What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[AliciaCL]

Don’t forget also that there is another sigificant part of the the Church’s exegesis on this issue. The Church and Early Church Fathers interpreted scripture (Ezekiel 44:1-3) as prophesizing the perpetual virginity of Mary.

See the amplified explanation here:
cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/12/virgin-marys-womb-as-ezekiels-closed.html

Here are a number of doctrinal paragraphs from the RCC Catechism which read together do a better job of piecing together this sometimes difficult to understand concept.

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=37

 

[shawn38]

Why is it so important for Protestants to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? After all, if you don’t really care whether she remained ever-virgin or not, then why do so many “Bible Christians” go to such great effort to prove that she had other children?

It isn’t and that’s why our focus is not on Mary for there is no salvation in Mary.

Oh…wait…it’s because attempting to undermine Marian dogma is a great way to attack the Catholic Church, isn’t it? :sad_yes:

Veneration or Adoration
Latria
[L., fr. Gr. latreia, fr. latreyein to serve, fr. la`tris servant.]
The highest kind of worship, or that paid to God; – distinguished by the Roman Catholics from dulia, or the inferior worship paid to saints.

Dulia
(R. C. Ch.) An inferior kind of veneration or worship, given to the angels and saints as the servants of God.

De 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, Ex 20:5, 34:14, Joshua 24:19, Nahum 1:2 all pertain to “the Lord thy God is a jealous God”

Point is that, being a jealous God, God doesn’t share in his glory. By venerating saints, Mary, and relics take away from the glory and focus on the creator rather than creation. God created us to glorify him, no others. Salvation is not possible through anyone else.

I’m curious…how often do the non-Catholics you know call Mary blessed as scripture says every generation will do? Or was she just an “incubator” for the human part of Jesus as some claim?/

Everyone! (Luke 1:28) Many people throughout the Bible are blessed including Mary.

Genesis 1:27-28 - Man and woman / mankind.
Genesis 9:1 - Noah and his sons.
Genesis 12:1-2 - Abraham.
Genesis 12:3 - Those who bless Abraham.
Genesis 17:15-16 - Sarai, Abraham’s wife.
Genesis 17:20 - Ishmael.
Genesis 22:18 - All the nations on earth will be blessed through Abraham and his offspring.
Genesis 25:11 - Isaac.
Genesis 30:27 - Laban.
Genesis 35:9 - Jacob.
Genesis 39:5 - Potiphar, the Egyptian.
Exodus 32:28-29 - The Levites.
Deuteronomy 2:7 - The Israelites.
Deuteronomy 28:1-6 - Those who obey God.
Joshua 17:14 - The people of Joseph.
Judges 13:24 - Samson.
2 Samuel 6:11 - Obed-Edom.
1 Chronicles 4:10 - Jabez.
1 Chronicles 17:27 - David.
Job 42:12 - Job.
Matthew 5:3 - The poor in spirit.
Matthew 5:4 - Those who mourn.
Matthew 5:5 - The meek.
Matthew 5:6 - Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.
Matthew 5:7 - The merciful.
Matthew 5:8 - The pure in heart.
Matthew 5:9 - The peacemakers.
Matthew 5:10 - Those who are persecuted because of righteousness.
Matthew 5:11 - Those who are persecuted because of Jesus.
Matthew 16:17 - Simon.
Mark 10:16 - Children.
Luke 11:28 - Those who hear the word of God and obey it.
Luke 24:50 - The apostles.
John 20:29 - Those who have not seen Jesus, but still believed in him.

If everyone blessed in the Bible were to be venerated or worshipped, when would there be time for Christ?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Then what is the broader significance of believing this? What questions does this answer? (I don’t follow in the analogy because I think you see what I mean.)

The broader significance is obedience to the Teachings of the Church as inspired by the Holy Spirit…

Where is the point where understanding that Mary was perpetually virginal becomes vitally important as opposed to believing something else?

If you study the Old Testament in depth, you will see the significance. There have already been some OT cited. We cannot fully understand the NT with understanding the OT, such are they intertwined.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It isn’t and that’s why our focus is not on Mary for there is no salvation in Mary.

