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

[thetazlord]

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. The Authority that Christ left His Church with were the Scriptures, which is why when the Church was born at Pentecost, Peter even READ from them. And then these Church leaders, like Peter, Paul, John, James, Matthew, etc, went on to write further Inspired Scriptures for future generations of the Church to compare the “gospels” they would be taught by false teachers to the TRUE Gospel of salvation (Galatians 1:6-9).

You might want to read the essay By What Authority? A Challenge to Protestant Pastors (which shows the Scriptural requirements for claiming to be a “pastor,” and asks the honest Protestant to see if he measures up).

After you’ve read the essay, answer the following questions: By what authority do your ministers claim their office? By succession? If so, can they demonstrate that they were called by a superior authority (who himself had a legitimate claim to his office)? By extraordinary calling? If so, can they show the required signs and wonders that authenticate their ministry? Are you certain that the one 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?

The “qualifications” of a pastor-elder-bishop is outlined throughout Scripture - such as in 1 Timothy Ch.3 & Titus Ch.1 and other NT passages such as in Acts, such as when Peter refers to himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1), rather than the “head elder” or “chief shepherd” which he designates to Christ (v.4). The fact that there are Protestant & other churches who violate these Scriptural criteria for eldership & church polity only demonstrates their “adding to” & “taking away” from Scripture to support THEIR “traditions” & “precepts the doctrines of MEN” (Matthew 15:1-9).

But since the OP is about church polity but about what Scripture supports about whether or not Mary had children after Jesus’ birth, can we please quit with the Red Herrings & focus on the OP?

 

[clem456]

So, what are you saying - that human beings themselves are infallible?

Please don’t twist my words. I never said that. The post is plain to read.

Then you just elevated human beings to the level of God, and even above Peter himself who stood “condemned” by Paul for uttering a falsehood (Galatians 2:11). The reason why Peter was able to utter a falsehood (demonstrating that people - even in the Church - are not infallible), while at the same time write infallible, God-breathed Scripture, was because God the Holy Spirit guided him (2 Peter 1:20-21). Yet, at the same time despite writing infallible Scripture, Peter remained “fallible” as noted by Paul. Therefore, in order to discern if a teaching - even in the Church - is “infallible” - it needs to be compared TO “infallible” Scripture. And the teaching that Mary DIDN’T “remain” a virgin her whole life & that she had children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus is supported BY “infallible” God-breathed Scripture.

This is incoherent.

 

[thetazlord]

Her?

I’m a man.

My apologies, my gender is not posted on your profile to the right.

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by zz912
You sure about that?

5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
The law will not cease or be abolished at the Second Coming. Sin will still be sinful.

Heaven & earth won’t “pass away” at the Second Coming, therefore, sin won’t be abolished then. Heaven & earth (& therefore sin) will be abolished at the end of the “1,000 year” reign of Christ on earth, when Jesus ushers in the “eternal state” when Satan is cast permanently into the lake of fire. I understand that as a Catholic you are “amillennial” but since this thread isn’t about eschatology, let’s not violate forum rules & create a Red Herring. I only bring this up to point out that Matthew’s use of “heos” in Matthew 5:18 does still mean the end of an activity when an event ends, just like it does the other TWO DOZEN times he uses it in his Gospel, including Matthew 1:25.

You made an error here. The “until” and a change in status isn’t what you think it is. The change in status would be if the law was abolished or ceased after the Second Coming. Is the law going to be abolished or cease at the Second Coming?

 

[zz912]

11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.
Proven wrong again here Taz. The violence to the kingdom of heaven still continues to this day.

The time period & specific type of “violence” that Jesus was talking about was the time period of John the Baptist when the Baptist’s preaching invoked strong reactions, such as his condemnation of the Pharisees (see Matthew Ch.3) & his condemnation of Herod Antipas for illegally marrying his brother’s wife that led to his imprisonment (recounted in Matthew 14:3). So, although violence in the kingdom continued “beyond” John the Baptist’s imprisonment & execution, Jesus was referring to the specific “type” of “violence” that was incurring during his time that ended once John was imprisoned & executed, because the Baptist’s preaching “ended” that “type” of violence. Plus, you ignore the fact that in the very next verse (v.13) uses “heo” for “until” (“For all the prophets & the Law prophesized UNTIL (heos) John”) proving he was the “END”-time Elijah (v.14), “ending” the “violence” of the prophets who Israel also murdered.

