-3 - " And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this 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."

John 2:12 - " After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days."

Acts 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."

1 Cor. 9:4-5 - “Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Gal. 1:19 – “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother."

An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

(There is more to this: See the second part for more details…)

 

[Janet1983]

Part 2 of 2

Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

Matthew 12:46-47 - " While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."

Matthew 13:55 - " Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the some theologians will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, “brothers” does not mean “brothers”, but “cousins.” This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

Matthew 12:46-47 - " While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."

Matthew 13:55 - " Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the some theologians will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, “brothers” does not mean “brothers”, but “cousins.” This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary’s virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Part 1 of 2

Dogma? And?

infallible. The Church taught for over 2,000 yrs.

(There is more to this: See the second part for more details…)

Matthew 12:46-47 - " While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."

Matthew 13:55 - " Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

They are his cousins not biological brothers and sisters of Jesus. Second, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are cousins of Mary.

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

Secondly,

Who, then, exactly were the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?

It is best to start by looking at St. John 19, 25. There it is evident that the Virgin Mary had an older sister whose name was also Mary: “Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

Turning next to the Gospel of St. Mark 15, 40, speaking on the same point: “There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (Less) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome.” Who is this “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses?” Of the Marys mentioned in St. John 19, 25 it must be Mary the wife of Clopas, not Mary the “mother of Jesus,” as the Virgin Mary is never mentioned by any other title except as “mother of Jesus.” Further, we know that the father of James the younger was Clopas, the husband of Mary of Clopas (St. Mark 3, 18), making Mary of Clopas James’ mother. As for Jude, he was also a son of Clopas and the Virgin Mary’s sister as Scripture speaks of him as a brother of James the younger: “James son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James” (Acts 1, 13 [Douai]). Consequently, Our Lord had cousins by the names of James, Joseph and Jude.13

One can safely state then that the “brothers” of Our Lord as mentioned in St. Matt. 13, 54 -57 being James, Joseph, Jude etc. are in fact the same James, Joseph and Jude just determined to be His cousins. This was St. Jerome’s assertion in the early fourth century:

"Suppose that the Brethren of the Lord were Joseph’s sons by another wife. But we understand the Brethren of the Lord to be not the sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, his mother’s sister."14

St. Augustine was no less strident in his defence of the Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity:

"It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this -‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth."15

It would be forcing credibility to believe that the Virgin Mary and Her older “sister” both had the same names and also had children with the same names. One can expect, also, that after St. Joseph died the Virgin Mary would have gone with Our Lord to live with or nearby Her older “sister,” explaining why She was travelling with those mentioned in St. Matt. 12, 46. It is a clear example of the word “brother” being used to refer to a first or second cousin.

It is also important to examine closely three major events in Our Lord’s life referred to in the Gospels: (i) the return of the Holy Family from Egypt to Nazareth after the death of Herod; (ii) the finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem after being lost for three days; (iii) Our Lord giving His Mother to the care of St. John at His crucifixion. Our Lord, according to tradition, was 10, 12 and 33 years of age respectively when these events occurred. Yet, never is there any mention of brothers or sisters of His being present, which one would naturally expect if they had actually existed.

 

[dianaiad]

The Revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden, Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, Venerable Maria de Agreda and Maria Valtorta all describe a Miraculous Birth of Jesus. They all have similar depictions of a bright light engulfing Mary, when the light dissipates, Mary is holding baby Jesus.

God Bless

I’m sorry, but…though for Mary’s sake I would hope that this was true (what woman would NOT love to have a birth that easy???) the gospels are rather clear that she was in some difficulty that night…hence the frantic search for a place to stay.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Part 2 of 2

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary’s virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.

Catholics are not the only one who believe this, also Eastern Orthodox and believe it or not, the founders of Protestantism believed that Mary remained a Virgin. It was not until modern protestant came into the picture and said that she wasn’t.

Of course. Let’s start with Luther:

It is an article of the Faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. The Works of Luther, by Weimar, translated by Pelikan.

In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given to her that no one can grasp them…" Ibid.

Calvin agreed Mary was the Mother of God and that her perpetual virginity was possible:

Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord…the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the Eternal God. The Works of Calvin, Berlin, 1863.

