Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[Randy_Carson]

But your words “on this page” aren’t Inspired, nor is anything spoken by anyone that either isn’t God/Jesus, or written down in Scripture, because Scripture NEVER states that “tradition” that hasn’t been WRITTEN down is “Inspired.” The ONLY thing described as being “Inspired” is Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). That’s why GOD gave us the Scriptures – to compare what’s being taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11), which for Christians include the NT Scriptures (1 Timothy 5:18; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Revelation 1:1,19). Now, can we PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE get back to the OP, & STOP with these Red Herrings already???

Ya know…you could just stop responding to threads that you feel are off topic…just a thought.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. The ONLY thing Scripture states is “God-breathed” is Scripture. Of course, what God/Jesus states is God-breathed also, but people – including the Church – are not God. Therefore, even the writers of the NT – themselves – are not God-breathed, because they are not God. What Peter was talking about is that prophecy is not a matter of “man’s” interpretation, but God’s. So, even Peter’s writings are “led” by the Holy Spirit, not “cleverly devised tales” invented by him. But he wasn’t saying that he HIMSELF was “Inspired,” because Paul proves otherwise by “condemning Peter to his face” for siding with the Judaizers & not eating with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-12). And man’s interpretation of Scripture that Mary “remained” a virgin isn’t supported by God-breathed Scripture, because Scripture supports the opposite.

I could read a book you wrote about your maternal grandmother…or I could talk directly to your mom.

Which is more authoritative? The book you wrote or your mom?

Is it possible that your mom might know some things about your grandmother that could get left out of the biography you wrote?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Show me the actual VERSE that says “the Church is God-breathed.” And not your “interpretation” that the verse “implies” that the Church is God-breathed. I’m asking for the actual VERSE.

John 20:22
22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

God breathed on the Proto-Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[thetazlord]

The Other Mary is the sister-in-law of Mary (not her sister), because Joseph and Clopas were brothers.

Here is where you are deviating from Scripture & “ADDING” your “belief” to Scripture. If Mary of Clopas was Mary’s sister-in-law, John would have used the Greek word for “in-law” that is used in other Gospel passages. Plus, the Hebrew DID have a word for “sister-in-law” used in the OT. So, if John meant “sister-in-law” instead of just sister, he would have used it. Plus, in the Gospels, the Greek word for “sister” (adelphe) is used almost EXCLUSIVELY to refer to uterine siblings. The ONLY exception is when Jesus is using to contrast His biological family (“mother & brothers on the OUTSIDE”) with His believing spiritual “brothers & sisters & mother” on the INSIDE. Every other time in the Gospels, “adelphe” refers to LITERAL uterine sisters - NEVER sister-in-laws - again, because there are Greek, as well as Hebrew, words available AND USED in Scripture for “sister-in-law.” Plus, John would be IGNORING His own mother who John was PRESENT WITH her at the cross. It’s extremely unlikely that Matthew & Mark would mention her by name, yet John completely omitted her - IN HIS OWN GOSPEL! Therefore, Salome - not the “other” Mary - was Mary’s sister.

You have not proven or even SHOWN this to be true.

Yes, I have. But you can’t see this because you refuse to acknowledge - Scripturally - that there are FOUR women at the cross instead of THREE.

Clopas and the “other” Mary, had at least five children: Simon/Symeon, James the Lesser, Jude, Joses/Joseph, Salome.

Wrong! Scripture states only TWO - James the Less & Joses. You are confusing what Scripture states with what later “select” ECF’s “think.” In fact, even Eusebius who quotes EARLIER Christian writers, doesn’t even mention Clopas & the “other” Mary having Jude & Salome as children. So, the Clopas & the “other” Mary of Scripture are different from the “Clopas & the ‘other’ Mary” of later ECFs & church writers.

Mary and Joseph are their Aunt and Uncle. Jesus is their cousin.

Again, this is the extrabiblical “belief” that later ECF’s & other Christian writers “ADDED” to Scripture “THEIR” interpretation. Scripture NEVER states that Clopas was the brother. This is a LATER “tradition” that was “ADDED” to Scripture. And even “if” he was, it still doesn’t change the fact - Scripturally - there are FOUR women at the cross, instead of THREE - unless you want entertain the “belief” that John omitted his OWN MOTHER in his OWN GOSPEL, even though Matthew & Mark didn’t. That is a HUGE leap of faith, in order maintain a LATER religious “belief.” Jesus did have cousins though - James & John the sons of Zebedee & Salome → Mary’s sister, which made John His cousin, who Jesus entrusted to Mary (both a faithful disciple AND close family member).