The “heos” used in that verse refers to violence upon the kingdom of God. The violence did not end, and has not ended. So this “heos” does NOT signal a change in status. I understand if it is difficult to admit something that undermines your theology, but if you truly love Christ, who is the Truth, you must follow the truth where it leads.

 

[thetazlord]

You made an error here. The “until” and a change in status isn’t what you think it is. The change in status would be if the law was abolished or ceased after the Second Coming. Is the law going to be abolished or cease at the Second Coming?

When Jesus says “until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished,” He’s referring to the eternal state when “heaven and earth pass away.” Heaven & earth won’t pass away at the Second Coming, but AFTER the “1,000 year” reign of Christ on earth is over. THEN “heaven and earth will pass away” as well as every “letter and stroke of the letter.” So, there is no error made here.

Now, I realize you like to go onto tangents, rabbit trails, & make Red Herrings, but could we please get back to the OP?

 

[zz912]

22:44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet”’?
I’m curious Taz, are you saying that Jesus will no longer sit at the right hand of the Father after the Second Coming???

Again, this is about eschatology when Jesus returns TO EARTH for His “1,000 year” reign. “Until” (heos) then, Jesus stands at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56). So, although Jesus is Omnipresent, Matthew 22:44 is speaking about Jesus being not on earth, physically, like He was during His First Coming.

Are you honestly stating that Jesus will leave from His place at the right hand of the Father?!?!?!?!? Are you THAT invested in your personal theology that you will actually make that statement?!?!

NO, Jesus will NEVER leave His place at the right hand of the Father. Don’t you see how twisted your personal theology becomes when you don’t have the Church to guide you? You end up saying crazy things to keep justifying it.

 

[zz912]

28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen
Are you saying that Jesus will leave us once the world ends Taz???

First, the better translation is “end of the age” not “end of the world.” Second, Jesus is addressing His true believers (those who become the soon-to-be future Church) who He will be “with” (spiritually) until the “end of the age,” which will occur at His Second Coming. “Until” then, He’ll be “with” (heos) the Church “in Spirit” either while we are on earth, or “in Spirit” in Heaven when we die. But Christ won’t be ON EARTH during this time, because He will be “sitting at the right hand of God” UNTIL (heos) His Second Coming TO EARTH.

You simply are wrong about this. Even at His Second Coming, He will ALWAYS be with us. He will NEVER leave us. Again, your devotion to your personal theology demands you to take radical and wild stances that are completely divorced from the Christian faith.

Even when the world ends, we will be with Him.

 

[thetazlord]

What was this purpose, and please only answer from Scripture.

John 20:22-25 which is when Jesus “breathed” on them, which says nothing about His disciples being incapable of saying something that was not true, such as when Peter did later (Galatians 2:11)

What was this falsehood that Peter uttered? Chapter and verse please.

I explained this already. Read Galatians 2:11-12. If “breathing” on Peter made him “inerrant,” then why did Paul have to “condemn him to his face”?

You really don’t understand the idea of covenant, or how God means it. When you enter a covenant, you BECOME a member of that family, period, end of story. So any children of Joseph ARE would be half-siblings of Jesus. End of story.

You’re confusing the OT covenantal theology of circumcision in the same way the Pharisees “assumed” that they were children of Abraham, because they too were circumcised & physical descendants of Abraham. Likewise, Jesus’ half-brothers being circumcized had nothing to do with whether or not they true children of God. Their “unbelief” in & mocking of Him disqualified them (John 7:3-5), which is why they weren’t at the cross, & why Jesus entrusted Him to His TRUE “brother” John, who also happened to be His cousin. So Mary was entrusted to both a TRUE “brother” as well as a close family member, since Jesus’ half-brothers were still unbelieving, which - again - why they weren’t at the cross.

 

[zz912]

When Jesus says “until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished,” He’s referring to the eternal state when “heaven and earth pass away.” Heaven & earth won’t pass away at the Second Coming, but AFTER the “1,000 year” reign of Christ on earth is over. THEN “heaven and earth will pass away” as well as every “letter and stroke of the letter.” So, there is no error made here.

Now, I realize you like to go onto tangents, rabbit trails, & make Red Herrings, but could we please get back to the OP?

No, the “until” refers to the law. NOT heaven and earth. So after heaven and earth pass away, will there be a change in status of the law? Yes or no.