We must focus on Truth, which leads to a better understanding of God and what He desires of us. We do not whittle away at the Truth to suit our personal version of what is necessary for Salvation

Veneration or Adoration
Latria
[L., fr. Gr. latreia, fr. latreyein to serve, fr. la`tris servant.]
The highest kind of worship, or that paid to God; – distinguished by the Roman Catholics from dulia, or the inferior worship paid to saints.

Dulia
(R. C. Ch.) An inferior kind of veneration or worship, given to the angels and saints as the servants of God.

De 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, Ex 20:5, 34:14, Joshua 24:19, Nahum 1:2 all pertain to “the Lord thy God is a jealous God”

Point is that, being a jealous God, God doesn’t share in his glory. By venerating saints, Mary, and relics take away from the glory and focus on the creator rather than creation. God created us to glorify him, no others. Salvation is not possible through anyone else.

Mary and the saints point to Jesus. [BIBLEDRB]john 2:4-5
[/BIBLEDRB]

Everyone! (Luke 1:28) Many people throughout the Bible are blessed including Mary.
{snip}
If everyone blessed in the Bible were to be venerated or worshipped, when would there be time for Christ?

Mary was also full of grace.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It isn’t and that’s why our focus is not on Mary for there is no salvation in Mary.

If you are completely indifferent to Marian dogmas, then why are the Marian threads so common in this forum? Why do the number of posts always run into the hundreds? It seems to me that y’all have SOME interest in the subject even if it is only to deny what Catholics believe. It’s YOUR fascination with Mary that drives this…not ours.

Veneration or Adoration
Latria
[L., fr. Gr. latreia, fr. latreyein to serve, fr. la`tris servant.]
The highest kind of worship, or that paid to God; – distinguished by the Roman Catholics from dulia, or the inferior worship paid to saints.

Dulia
(R. C. Ch.) An inferior kind of veneration or worship, given to the angels and saints as the servants of God.

De 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, Ex 20:5, 34:14, Joshua 24:19, Nahum 1:2 all pertain to “the Lord thy God is a jealous God”

Point is that, being a jealous God, God doesn’t share in his glory. By venerating saints, Mary, and relics take away from the glory and focus on the creator rather than creation. God created us to glorify him, no others. Salvation is not possible through anyone else.

Nope. Imagine standing in the Sistine Chapel looking up at that gorgeous ceiling and commenting about how beautiful the painting is. Do you think Michaelangelo would be offended at your praise of his handiwork? “Hey, don’t look at that painting! I’m the one you should be praising…not that painting!” That’s foolish, isn’t it? Michaelangelo is honored by our recognition of his great work.

Similarly, Mary is the greatest of God’s human children, and He is honored by our recognition of the work that He did in her…a work, by the way, that He wants to do in all of us. Mary is what we all would have been if not for the fall of Adam and Eve. So, in honoring Mary, God’s handiwork, we honor her Creator and Savior.

Everyone! (Luke 1:28) Many people throughout the Bible are blessed including Mary.

If everyone blessed in the Bible were to be venerated or worshipped, when would there be time for Christ?

Not what I asked. I asked when was the last time that YOU callled Mary “blessed”?

 

[Janet1983]

If you are completely indifferent to Marian dogmas, then why are the Marian threads so common in this forum? Why do the number of posts always run into the hundreds? It seems to me that y’all have SOME interest in the subject even if it is only to deny what Catholics believe. It’s YOUR fascination with Mary that drives this…not ours.

Many Protestants are not indifferent to these dogmas. Indifference might not be the right word. I’d consider it simple unbelief concerning many of these dogmas.
To be specific the doubt would be with at least three out of 6 dogmas:

1. 
   *]Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. Mary is the Immaculate Conception.
   *]After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin.
   *]Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.
   
   As with other topics we find this to be a clash between Catholics and Protestants with both sides trying to prove their point right. To me you are actually free to believe what you wish. The dogmas concerning Mary do not change the teaching about what Jesus did for us on the cross and it therefore is not essential to me. It might be different for you and for some Protestants who see this as a problematic point.
   Mary is so prominent in the Catholic Church and is one of the major differences in our faiths so it is just natural that she is the major focus of inter-denominational discussions as much as other issues related to this topic (e.g. the Eucharist, the One True Church, Salvation, Baptism, etc.).
   Concerning the significance of these dogmas about Mary I would consider them to be of secondary after other major points of conflict. What we do or do not believe about Mary does not have a major impact on the fulfilled actions of Jesus Christ. Besides the virgin birth which was part of the prophecy and her giving birth to the redeemer other dogmas are not having any further implications towards the salvation of all those who believe.
   
   Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
   
   In Him,
   Janet

 

[Tomster]

Tomster, read this as well.

BrianH,

Take a gander at this.

Virginity, in the proper sense, is the physical integrity of the organs of generation. On several occasions the virginity of Mary was the target of heretics: first the Jews spread evil tales on the conception and birth of Jesus; they were followed by Cerinthus and Celsus, and later in the 4th century by other heretics, as the Antidicomarians, refuted by Epiphanius; Jovinianists, condemned in the Roman Synod of 390 A.D; Bonosus, reproved by Pope Siricius; Helvidius, impugned by St. Jerome. The Lutherans and the Socinians re-echo the ancient errors, while the modern rationalists hold the virginity of Mary to be a myth.

It is a truth of the Catholic faith the our Lady maintained her state of perfect virginity at all times; before the birth, in the birth, and after the birth of Christ. The Apostle’s Creed says: “Born of the Virgin Mary”; in the most ancient liturgies the title “Mary, always virgin” is frequent. In the Roman Council of 649 A.D. (under Martin I) Mary is defined immaculate, always a virgin, who conceived without man’s seed and remained intact after childbirth.

The Fathers see the virginity of Mary after childbirth in the prophecy of Ezechiel: “The 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” (Ez 44:2). Tradition is unanimous in defending the perpetual virginity of Mary: St. Augustine affirms (Sermon 186): “a virgin conceiving, a virgin bearing, a virgin pregnant, a virgin with child, a virgin forever.”

The theological reason is in the divinity of the Word and the divine maternity of Mary, to which any corruption was repugnant.

Nor does the title first-born given to Jesus create any difficulty; it is evident from the documents that this word signified the first born, even when there were no other children. The brothers of Jesus, of which the Gospel speaks (Matthew 12:46; Luke 8:18)< are only his relatives, according to the use of the word.

 

[piltdown_man]

Shawn38 said: “Everyone! (Luke 1:28) Many people throughout the Bible are blessed including Mary.”

In Luke 1:28, Mary is titled kecharitomene. This word means “full of grace”, yet more than that. The Greek word kecheritomene appears no where else in ancient literature. Although she is definitely blessed, being honored with this title denotes more than that. I think someone mentioned this earlier.

Also, when others are described as full of grace in the bible (St. Stephen in Acts 6:8), the Greek term pleres charito is used.

Source: Hahn, Scott. 2007 Reasons to Believe. Doubleday, New York (page 102).

 

[shawn38]

If you are completely indifferent to Marian dogmas, then why are the Marian threads so common in this forum? Why do the number of posts always run into the hundreds? It seems to me that y’all have SOME interest in the subject even if it is only to deny what Catholics believe. It’s YOUR fascination with Mary that drives this…not ours."

I can only speak for myself for what other peoples intention are, I don’t know. I think the interest is to bring Catholics back to a focus on Jesus solely.

Nope. Imagine standing in the Sistine Chapel looking up at that gorgeous ceiling and commenting about how beautiful the painting is. Do you think Michaelangelo would be offended at your praise of his handiwork? “Hey, don’t look at that painting! I’m the one you should be praising…not that painting!” That’s foolish, isn’t it? Michaelangelo is honored by our recognition of his great work…

Michaelangelo may not be offended, but what does the Bible say:

Matt 18:7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! …9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Matt 22:37 Jesus replied: "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

Obviously if the beauty of the Sistine Chapel, or other things, detract you from loving the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, I think God has a problem with it.

If you mind is not on Christ when you should be worshipping the Lord (especially in His house), you’re violating God’s commandment.

Similarly, Mary is the greatest of God’s human children, and He is honored by our recognition of the work that He did in her…a work, by the way, that He wants to do in all of us. Mary is what we all would have been if not for the fall of Adam and Eve. So, in honoring Mary, God’s handiwork, we honor her Creator and Savior. "

Opinion. God loves everyone equally in that He is merciful to all.