 

[thetazlord]

John 20:22
22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

God breathed on the Proto-Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

PLEASE!!! Stick to the OP, not dogma!

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s not the argument I, or any other Protestant, has every made. I’m not saying that “brother” MUST mean uterine brother.

A uterine brother comes from the same uterus. If no “brother” or “sister” came from Mary’s uterus, then why do you argue against the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Rather, when taking ALL of the Scripture verses that discuss Jesus’ family - not just a few - it’s “painfully obvious” that in these verses, “brother” refers to Jesus’ half-brothers.

Who was the mother of these half-brothers?

 

[thetazlord]

I could read a book you wrote about your maternal grandmother…or I could talk directly to your mom.

Which is more authoritative? The book you wrote or your mom?

Is it possible that your mom might know some things about your grandmother that could get left out of the biography you wrote?

If the “book” was the Bible, then the Bible, because my mom is capable of being wrong while the Bible can’t, & she may not get every detail right due to jogged memory over time. However, if she was the author of one of the books of the Bible that talked about my grandmother, I’d still trust the Bible - not because of “who” wrote it - because the Holy Spirit guided her to inerrancy. However, that doesn’t mean my mom is “inerrant” or “infallible” in EVERYTHING she says just because she wrote Scripture, anymore than Peter was when Paul “condemned him to his face” despite Peter writing Scripture. And Scripture doesn’t support what these LATER extra-biblical writers “believed” about Jesus’ family - writers who didn’t even pen a single of Scripture either!

 

[zz912]

It would help if you read it then. And if you read it, you’ll find out that His purpose was a promise that they WOULD receive the Holy Spirit, which wouldn’t happen until Pentecost. Jesus never stated that they were receiving the Holy Spirit…AT THAT TIME, since Thomas wasn’t there when Jesus “breathed” on them (John 20:24). So, does that mean that Thomas wasn’t “God-breathed”? So, does that mean that what Thomas said from that point on wasn’t “God-breathed” even though he was part of the Church? All the “breathing” that Jesus did was promise that the Holy Spirit WOULD come at Pentecost. It doesn’t mean that the apostles were “inerrantly” God-breathed like Scripture, because that would exclude Thomas.

You’re inserting your own views and beliefs into the text.

John 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

There is NOTHING in the text indicating that this was simply a promise of the Holy Spirit to come upon them. Jesus (GOD) BREATHES on them. (That’s kinda significant, since it doesn’t happen often). He imparts the Holy Spirit to them, and the authority to forgive sins. I think your error is that you see the Holy Spirit as a finite being, instead of God who has many gifts that are given to Christians. One of those gifts is the authority for bishops and priests to forgive sins. This gift of the Holy Spirit was given at this moment to the Apostles.

You have simply made up your own theology by pretending this is related to some future promise, when the text gives NO indication of that. You are adding to Scripture.

If something (or someone) is infallible they are unable to be wrong. If something (or someone) is inerrant that means they make no mistakes. Same thing, just semantics. So, if someone is “infallible” that means what they say is “inerrant.” Papal “infallibility” states that what the pope declares “ex cathedra” about a certain topic is not wrong. Therefore, that particular statement would also be “inerrant” as well, because it is without error. But the minute you say SOMEONE - by themselves (not just their particular statement) - are “infallible” it’s the same as saying they are “inerrant” as well. Again, semantics.

Absolutely NOT. Infallible and inerrant are not the same thing. A very errant and sinful man can proclaim truth and be infallible. And you truly don’t understand papal infallibility.

But let’s assume you are correct. Which of Peter’s letters are you ready to toss from the Bible? He’s not infallible as you claim, so his letters MUST be removed from the Bible, correct? And let’s also cut out any place that he speaks in the Bible, ESPECIALLY in the Book of Acts. Right?

Again, Scripture NEVER states that baptism “replaces” circumcision. If it did, then in order to be a TRUE “replacement” then all baptism would be is a “sign” of a covenant like circumcision was (Genesis 17:11), not a means of salvation, since circumcision wasn’t a “means” of salvation. Plus, if it were a TRUE “replacement” then ONLY boys should be baptized, not girls, since ONLY boys were circumcized in the OT, not girls. So, you can’t say something is a “replacement” unless you “replace” it exactly as the former “sign” of the former covenant was.

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Seems pretty clear. And why would replace something for another, and not change anything about it? The New Covenant replaced the Old, but it certainly is NOT the same. Also with baptism, it replaced circumcision, and it is broader and encapsulates men and women.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve read up on the “demolishing” of the “heos” argument. The problem is that the “argument” is based mostly on poor Scriptural eschatology & other strawman arguments. It also argues by exception.