And this is NOT a red herring. This is a fundamental part of your argument that ALL of the use of heos in Matthew refers to changes in status. I’ve just shown that several of them actually have NO change in status, which disproves your personal theology and private interpretation.

 

[thetazlord]

Please don’t twist my words. I never said that. The post is plain to read.

You’re post “assumed” that because people wrote Scripture then that means that they themselves are Inspired. If that were the case then “how” could Peter who wrote Scripture be wrong (Galatians 2:11)?

(Edited)

 

[thetazlord]

No, the “until” refers to the law. NOT heaven and earth. So after heaven and earth pass away, will there be a change in status of the law? Yes or no.

And this is NOT a red herring. This is a fundamental part of your argument that ALL of the use of heos in Matthew refers to changes in status. I’ve just shown that several of them actually have NO change in status, which disproves your personal theology and private interpretation.

Yes, & the law won’t pass away UNTIL heaven & earth passes away. That’s what the text STATES. Go back & reread it - slowly this time. You’re getting confused. And this doesn’t happen until the eternal state NOT at Jesus’ Second Coming.

 

[zz912]

John 20:22-25 which is when Jesus “breathed” on them, which says nothing about His disciples being incapable of saying something that was not true, such as when Peter did later (Galatians 2:11)

I know where the verse is. I asked you what the purpose was. You said there was a specific purpose, so I asked what it was. And please only use Scripture for your answer. What was the purpose?

I explained this already. Read Galatians 2:11-12. If “breathing” on Peter made him “inerrant,” then why did Paul have to “condemn him to his face”?

You don’t understand the difference between infallible and inerrant. It would behoove you to correct this misunderstanding so that you don’t say incorrect things like that again.

You’re confusing the OT covenantal theology of circumcision in the same way the Pharisees “assumed” that they were children of Abraham, because they too were circumcised & physical descendants of Abraham. Likewise, Jesus’ half-brothers being circumcized had nothing to do with whether or not they true children of God. Their “unbelief” in & mocking of Him disqualified them (John 7:3-5), which is why they weren’t at the cross, & why Jesus entrusted Him to His TRUE “brother” John, who also happened to be His cousin. So Mary was entrusted to both a TRUE “brother” as well as a close family member, since Jesus’ half-brothers were still unbelieving, which - again - why they weren’t at the cross.

Baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance into the New Covenant that Jesus institutued. The Old Covenant was given to man so they could be prepared and understand the New Covenant properly. When Joseph took Jesus as his son, Jesus became FULLY his son.

 

[pablope]

pablope;12682966:

It’s only “MY” interpretation if I ADD something of “MINE” to Scripture (like Mary “remaining” a virgin after the birth of Jesus) that isn’t explicitly supported by Scripture (like Mary “remaining” a virgin after the birth of Jesus). Rather than rewrite the Scriptural references over again, please refer to my reply to SteveVH:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12683200#post12683200

You are actually adding your interpretation…you just do not realize it or refuse to realize it.

It is indeed your interpretation…that Mary did not remain a virgin…despite a Church council declaring Mary remained ever virgin…so that is why I asked, and I repeat my questions to you:

Have you come to realize that you may be in error?

**Do you consider yourself infallible? **

And who would do the comparing? Who would have that authority to determine what is with Scripture and what is not with Scripture?

And so to ask you further, this is stated from the Bible:

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

Echoing v15…so who sent you with with your interpretations and told you that your reading of Scripture is correct?

 

[clem456]

You’re post “assumed” that because people wrote Scripture then that means that they themselves are Inspired. If that were the case then “how” could Peter who wrote Scripture be wrong (Galatians 2:11)?

The authors of scripture are inspired. You said I claimed they are infallible. I didn’t say that.

I can’t help if you can’t comprehend simple English. “The post is plain to read.” Now, can we get back to the OP?

Your posts have become incoherent.

 

[pablope]

J

I explained this already. Read Galatians 2:11-12. If “breathing” on Peter made him “inerrant,” then why did Paul have to “condemn him to his face”?

s.