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned…The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…" Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle

Zwingli (Swiss reformer whose teachings influenced later Anabaptists, although they were more radical than he was) said similar things:

I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary. The Works of Zwingli, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905.

The more the honor and love Christ grows among men, the more esteem and honor for Mary grows, for she brought forth for us so great and so compassionate a Lord and Redeemer." Ibid.

John Wesley, Anglican priest and founder of the Methodists (later became the Methodist Church) wrote this in a letter to a Roman Catholic, explaining the beliefs Anglicans and Roman Catholics share:

I believe… he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. “Letter to a Roman Catholic.”

 

[Bill_Pick]

Part 2 of 2

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary’s virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.

Janet B4 Bashing CC asnwer some of these questions
. This would be a monumental revelation for the creator of the universe to have siblings. Just think if YOU were a brother or sister of Jesus Christ. Wouldn’t you feel slighted if you were not mentioned in Holy Scripture?

What are their names? Why are they not more prominent in Scripture?

. When were they born? Where were they born? When did they die? If they are divine, could they even die?

. Why did Jesus Christ give His mother to Saint John in John 19:27?

. Why did He not give her to one of His “siblings”? As I explained in the “Genealogy of the Brethren”, Jewish law would have demanded it.

. How can GOD have siblings?

Why are not the “siblings” of Jesus Christ mentioned in the writings of the Church Fathers?

. The question of the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus Christ did not rise to prominence until Protestantism began in the 16th century. How do you explain this fact?

. Why do you interpret the meaning of the word “brethren” as you do, in today’s English, instead of determining the meaning of it in the language of the time of writing? After all, that is one of the basic rules of Bible interpretation, is it not? Also, since you insist on using the definition of brothers and sisters in today’s English, why do you not use the correct terminology of “half brothers and half sisters” when you make your false charges?

. Based on such flimsy evidence as you have, what is your real reason for slighting the Mother of GOD? Aren’t you judging her? Aren’t you calumnizing her?

. Don’t you realize that by making the false accusation that the Mother of GOD had other children that you are insulting the Holy Family as well as the Holy Trinity?

If someone deliberately spread gossip about your very own mother that simply was not true, how would you feel? What would you do? How would Jesus Christ feel? What will He do?

Cathloic trad

 

[Mannyfit75]

THAT MARY CONCEIVED her Child virginally, no one of any account in the Church ever doubted. That she remained a virgin throughout her dedicated life with Joseph and ever after, only a few of the early theologians tried to argue the Church into rejecting—in vain. They were promptly censured. But a third feature of the doctrine, implicit in the acknowledged permanence of Mary’s virginity, took time to develop. It emerged under the influence of the Holy Spirit gradually but surely into a full understanding, which speaks out in the Christmas homily of Pope St. Leo the Great: “Jesus Christ our Lord entered upon this earth. He came down from his heavenly throne, not forsaking the glory of his Father, yet begotten in a new order by a new nativity. . . . He was begotten by a new birth, conceived by a virgin, born of a virgin without the cooperation of a human father, without injury to the maternal virginity.”

  The italicized phrase simply means this.  The mother in giving birth suffered no more physical disturbance than a window pane which lets through a burst of sunshine, or the wall of the Upper Room when the risen Savior came through it to stand of a sudden in the midst of the apostles who out of fear had locked the doors against a hostile intrusion (Jn. 20:19).  There are other similes available.  The rich researches into the prerogative bring them preferably out of Scripture.

  At Ephesus, and again at Chalcedon, the discussion never referred to the Son of God without bringing in his mother, nor to her maternity without including her virginity.  The latter council in its primary concern with the humanity of Christ, and the former in its preoccupation with Mary's divine motherhood, both made open acknowledgment of her threefold virginity.  The acknowledgment reflected the mind of the Church.  It had in it, besides, that vibrant interest which the faithful felt toward the human mother of their God and which they demonstrated in their outbursts of joy over the decisions of both conclaves.

  At either council it was the incidental references to the triple distinction of Mary's virginity that invited, if they did not coerce, a third council to form a definitive statement once and for all.  And that is what a third council did.  It met at the Lateran in 649 to give the authentic consensus of opinion the binding force of a dogma.  It crystallized the findings of patristic insight into the serviceable triad, ante partum, in partu, post partum.  It declared the unalterable truth: that Mary the Ever-Virgin Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ remained a Virgin before his birth, during his birth, after his birth.

"The Lateran Council of 649 convened by Pope Martin I also issued an important statement affirming Mary’s lifelong virginity:

“If anyone does not, according to the Holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

After the Council of Constantinople II the title was universally accepted by the Church. Though already present in certain liturgical contexts, references to Mary’s perpetual virginity were then propagated universally in the liturgical life of the Church. Hence, questioning the dogma’s status as a ‘definition’ does not appear to be constructive. Note that some teachings which belong to the deposit of faith may not have been confirmed by a formal dogmatic definition (e.g. immortality of the soul?). This is often the case with teachings which have never been seriously contested.

There are other norms by which the Church may have assurance that a teaching has been infallibly revealed by God: consensus fidelium (i.e. general agreement among the entire body of believers “from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” [Lumen Gentium #12]); and “universal ordinary magisterium” (i.e. frequent authoritative teachings affirming one perspective on a topic given by the Pope alone, or by the episcopate in general). On the topic of Mary’s perpetual virginity, we have double assurance that the teaching may be considered as infallibly revealed in light of the statement of the fifth Ecumenical Council and by virtue of its constant use in the life of the Church afterwards (i.e. consensus of the faithful and universal ordinary magisterium).

The dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not merely a reference to a historical fact. This historical fact has a a deeper meaning, a spiritual dimension. It speaks of the radical character of her God-relatedness. The life of Mary exists only for, in and through God. Further, it speaks of the singularity of the Christ event. Finally, note that this teaching illustrates Mary’s character as type of the Church:

Following the example of Mary, the Church remains the virgin faithful to her spouse … For the Church is the Spouse of Christ, as is clear from the Pauline Letters (cf. Eph. 5:21-33; 2 Cor. 11:2), and from the title found in John: “bride of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:9). If the Church as spouse “keeps the fidelity she has pledged to Christ,” this fidelity, even though in the Apostle’s teaching it has become an image of marriage (cf Eph. 5:23-33), also has value as a model of total self-giving to God in celibacy “for the kingdom of heaven,” in virginity consecrated to God (cf. Matt 19:11-12; 2 Cor.11:2). Precisely such virginity, after the example of the Virgin of Nazareth, is the source of a special spiritual fruitfulness: it is the source of motherhood in the Holy Spirit. (Mother of the Redeemer #43)

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden, Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, Venerable Maria de Agreda and Maria Valtorta all describe a Miraculous Birth of Jesus. They all have similar depictions of a bright light engulfing Mary, when the light dissipates, Mary is holding baby Jesus.

God Bless

Don’t use private revelation to Protestants. They aren’t good tools for discussion our beliefs.

 

[Janet1983]

Catholics are not the only one who believe this, also Eastern Orthodox and believe it or not, the founders of Protestantism believed that Mary remained a Virgin. It was not until modern protestant came into the picture and said that she wasn’t.

That others believe it too does not make it biblical…

 

[Janet1983]

What are their names?

Their names are James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. (Matthew 13:55)

Why are they not more prominent in Scripture?

Matthew 12:48-50
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

When were they born? Where were they born? When did they die? If they are divine, could they even die?

They are not divine and their birthday is irrelevant and not mentioned in the Bible… as much is Mary’s birthday. When was she born?

Why did Jesus Christ give His mother to Saint John in John 19:27? Why did He not give her to one of His “siblings”? As I explained in the “Genealogy of the Brethren”, Jewish law would have demanded it.

He desired to have John take care of Mary (due to his faithfulness) instead of His brothers who had abandoned Him (Matt. 26:31, 56), it was necessary for Jesus to specifically declare what He wanted. This declaration can be seen as evidence that Jesus was speaking to make clear His intention that John take care of Mary, not His own brothers.

How can GOD have siblings?

His mother could very well have children with Joseph.

Why are not the “siblings” of Jesus Christ mentioned in the writings of the Church Fathers?

The “Church Fathers” are not the Bible. They are irrelevant to all topics in which they differ from biblical doctrine.

The question of the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus Christ did not rise to prominence until Protestantism began in the 16th century. How do you explain this fact?

Catholic Indoctrination.

Why do you interpret the meaning of the word “brethren” as you do, in today’s English, instead of determining the meaning of it in the language of the time of writing? After all, that is one of the basic rules of Bible interpretation, is it not? Also, since you insist on using the definition of brothers and sisters in today’s English, why do you not use the correct terminology of “half brothers and half sisters” when you make your false charges?

Quit wining and read what I wrote…

Based on such flimsy evidence as you have, what is your real reason for slighting the Mother of GOD? Aren’t you judging her? Aren’t you calumnizing her? Don’t you realize that by making the false accusation that the Mother of GOD had other children that you are insulting the Holy Family as well as the Holy Trinity?

I don’t. Mary is undoubtedly blessed among women (Luke 1:42). But, is it appropriate to attribute to her such titles as “Mother of God, Our Queen, Our Mother, Our Life, Our Sweetness, and Our Hope”? I cannot see how it is. Isn’t that insulting God by giving her these titles?

If someone deliberately spread gossip about your very own mother that simply was not true, how would you feel? What would you do? How would Jesus Christ feel? What will He do?

Are you trying to threaten me? Jesus Christ knew her before she was born. She did answer God’s call and by stating the facts I am not insulting anybody. I am not the one making up silly doctrines about her.

 

[rev_kevin]

If you check the list of the apostles and examine it more closely, you’ll find that James, Judas (Thaddeus/Jude), and Simon are included among the Twelve. The term “brothers” means relatives (cousins) and close disciples of Jesus in their case.

Matthew is purely insisting that Jesus isn’t the biological offspring of Joseph, but was miraculously born of the Virgin Mary as alluded to by the prophet Isaiah.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him **Emmanuel **(God with us).
Isaiah 7, 14

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him** Jesus**.
Matthew 1, 25

By the way, there were no siblings of Jesus standing at the foot of the cross with their mother Mary. If Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters, they would have been there with their mother, seeing that it was the time of Passover when entire families travelled to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast. And Jesus would surely have placed his mother in the care of the next elder son, not a disciple of his, according to Judaic custom.

Pax Christu:harp:

ya ok but what about 1 Corinthians 7:3-8 never answered that.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks you just proved my point. You Cahtolics will not accept any other view. That is your point of view on the names.

We are forbidden by Apostolic command to accept any other gospel than the one which was committed to the Church by them. It is not a "point of view on the names’ but part of the Once for all Divine Deposit of faith to the Church. We are not at liberty to add or subtract from it.

I doubt any of the Apostles ever envisioned such a travesty as Sola Scriptura. If they had, they might have written more precisely. However, the ambiguity of the written Word still does not allow us to depart from what they taught.

I noticed you are not too sure yourself. "This COULD be a blood relative of Mary, OR the sister of Joseph, OR another near kin. You don’t know yourself.hmmm. Could you be giving me a load of -----. Besides Joseph was not one of the disciples.

It is not myself about which I lack all the details. They are not provided in the text. What I am sure of is that the Church has always known and believed that the Blessed Mother of Christ was “ever virgin”. That means, whatever relationship these people had to Jesus they were not offspring of His mother and Joseph.

Mary, a woman referred to as the “sister” of the Mother of our Lord, is standing near the cross with Mary of Magdela.

John 19:25
25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

Jesus’ mother is at the cross with John. A little distance away is her “sister” Mary, the wife of Clopas(Alphaeus), Mary of Magdala, and other scripture says “the other women”.

Mark 15:40-41
40 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me, 41 who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

This Mary is the mother of James the younger, Joses and Salome.

This Mary is the one that went to the tomb with Mary of Magdela, not Jesus’ Mother:

Mark 15:46-47
47 Mary Mag’dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

Mark 16:1-2
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo’me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

(neither Mary mentioned here is the mother of Jesus)

Luke 24:10-11
10 Now it was Mary Mag’dalene and Jo-an’na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told this to the apostles;

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

Jude, the brother of James, is not the brother of Jesus.

Mark 6:3
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?"

The Mary who is mother to these, identified in Scripture as the “sister” of our Lord’s mother, is married to Clopas.

Believe me, I do consider other ways of interpreting the scripture, but I cannot do so in such a manner that abandons the deposit of faith given by the Apostles to the Church. They personally knew Jesus. Don’t you think they would have noticed if His mother had other children?

 

[guanophore]

These were common names back then just like we have common names today. What about the name Joseph that is mentioned as his brother, he's not part of the 12.

True.

RELATIVE-a word referring grammatically to an antecedent. a thing having a relation to or connection wtih or necessary dependence upon another thing. an individual connection with another by blood or marriage(source-websters dictionary)

BROTHER-a mail who has one or both parents in common with another. a fellow member—usd as a title for ministers in some evangelical denominations. one related to another by common ties (as in race or interests). a man who is religious but not a priest. (source-websters dictionary)
Never said Joseph was the FATHER of Jesus.
FATHER-a male parent. forefather. one who cared for another as a fahter might. first person in the trinity. one deserving the peapect and love given to a father. priest. (soure-websters dictionary)

Sorry, rev kev, but this just does not flush. You can’t project the modern concepts of words into Scripture. In those days, relations between Jews were all tribal and clan based. Any relative that was too close for marriage was considered a brother or sister. There were no Hebrew words for cousin.

I don't believe I mentioned anything about sibblings at the cross. As a matter of fact I didn't mention aything you wrote here.

Do you disagree? Can you think of any reason that Jesus would give the care of His Mother to a non-relative? This would be considered an extreme insult to any surviving kin.

That you are wrong no matter what and everyone eles is wrong.

Wow. I guess we are al in a fix!

 

[guanophore]

Kudos Dianaiad! That’s what I am wondering also, and I am Catholic, went to Catholic grammar school from kindergarten to 8th grade and graduated from a Catholic High School (Pope John XXIII in NJ). I remember whenever someone had a question about any Catholic dogma at all, they were berated as lacking faith or influenced by the devil if they wanted some proof, or a reference from something other than catechism or tradition. This is why many people think Catholics “make up stuff” i.e. - limbo, a concept “made up” to explain what happens to unbaptized babies. This makes some people doubt the legitimacy of the Catholic religion altogether and seek elsewhere. I find it interesting that people are accusing others as being bad for starting this thread or asking questions about Catholic dogma. Wow. I remember my mother telling me that in Ireland they were discouraged from reading THE BIBLE, and told just to study catechism. I also don’t get Catholics being so hung up on the virgin thing either. Mary was a woman chosen by God to give birth to Christ. She remained a virgin until he was born - that is what we absolutely know. Everything else is speculation. I am looking for the truth, not to uphold an ideology.

You are not a Catholic if you don’t accept and believe what the Apostles gave to the Church. If you think the One Divine Deposit of Faith is “speculation” then you are no longer Catholic. You have become a Protestant, but don’t realize it.

 

[guanophore]

Question: Why is it necessary to read someone’s article (and private interpretation) when the Bible states clear that she did not have any relations with him until she gave birth?

It is not necessary, but it would behoove you to know that the word “until” does not necessarily imply any actions afterward. Scripture has several examples of this word being used in a way different than you are interpreting it.

You may interpret that the one or the other way, but Scripture verses talking about His borthers are clearly indicating that she did not stay untouched after giving birth to Jesus.

I am sorry, but this is incorrect. There are no scriptures that indicate this at all.
If it seems that way to you, you have misunderstood the Scripture.

Matthew 1:24-25 does in fact not state whether or not she stayed a virgin, but in connection with other verses we see that she only stayed a virgin during her pregnancy and then she acted like any other good Jewish wife did...

No Janet. “We” do not see this. We accept what was committed to the Church by the Apostles, that she was “ever virgin”. This did not make her a “not good Jewish wife”.

Here is the Catholic translation by the way…
24 When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.
25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

and Michal, the wife of David, did not have any children UNTIL the day she died.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary’s virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.

What I find sad is that so many of our separated brethren have departed from the Apostolic faith to such an extent that this vigorous defense is necessary.