You might be interested in my posts to zz912 where I address her “heos” arguments that she didn’t quite investigate on herself:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12683223&postcount=715

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12683228#post12683228

You didn’t actually read the paper, did you?

It’s “heos hou”, not heos, and Pacheco’s work is flawless. There are about 10 articles on this website following up on the paper I linked to:

catholic-legate.com/

You’ll find them if you REALLY want to understand why your argument fails.

 

[Erich]

I won’t be literal and say you are wrong every time you you call your pastor , “Father”

In fact, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Catholics calling their pastors “Father.”

From this link:

In the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: “So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: “I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: “In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” (Is. 22:20–21).

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, “My father, my father!” to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).
…
The imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.” There are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term “father” being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of “father” in the New Testament, that [your] interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests “father”) must be wrong.
…
A careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28); and “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as “teachers.”

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people “doctor,” for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that “doctor” is simply the Latin word for “teacher.” Even “Mister” and “Mistress” (“Mrs.”) are forms of the word “master,” also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word “teacher” and “doctor” and “mister” as Catholics for saying “father.” But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Show me the actual VERSE that says “the Church is God-breathed.” And not your “interpretation” that the verse “implies” that the Church is God-breathed. I’m asking for the actual VERSE.

PLEASE!!! Stick to the OP, not dogma!

You asked for the verse. I answered.

 

[Randy_Carson]

BTW, sola scriptura is not “traditions of MEN” [see Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19]. Adding to Scripture, as well as taking away & contradicting to Scripture are. That’s what makes it “MAN-made.” If a belief is BASED on Scripture, then it’s not MAN-made, but GOD-made. But if a “tradition” isn’t BASED on Scripture, then it’s MAN-made. And this “adding” to Scripture is what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees of (Matthew 15:1-9).

And here is where your problem lies: you do not recognize that God’s Word was delivered in not one but two modes: in writing (Scripture) and by word of mouth (Tradition).

Your other problem is that you do not believe that Jesus gave real authority to Peter and the Apostles.

Consequently, you feel you are free to ignore anything that isn’t in your Bible in addition to being free to interpret the Bible as you please.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We know Jesus isn’t the “natural” son of Joseph because Scripture STATES that he’s not (“as was supposed”)(Luke 3:23). And, no, it’s not Scripturally “possible” that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph’s, because Scripture neither supports that, plus it creates too many Scriptural problems, such as where were these older STEP-brothers on the Mary & Joseph’s trek to Bethlehem for the census, or to Temple for Jesus to be “given up to the Lord,” or the flee to Egypt, or back to Nazareth, or in the caravan when Jesus was at the Temple when He was 12, or where were THEY when Jesus was dying & entrusted His mother to one of them, instead of His cousin & faithful disciple, John?

All of this support the Catholic belief that Mary never had other children.

Thanks!

 

[thetazlord]

And if you get such a BASIC medical fact wrong, in this day and age of information available to you, then WHY should ANYTHING you say be believed?!?!?!

Because Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of Jesus is NOT supported by Scripture. That is the “interpretation” that is ADDED to Scripture that actually contradicts it, which also supports that Mary had other children. So, if you’re not going to believe me (which I don’t expect you to) at least believe what Scripture supports, not what it doesn’t.

Plus if you actually read Proto-James, the wording is explicit that “Mary’s” mid-wife forcefully “thrust” her finger up her which is pretty “athletic,” not “gently” like a modern-day doctor does. Plus, her mid-wife (actually it was Salome) cries out about her “inequity.” Checking to see if a woman is a virgin WITHOUT breaking the hymen would not be an act of inequity. Plus, you are still confusing “how” the ISRAELITES “tested” to see if a person was a virgin vs. modern day gynecology. You can’t use 20th & 21st OB-GYN techniques to understand ancient middle-eastern “testing” of virginity. Sorry, but by the “athletic” wording (“thrusting”) of Proto-James, she broke “Mary’s” hymen, rendering her a NON-virgin by OT Jewish standards. So, the “Mary,” as well as “Joseph” in Proto-James are NOT the Mary & Joseph of Scripture.

 

[wmscott]

And here is where your problem lies: you do not recognize that God’s Word was delivered in not one but two modes: in writing (Scripture) and by word of mouth (Tradition).

Your other problem is that you do not believe that Jesus gave real authority to Peter and the Apostles.