 

[Tomster]

Many Protestants are not indifferent to these dogmas. Indifference might not be the right word. I’d consider it simple unbelief concerning many of these dogmas.
To be specific the doubt would be with at least three out of 6 dogmas:

1. 
   *]Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. Mary is the Immaculate Conception.
   *]After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin.
   *]Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.
   
   As with other topics we find this to be a clash between Catholics and Protestants with both sides trying to prove their point right. To me you are actually free to believe what you wish. The dogmas concerning Mary do not change the teaching about what Jesus did for us on the cross and it therefore is not essential to me. It might be different for you and for some Protestants who see this as a problematic point.
   Mary is so prominent in the Catholic Church and is one of the major differences in our faiths so it is just natural that she is the major focus of inter-denominational discussions as much as other issues related to this topic (e.g. the Eucharist, the One True Church, Salvation, Baptism, etc.).
   Concerning the significance of these dogmas about Mary I would consider them to be of secondary after other major points of conflict. What we do or do not believe about Mary does not have a major impact on the fulfilled actions of Jesus Christ. Besides the virgin birth which was part of the prophecy and her giving birth to the redeemer other dogmas are not having any further implications towards the salvation of all those who believe.
   
   Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
   
   In Him,
   Janet

1. 
   While this post was not addressed to me, I cannot help but comment. The above post smacks of typical Protestant indifferentism.
   
   If the poster would take the time to research her own Protestant tradition she would see how blissfully unaware she is regarding how both Martin Luther and John Calvin - the progenitors of two of the three major branches of the Protestant Reformation - held firmly to the Catholic teaching regarding this matter.
   
   So I would like to ask you, Janet, to consider the following pertinent quotes from these two Protestant leaders. I would also respectfully ask our Fundamentalist and Evangelical friends who read these statements by Luther and Calvin, et al., to think carefully about them and consider just how far modern-day Protestantism has drifted from its 16th century moorings. More importantly, ponder how very far modern Protestantism has drifted from the fifteen centuries of the historic Catholic Faith that preceded the Protestant Reformation.
   
   cont.

 

[Tomster]

Many Protestants are not indifferent to these dogmas. Indifference might not be the right word. I’d consider it simple unbelief concerning many of these dogmas.
To be specific the doubt would be with at least three out of 6 dogmas:

1. 
   *]Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. Mary is the Immaculate Conception.
   *]After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin.
   *]Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.
   
   As with other topics we find this to be a clash between Catholics and Protestants with both sides trying to prove their point right. To me you are actually free to believe what you wish. The dogmas concerning Mary do not change the teaching about what Jesus did for us on the cross and it therefore is not essential to me. It might be different for you and for some Protestants who see this as a problematic point.
   Mary is so prominent in the Catholic Church and is one of the major differences in our faiths so it is just natural that she is the major focus of inter-denominational discussions as much as other issues related to this topic (e.g. the Eucharist, the One True Church, Salvation, Baptism, etc.).
   Concerning the significance of these dogmas about Mary I would consider them to be of secondary after other major points of conflict. What we do or do not believe about Mary does not have a major impact on the fulfilled actions of Jesus Christ. Besides the virgin birth which was part of the prophecy and her giving birth to the redeemer other dogmas are not having any further implications towards the salvation of all those who believe.
   
   Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
   
   In Him,
   Janet

1. 
   Let’s start with Dr. Luther.
   
   “When Matthew (1:25) says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her.”
   
   “He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s womb . . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
   
   “[Mary is] the highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough.”
   
   “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God. Thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.”
   
   “Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . . this was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
   
   “Christ . . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . . I am inclined to to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”
   
   "A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . "
   
   cont.

 

[Janet1983]

While this post was not addressed to me, I cannot help but comment. The above post smacks of typical Protestant indifferentism.

I was just trying to explain where the heightened interest in this and other topics about Mary comes from. I was not attempting to go off-topic and to discuss reformers, one of whom (Zwingli) had other Protestants drowned for not going along with his beliefs…
I am not intending to go off-topic so I will try and refrain from commenting any further.
If you believe that this might be a great topic to start, just send me the link and I will give my best to participate.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

In Him,
Janet

 

[Tomster]

Many Protestants are not indifferent to these dogmas. Indifference might not be the right word. I’d consider it simple unbelief concerning many of these dogmas.
To be specific the doubt would be with at least three out of 6 dogmas:

1. 
   *]Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. Mary is the Immaculate Conception.
   *]After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin.
   *]Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.
   
   As with other topics we find this to be a clash between Catholics and Protestants with both sides trying to prove their point right. To me you are actually free to believe what you wish. The dogmas concerning Mary do not change the teaching about what Jesus did for us on the cross and it therefore is not essential to me. It might be different for you and for some Protestants who see this as a problematic point.
   Mary is so prominent in the Catholic Church and is one of the major differences in our faiths so it is just natural that she is the major focus of inter-denominational discussions as much as other issues related to this topic (e.g. the Eucharist, the One True Church, Salvation, Baptism, etc.).
   Concerning the significance of these dogmas about Mary I would consider them to be of secondary after other major points of conflict. What we do or do not believe about Mary does not have a major impact on the fulfilled actions of Jesus Christ. Besides the virgin birth which was part of the prophecy and her giving birth to the redeemer other dogmas are not having any further implications towards the salvation of all those who believe.
   
   Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
   
   In Him,
   Janet

1. 
   Continuing with John Calvin.
   
   “It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor . . . . Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engein the womb of Mary was at the same the eternal God.”
   
   “There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Matthew 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company . . . And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.”

 

[Tomster]

I was just trying to explain where the heightened interest in this and other topics about Mary comes from. I was not attempting to go off-topic and to discuss reformers, one of whom (Zwingli) had other Protestants drowned for not going along with his beliefs…
I am not intending to go off-topic so I will try and refrain from commenting any further.
If you believe that this might be a great topic to start, just send me the link and I will give my best to participate.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

In Him,
Janet

Quoting the Reformers is far from off topic. Their very words refute your position.

 

[Janet1983]

Quoting the Reformers is far from off topic. Their very words refute your position.

Well it does not answer the question “What’s the Significance of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity” for today’s Christians…
I do not believe that any of the reformers was infallible, so quoting them to me is not going to refute anything…

I disagree that the PV is very significant to salvation, but that does not mean that I disregard whatever Mary did.
I do honor Mary. She might have a different position for me than she has for the CC, but I certainly do not dishonor her.
Her willingness to serve the Lord with all of her life is a shining example of how we should conduct ourselves.
I do believe that she was a simple maiden who was called to serve the Lord in a very special position as she was given the unique opportunity to bear and raise our Saviour. Even though none of us can claim such a lofty way of God using our willingness to serve Him and our talents we can still have her as a role model for our service to the Lord.
She called herself a slave of the Lord (“δουλη κυριου”) when she agreed to the angel’s message. This willingness to give ourselves and anything we have into the hands of the Almighty and to be only His with all of our lives and wherever he put us (as a parent, as a spouse, as a bachelor, as a child, as a teacher, as a worker, etc.) should be a common goal to all of us who claim to be Christians and who want to follow our Lord and Master Jesus Christ.
May be refer to us only in the way Mary (“δουλη κυριου”), Paul (“δουλος ιησου χριστου”) or James ("θεου και κυριου ιησου χριστου δουλος) referred to themselves: “The Lord’s slave”, “a slave of Jesus Christ”, and “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”.
May our love for our Master and our dedication to His service be stronger than our pride, our self-service and our self-centeredness.

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
In Him,
Janet

 

[Tomster]

I believe Mary was born to old parents, who were beyond childbearing age. Mary was a miracle child and hence I believe it was God’s plan to have it that way. She was without original sin.

Indeed, she was predestined to be the Mother of God.

 

[Tomster]

Well it does not answer the question “What’s the Significance of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity” for today’s Christians…
I do not believe that any of the reformers was infallible, so quoting them to me is not going to refute anything…

I disagree that the PV is very significant to salvation, but that does not mean that I disregard whatever Mary did.
I do honor Mary. She might have a different position for me than she has for the CC, but I certainly do not dishonor her.
Her willingness to serve the Lord with all of her life is a shining example of how we should conduct ourselves.
I do believe that she was a simple maiden who was called to serve the Lord in a very special position as she was given the unique opportunity to bear and raise our Saviour. Even though none of us can claim such a lofty way of God using our willingness to serve Him and our talents we can still have her as a role model for our service to the Lord.
She called herself a slave of the Lord (“δουλη κυριου”) when she agreed to the angel’s message. This willingness to give ourselves and anything we have into the hands of the Almighty and to be only His with all of our lives and wherever he put us (as a parent, as a spouse, as a bachelor, as a child, as a teacher, as a worker, etc.) should be a common goal to all of us who claim to be Christians and who want to follow our Lord and Master Jesus Christ.
May be refer to us only in the way Mary (“δουλη κυριου”), Paul (“δουλος ιησου χριστου”) or James ("θεου και κυριου ιησου χριστου δουλος) referred to themselves: “The Lord’s slave”, “a slave of Jesus Christ”, and “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”.
May our love for our Master and our dedication to His service be stronger than our pride, our self-service and our self-centeredness.

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
In Him,
Janet

Whoa! Let’s take a step back. So the Reformers were not infallible? Good for you. You got that one right. Now this question IS off topic, but I will ask it anyway. What of James Mac Arthur? Would you say he is infallible or is he capable of spreading error in matters of faith and morals?

 

[Janet1983]

Whoa! Let’s take a step back. So the Reformers were not infallible? Good for you. You got that one right. Now this question IS off topic, but I will ask it anyway. What of James Mac Arthur? Would you say he is infallible or is he capable of spreading error in matters of faith and morals?

Which James Mac Arthur are you talking about?
James Macarthur, Anglican bishop in the late 19th and early 20th century
James MacArthur, American actor
James McArthur, Scottish football player

May God bless you!

In Him,
Janet

 

[Muzhik]

Just my thoughts,

As some non Catholics say that Mother Mary had other children, what would it be like saying ’ Hey God is my real blood brother’ because His mother and mine are same? And than these children would have their children and so on.

This is an important consideration. Passover was the traditional time when Jewish kings were crowned, and the date of their rule was begun at that time (i.e., in the 20th year of xyz…), even if they had already been ruling as such for several months. The crowning ceremony involved being crowned by someone in authority, usually another king or ruler; dressing in royal colors; and being presented to the people as the king. With this in mind, consider what happened to Jesus during the Passion:

1. He was crowned by Pilate, who ruled in the name of Caeser;
2. He was dressed in royal purple;
3. He was presented to the people (“Behold, your king!”)

In other words, a valid ceremony to crown a king. Before Jesus died, He was crowned as King of Israel, and the sign above His head on the cross said as much.

So the question is: If Jesus had brothers born of Mary by Joseph, which of them became king upon His death?

There are the inheritance laws of the time to be considered. Without going into a lot of detail, upon His death, His brothers would have inherited everything, including the title. However, we know that although both Mary and Joseph were of the line and lineage of David, Joseph came from the line that was cursed when G_D declared that none of that line would ever sit on the throne.

If Mary had no other children while married to Joseph, then according to the inheritance laws of the time, the line died out with Jesus: no others could come after Him to claim the crown.

We also have to consider terms here: Mary is gebirrah, or in English, the Mother of the King. At the time of David, a king could have many wives and concubines. Depending on circumstances, concubines were either royal prostitutes or sex slaves. While wives were to be kept, concubines could be given to others by the king. (We see that in 1 Kings 2:13-25, where Adonijah, the elder brother of Solomon, asks for one of David’s [and now Solomon’s] concubines for a wife.) The king could designate any of his sons, whether by wife or concubine, as his successor.

Whoever is the designated heir, though, his mother is the Queen Mother. You do NOT give away the Queen Mother to someone else as a wife! If G_D, after Mary bore Jesus, the new King, had given Mary to Joseph as a wife, then Mary’s status would have been that of a concubine and not the Mother of the King. Mary was given to Joseph for safekeeping until Jesus was old enough to take care of her.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Whoa! Let’s take a step back. So the Reformers were not infallible? Good for you. You got that one right. Now this question IS off topic, but I will ask it anyway. What of James Mac Arthur? Would you say he is infallible or is he capable of spreading error in matters of faith and morals?

Who is James Mac Arthur?