The Dogma of the Ever Virgin is not “Roman” Janet (and neither is the Catholic Church). All those Churches planted by the Apostles have this in common, the Assyrian Church of the East, Coptic (all the Orthodox) and those not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. For your arguement to have any merit, you would have to find a way to explain how all these other Apostolic Churches retained this from the Apostles when they were not influenced by Rome.

Being consecrated to God is not a violation of God’s law. Jesus Himself was a eunuch for the Kingdom, as was Paul the Apostle. To suggest that it is a violation of God’s law to be celibate is to implicate Jesus and all those who have taken His example in this manner.

 

[guanophore]

That others believe it too does not make it biblical…

You are right about this. The problem here is the origin of faith. The Catholic faith is built by Jesus, on the foundation of the Apsotles and Prophets. The modern evangelical movement is based on the bible. Christianity, however, is not a “religion of the book” as many erroneously believe. The NT is a reflection of what the Church Jesus founded believes and teaches, not the Source of that belief.

In modern times, people have become so separated from the Apostolic teaching so as to be unaware that it ever existed outside of scripture. Such persons cling to what they believe “the bible teaches” because it is the only sliver they have left of the Apostolic Church. The faith was never intended to be “bible based”, so the assertion that one of the basic tenents of our faith (Trinity, for instance) cannot be found in the bible, or is not “biblical” is baseless.

He desired to have John take care of Mary (due to his faithfulness) instead of His brothers who had abandoned Him (Matt. 26:31, 56), it was necessary for Jesus to specifically declare what He wanted. This declaration can be seen as evidence that Jesus was speaking to make clear His intention that John take care of Mary, not His own brothers.

You just made this up. There is nothing in scripture to back this up. It is pure speculation.

I happen to agree with you (except that Mary had no other children), but you are the one that thinks everything needs to be in the bible.

His mother could very well have children with Joseph.

No, it is a sacriledge to take a consecrated vessel and return it to secular service.

The “Church Fathers” are not the Bible. They are irrelevant to all topics in which they differ from biblical doctrine.

There are a couple of problems in this statement. One is that the Church fathers were much closer to what the Apostles believed and taught than you are, so it seems that they might have something relevant to contribute about the faith that was delivered to the Church. Another is that there was no "Bible’ when they were writing. They were expressing what they learned from the Apostles, and those appointed by them. The Bible was not formed until 382, so are you saying that the Church was without accurate doctrine for four hundred years?

And finally, there is no such thing as “biblical doctrine”. Doctrine is “teaching” that comes from teachers. Catholics accept the Teaching of the Apostles. Those who have departed from this receive doctrine based upon the ideas of different teachers. The bible does not “teach”. It is a record of Holy Writings that is profitable for teaching. Teaching is an activity and gift given by Jesus to persons, not books.

Catholic Indoctrination.

Absolutely!

1 Tim 1:10-11
"…sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Entrusted to the Church by the Apsotles, preserved by the Bishops to whom it was committed.

Titus 1:8-10
9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

(notice that there is no NT at the time)

Titus 2:1
2:1 But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine.

I don’t. Mary is undoubtedly blessed among women (Luke 1:42). But, is it appropriate to attribute to her such titles as “Mother of God, Our Queen, Our Mother, Our Life, Our Sweetness, and Our Hope”? I cannot see how it is. Isn’t that insulting God by giving her these titles?

If you are ever brave enough to investigate the history of your faith, you will find that all these titles and salutations emanate from who Jesus is. The Council gave her the title “Theotokos” (Mother of God) to refute the claims of the gnostics. They did this long before they composed the New Testament. If you reject these decisions by the infallible councils, then you also have to reject Trinity, and your NT, because these came from the same source.

Are you trying to threaten me? Jesus Christ knew her before she was born. She did answer God’s call and by stating the facts I am not insulting anybody. I am not the one making up silly doctrines about her.

Your assertions can be viewed as insulting. Actually, I am more insulted by your reference to the Holy Bride of Christ as “silly”. She is His pure and spotless bride,a nd he gave His life to save her. Insulting her by characterizing the revelations of God to her as “silly” or “made up” seems to me to be extremely risky behavior. Not only have you insulted His mother, but also His Bride!