Consequently, you feel you are free to ignore anything that isn’t in your Bible in addition to being free to interpret the Bible as you please.

Hi Randy, I guess some folks think that if they post massive amounts of misinformation or total falsehoods often enough then it will become the new truth

 

[thetazlord]

All of this support the Catholic belief that Mary never had other children.

Thanks!

No it doesn’t, because “if” these brothers were Jesus’ older step-brothers then why didn’t one of them take in Mary instead of John. Through marriage to Mary, they would have - legally - been Mary’s children as well. So, where were “they”? And where were “they” during all these voyages when Mary was pregnant with Jesus, & at the Temple when Jesus was 12? Why aren’t “they” mentioned “if” these older step-brothers actually existed? Your “Catholic belief” doesn’t address any of this.

 

[thetazlord]

Hi Randy, I guess some folks think that if they post massive amounts of misinformation or total falsehoods often enough then it will become the new truth

I didn’t realize you considered Scripture “massive amounts of misinformation or total falsehoods,” because this is what I’ve been posting. I haven’t been ADDING “massive amounts” of “information” that’s NOT found in Scripture, & calling it “tradition.” That is what YOU are doing, not me.

 

[philipl]

Mary was married to and im guessing lived with her husband.
Why would they NOT engage in reproducing children?

I dont know why as I have never been able to ask her. All I know is she did.

 

[Randy_Carson]

First, when Jesus “breathed” on His disciples this was still WEEKS before the Church was established at Pentecost.

So? Does this mean that Jesus wasn’t preparing the leadership? Or what had the last three years of discipleship been about?

And if you read the surrounding passages, Jesus “breathed” on them for a specific purpose. Also, keep in mind that if “breathing” on the **pre-**Church makes them “Inspired,” then anything they would say or do after that would have to be true.

Infallibility and impeccability are two different things. Catholics have NEVER claimed that the pope is impeccable.

If this is the case, they “why” did Paul have to “condemn Peter to his face” (Galatians 2:11) for siding with the Judaizers? This only proves that even the Church - including Jesus’ disciples, including Peter - isn’t “God-breathed” in the context that Paul uses it in 2 Timothy 3:16. Because anything Inspired (God-breathed) CAN’T utter a false-hood. Peter did, which Paul points out.

You have erroneously concluded that inspiration = impeccable. It doesn’t, and therefore, you are wrong.

Therefore, since Scripture ONLY calls Scripture Inspired (God-breathed) in the context Paul uses it, then Scripture can’t utter falsehood about whether or not Mary had children after Jesus’ birth.

Show me a verses which calls anyone other than Jesus a son or daughter of Mary.

And Inspired (God-breathed) Scripture supports that Mary not only lost her virginity to her HUSBAND, but the further evidence this is true, is because Scripturally, the “brothers” of Jesus are His half-brothers. Ergo, Jesus can’t have half-brothers, if His earthly mother is still a virgin, since Joseph wasn’t His natural father.

I have read all of your posts, and you’re getting repetitious. Not one verses calls anyone a son or daughter of Mary, does it?

There are only two possibilities; the “half-brothers” are either:

1. Joseph’s children by a previous marriage.
2. Cousins via Joseph’s brother, Clopas and the “other” Mary.

 

[Erich]

Christ found a visible Church, but the identification of the Church isn’t based on “succession”

Why would Jesus want to leave His Church with no one in authority – and no way to pass on that authority? How could He be that dumb?

Jesus didn’t leave His Church without authority. I never stated that, so I don’t know why you assumed that.

You started out by claiming that “the identification of the Church isn’t based on succession” – actually, the four marks of the Church are that it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Since none of Christ’s apostles are still here with us on earth today after 2000 years, their authority has been passed on via apostolic succession . St. Paul himself refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession when he wrote to Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they will teach.

Here is a summary of what we find in Scripture: no man can take the responsibility or title of “pastor” to himself. Rather, he must be sent by God, either indirectly (via succession), or directly (via extraordinary calling). If he claims the latter, his mission must be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders as proof of his Divine vocation.

Even Jesus Himself submitted to this proof-test: “If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true; there is another who bears witness to me, and I know that the testimony which he bears to me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony which I receive is from man; but I say this that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:31-36)

By what authority does your pastor claim his office? By succession? If so, he must be able to demonstrate that he was called by a superior authority who himself had a legitimate claim to his office. By extraordinary calling, directly from God? If so, he must be able to show the required signs and wonders that authenticate his ministry, just as Jesus Himself did – unless, of course, he wishes to say he is greater than even Jesus.

Are you certain that the man who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities?