The Virgin Mary was she always so?

[Randy_Carson]

The above from the article, Brethren of the Lord, found at www.catholic.com.

catholic.com/library/brethren_of_the_lord.asp

 

[Atemi]

You must forgive me Randy, but I make it a general practice to not reply to large cut and pastes.

What usually happens is I do an hour’s worth of work for what a poster easily did in about 5 seconds.

I try to economically keep my replies to those who post their own thoughts and are dialoguing.

But I appreciate the article, though I have already read it.

…

 

[Randy_Carson]

You must forgive me Randy, but I make it a general practice to not reply to large cut and pastes.

What usually happens is I do an hour’s worth of work for what a poster easily did in about 5 seconds.

I try to economically keep my replies to those who post their own thoughts and are dialoguing.

But I appreciate the article, though I have already read it.

…

I understand…however, some issues are more complicated and require a more careful reply. In this particular case, having read your post carefully and knowing precisely what information would answer your question specifically without wandering off topic, I provided that portion of a longer article that was relevant.

In this particular case, since the issue at hand is a bit technical (having to do with the
Aramaic → Greek transliterations), I thought you might prefer the full scoop as opposed to a few lines of paraphrasing by me.

Given that you have read it previously, I’m surprised that you stated in the post that prompted my response that the Greek has a word for “cousin”.

Of course it does. But that’s not the crux of the matter.

And you already know that. :tsktsk:

 

[Church_Militant]

I understand…however, some issues are more complicated and require a more careful reply. In this particular case, having read your post carefully and knowing precisely what information would answer your question specifically without wandering off topic, I provided that portion of a longer article that was relevant.

In this particular case, since the issue at hand is a bit technical (having to do with the
Aramaic → Greek transliterations), I thought you might prefer the full scoop as opposed to a few lines of paraphrasing by me.

Given that you have read it previously, I’m surprised that you stated in the post that prompted my response that the Greek has a word for “cousin”.

Of course it does. But that’s not the crux of the matter.

And you already know that. :tsktsk:

Yeah. Couldn’t possibly be that he doesn’t want to deal with a factual refutation. It might mean he might actually have to really study to show himself approved unto God, a workman who need not be ashamed and who can rightly divide the word of truth.

And God forbid that a Catholic might have a valid point! That can’t happen! Catholics are always wrong, dumb, stupid, deceived, idolatrous, Biblically ignorant, and not saved.

Give him a chance… he’ll tell you that the Catholic Church is not Christian. He won’t be able to support it with anything more than rhetoric and propaganda…but hey, for some people that is all it takes.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yeah. Couldn’t possibly be that he doesn’t want to deal with a factual refutation. It might mean he might actually have to really study to show himself approved unto God, a workman who need not be ashamed and who can rightly divide the word of truth.

And God forbid that a Catholic might have a valid point! That can’t happen! Catholics are always wrong, dumb, stupid, deceived, idolatrous, Biblically ignorant, and not saved.

Give him a chance… he’ll tell you that the Catholic Church is not Christian. He won’t be able to support it with anything more than rhetoric and propaganda…but hey, for some people that is all it takes.

CM-

Since he left the Catholic Church, he has a lot of skin invested in proving her wrong.

But the longer he hangs around here, the more truth he hears.

And God only needs a tiny opening…we must

 

[Atemi]

If Jesus has brothers and sisters, then why did he give His mother to the apostle John? The fact that his “brothers” did not believe has nothing to do with their relationship with their “mother.”

God Bless,
Michael

I would commit the care of my mother to a strong brother in the faith as opposed to merely a brother in the flesh any and every day of the week.

That this simple idea evades understanding for so many boggles my mind really.

Would you really commit the care of your mother to a blood brother who rejects your faith or to a willing and strong brother in the Catholic faith?

Faithful Catholics would do for their own mothers what they would deny for our Lord.

That is concerning to me.

…

 

[Atemi]

You must agree that at best they were Jesus’ half brothers and sisters. Different Father, remember??

Of course. But that is irrelevant.

Everyone with half brothers or half sisters since childhood always refer to their siblings as their brothers or sisters…as would everyone else.

We should not be so PC that we fall into this thinking.

So at face value the text cannot be taken literally. So start there. They are not his brothers and sisters.

Yes, it can be taken literally.

A half brother is literally a person’s brother.

This is silly now, IMO.

And how could Mary bare more children with another man when Jesus’ heavenly Father was still alive?? And He always is.

Because she had a husband and that was her only husband.

Wives have sex with their lawful husbands.

Actually, I don’t believe the RCC itself even views a marriage as valid without that.

BTW, God the Father is not a man.

.

 

[LilyM]

I would commit the care of my mother to a strong brother in the faith as opposed to merely a brother in the flesh any and every day of the week.

That this simple idea evades understanding for so many boggles my mind really.

Would you really commit the care of your mother to a blood brother who rejects your faith or to a willing and strong brother in the Catholic faith?

Faithful Catholics would do for their own mothers what they would deny for our Lord.

That is concerning to me.

…

Are you kidding? Of COURSE I’d give my mother to the care of her own flesh and blood children first of all!!! Beyond question! I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t. They love her and she loves them. And no, my siblings aren’t all Catholic nor Christian, but I would stake my life that they’d do the right thing by her!

If they didn’t get along, you’d have a point. There’s no indication of this with Mary - wasn’t she with his ‘brothers’ when she came looking for him?

I find it bizarre to say the least that you’d choose a carer for your mother based on their faith. Godparents for a child is one thing - it’s their job to raise the child in the faith if anything happens to you. But not a carer for your mother.

 

[Atemi]

Given that you have read it previously, I’m surprised that you stated in the post that prompted my response that the Greek has a word for “cousin”.

It does…and it was used where needed.

Of course it does. But that’s not the crux of the matter.

It is the crux because the Scriptures in question were written in Greek.

Saying there is no word for “cousin” in Hebrew when the very text of the gospel accounts we are reviewing are in Greek, is a distraction, IMV.

The Apostles spoke Greek. They wrote in Greek.

They surely know what words to use…as does the Holy Spirit.

He knew what He was writing.

If He wanted to say “cousin,” He could have easily done so as He did before.

But He specifically did not.

…

 

[Atemi]

I find it bizarre to say the least that you’d choose a carer for your mother based on their faith. Godparents for a child is one thing - it’s their job to raise the child in the faith if anything happens to you. But not a carer for your mother.

Bizarre?

Surely not.

What about a husband for your daughter if you had one?

 

[LilyM]

Bizarre?

Surely not.

What about a husband for your daughter if you had one?

My daughter surely would be old enough and intelligent enough to choose her own husband when the time came - and I’ve seen enough mixed-faith marriages that have worked to know that factors other than faith are equally important in a marriage.

And yes, bizarre. Again, Mary certainly was far from incapable of indicating who she wanted as a protector for herself. I presume you’d have some idea of who your mother gets along with best as well, and would give great weight to her wishes in such a matter.

Unless the other kids were real stinkers and she hated them and wanted nothing to do with them (which is far from being the case with Mary, as I indicated), then naturally any mother would want to be with them.

 

[Atemi]

You didn’t answer the question.

In whose care would you want your daughter:

• a Christ-rejecting husband?
• or a faithful Catholic husband?

I already know the answer.

At least…I hope I do.

…

 

[LilyM]

You didn’t answer the question.

In whose care would you want your daughter:

• a Christ-rejecting husband?
• or a faithful Catholic husband?

I already know the answer.

At least…I hope I do.

…

My first and only real concern would be that my daughter’s husband love her, respect her and care for her - as to whether or not he believes in Christ it would be way further down on the list, assuming he allows her and their children to live as Catholics.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

So i’ve read through the Bible and i know what it says. but my question is what proof does the Catholic church have that proves that Mary was a virgin all her life? i know what you say about the different ways of interpretting until but that doesn’t really sit with me. because in all the references to it one of two things were involved. either they are comparing two different (Greek and Hebrew) a 1200 year gap in between or they say “John was faithful until he died” saying that he was not unfaithful after death which obviously he wasn’t because he’s dead which is a bad arguement because it was physically impossible for him to be unfaithful. also there are verse in the Bible which say that Jesus had brothers and sisters. here are some verse that dispute the catholic claim: Matt 12:46, mark 3:31, Luke 8:19, and Matt 13:55. so please give me proof of why the catholic church believes she never had children or sinned. also no quoting Saints and Popes because their opinions mean nothing to me, because they are just that, opinions. i want the proof to come from the Bible which is the infallable word of God.

Mary spent most of her youth in the Temple as a maiden of the Lord. The only females allowed into the Temple were consecrated Virgins before it was destroyed.

 

[Atemi]

My first and only real concern would be that my daughter’s husband love her, respect her and care for her - as to whether or not he believes in Christ it would be way further down on the list, assuming he allows her and their children to live as Catholics.

Thanks anyway.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks anyway.

Woah woah, not so fast if you please - what makes you think Jesus would be, or we should be only concerned about faith in such matters? And not the human aspect of marriage and other relationships?

Even Paul advised dissolution of mixed-faith marriages only in cases where the non-Christian partner doesn’t want the marriage to continue (1 Corinthians 7:12-14)

“If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her, and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband”

So with Mary. I believe Jesus would have given her to whoever she was happiest with, and that would probably have been her own flesh and blood children if she’d had any besides Jesus. As I said, she was hanging around with his ‘brothers’ happily enough during his life, why not go to them after his death?

 

[Atemi]

Mary spent most of her youth in the Temple as a maiden of the Lord. The only females allowed into the Temple were consecrated Virgins before it was destroyed.

The same late-coming text that teaches this also teaches that the Magi went to visit the newborn infant Christ at a cave when in actuality they visited Him at His house when He was about a year old.

“The visit of the Magi took place after the Presentation of the Child in the Temple (Luke 2:38). No sooner were the Magi departed than the angel bade Joseph take the Child and its Mother into Egypt (Matthew 2:13). Once Herod was wroth at the failure of the Magi to return, it was out of all question that the presentation should take place. Now a new difficulty occurs: after the presentation, the Holy Family returned into Galilee (Luke 2:39). Some think that this return was not immediate. Luke omits the incidents of the Magi, flight into Egypt, massacare of the Innocents, and return from Egypt, and takes up the story with the return of the Holy Family into Galilee. We prefer to interpret Luke’s words as indicating a return to Galilee immediately after the presentation. The stay at Nazareth was very brief. Thereafter the Holy Family probably returned to abide in Bethlehem. Then the Magi came. It was “in the days of King Herod” (Matthew 2:1), i.e. before the year 4 B.C. (A.U.C. 750), the probable date of Herod’s death at Jericho. For we know that Archelaus, Herod’s son, succeeded as ethnarch to a part of his father’s realm, and was deposed either in his ninth (Josephus, Bel. Jud., II, vii, 3) or tenth (Josephus, Antiq., XVII, xviii, 2) year of office during the consulship of Lepidus and Arruntius (Dion Cassis, lv, 27), i.e., A.D. 6. Moreover, the Magi came while King Herod was in Jerusalem (vv. 3, 7), not in Jericho, i.e., either the beginning of 4 B.C. or the end of 5 B.C. Lastly, it was probably a year, or a little more than a year, after the birth of Christ. Herod had found out from the Magi the time of the star’s appearance. Taking this for the time of the Child’s birth, he slew the male children of two years old and under in Bethlehem and its borders (v. 16). Some of the Fathers conclude from this ruthless slaughter that the Magi reached Jerusalem **two years after the Nativity **(St. Epiphanius, “Haer.”, LI, 9; Juvencus, “Hist. Evang.”, I, 259).”
newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm

This text has proven to be unreliable in even basic facts.

…

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You didn’t answer the question.

In whose care would you want your daughter:

• a Christ-rejecting husband?
• or a faithful Catholic husband?

I already know the answer.

At least…I hope I do.

…

WHOA!!! Back the truck up! Mary wasn’t the biological daughter of Christ, nor was she marrying John.

You seem to understand either very poorly or not at all the societal expectations of woman that existed until just this past century. In the time of Christ, women were not the independent career-oriented feminist many are today. To leave a woman alone as a widow was to condemn her to a very hard life, if not death. Also in 1st century Judaism, the family was one of the most important things there were. You did not go against the family. And Christ, as a perfect man, would not:

1. break the commandments to honor your father and mother, by leaving His mother a widow and alone.
2. cause undue turmoil and grief by breaking up His family (if you are correct in your assumptions that he had biological brothers and sisters).
3. cause a rift among the Apostles between those who would want Mary to do as Christ said, and those who would want Mary to be with her other children as was custom in Judaism in those days.
4. give Mary to another non-family Apostle, when other Apostles who had the faith (a key component according to you) and were according to you the real brothers of Christ.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You didn’t answer the question.

In whose care would you want your daughter:

• a Christ-rejecting husband?
• or a faithful Catholic husband?

I already know the answer.

At least…I hope I do.

…

WHOA!!! Back the truck up! Mary wasn’t the biological daughter of Christ, nor was she marrying John.

You seem to understand either very poorly or not at all the societal expectations of woman that existed until just this past century. In the time of Christ, women were not the independent career-oriented feminist many are today. To leave a woman alone as a widow was to condemn her to a very hard life, if not death. Also in 1st century Judaism, the family was one of the most important things there were. You did not go against the family. And Christ, as a perfect man, would not:

1. break the commandments to honor your father and mother, by leaving His mother a widow and alone.
2. cause undue turmoil and grief by breaking up His family (if you are correct in your assumptions that he had biological brothers and sisters).
3. cause a rift among the Apostles between those who would want Mary to do as Christ said, and those who would want Mary to be with her other children as was custom in Judaism in those days.
4. give Mary to another non-family Apostle, when other Apostles who had the faith (a key component according to you) and were according to you the real brothers of Christ.

 

[VociMike]

I want to know what Christian denominations teach that a believing son can and should drive his mother out of the homes of her unbelieving children because of their unbelief, and force her to live with an unrelated man. Show me that teaching in Christian history.