You do not seem to understand what is meant by inerrant, what is to be infallible and what are personal failings…and you have only relegated yourself to one view…so how about another view:

More on this above:catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3485

Note first that the rebuke in itself does not deny Petrine authority. Catherine of Siena could rebuke the pope for his human failures without any thought of equating her ecclesial status with his. Moreover, we must ask what Paul actually did. He rebuked Peter for not adhering to the policy which God had established through Peter (Acts 10 again): The vehemence of Paul’s criticism underlines, rather than denies, Peter’s primacy: "You, of all people – you, the Rock!"30

And so the same could be asked of you…what makes you inerrant in your reading of the Scripture?

What makes you believe what you are telling us here is true and that we, Catholics and the Catholic Church, which disagrees with your interpretation, is wrong?

 

[pablope]

Yes, & the law won’t pass away UNTIL heaven & earth passes away. That’s what the text STATES. Go back & reread it - slowly this time. You’re getting confused. And this doesn’t happen until the eternal state NOT at Jesus’ Second Coming.

Indeed the text STATES it as you say…the difference is in your understanding…so again…the question to you:

Why do you believe your understanding it correct? Why should your understanding be believed over others who disagree with your reading and understanding?

 

[wmscott]

Indeed the text STATES it as you say…the difference is in your understanding…so again…the question to you:

Why do you believe your understanding it correct? Why should your understanding be believed over others who disagree with your reading and understanding?

Hi pablope, thanks to you and those who have tried to explain this post and having more patience than I have.

The thing that I keep coming back to is there can not be two or three truths, just one, the one that the Holy Spirit guides in. I keep seeing “individual” or personal interpretations of Sacred Scripture that conflicts with what the Catholic Church has preserved and taught since day one. Yet there are folks that want to alter, change, or misinterpret that truth and affirm that they are guided by the HS. So how do we establish just who the HS has guided to the truth? The HS does not lie. Since Christ said that the Church would be guided by the HS in all truth, then why is it so hard for folks who proclaim to believe only what is says in Scripture to accept what the Church teaches.

John 16:13-15

13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

If this is not “Explicitly” stating that there is revelation that follows what was recorded in Scripture and that there is revelation still to come, I do not know what more to say.

 

[benhur]

That’s your assumption too.

No. I did not assume. I did not go beyond scripture by saying Joseph abstaned and respected her holy womb for 9 months plus. You said a Jew would not defile a holy thing, as in Mary’s womb for it bore the Lord. I agreed with the distinction that her womb was holy for 9 months . Scripture says the angel commanded Joseph, "“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son” and take her as your wife. So scripture says Joseph made sure a “virgin gave birth” and abstained from marriage consummation up to the birth . A Jew was also to abstain during purification period for the mother. Where is the assumption that Joseph abstained from a holy womb of Mary for said period of time ? it is not an assumption. It is scriptural.

All churches believe this . It is universal. It is not assumption.

Assumption begins after the nine months plus, for both you and me. Conjectural evidences is what we both have thereafter, YES.

Protestants hold that Bible is the only source for your beliefs.

Not exactly. We have as many sources as you, just that Scripture is the supreme authoritative key.

                     Then demonstrate that Joseph have marital relations with Mary from your Bible. You can't . So if you can't then you shouldn't sprout your conjecture as fact when it is not.

Not sure I said it was fact but best possible scenario based on evidences from scripture, Jewish culture and religion, and some historical writings.

Understand you do the same.

Our beliefs are backed by Tradition which is in the Bible. Your beliefs are not backed by the Bible. Period. At best you can argue from silence or ambiguity.

Ridiculous to say that we do not share same sources for evidences.

Yes, your tradition “won” and grew quantitatively,

Reminds me of how “VHS” video format won out over “Beta” format. Beta was better but VHS had better “marketing” and eventually won, though an inferior product. Just my pure opinion.

 

[YADA]

Then what are you saying, that God-breathed Scripture is wrong? That’s it’s in error? Then it can’t be God-breathed, otherwise that’s like saying GOD is wrong. Is this your position? Again, it’s when you consider the family dynamics of Scripture - ALL Scripture - that deals with Christ’s family that you realize there are TWO “James & Joseph’s” - not ONE, & then you are able to piece together that the “James & Joseph” who are also listed with the other two “brothers” of Jesus (Simon & Judas), along with at least 2 sisters, are Jesus’ half-siblings.

No I do not believe that God Breathed Scripture is wrong … I do see that you do not know how to understand the scriptures - and though you claim you are not interpreting or reading into the scriptures your own biases … you in fact do that … Also - you demand explicit passages of us - and allow yourself to appeal to implicit passages when it suits you

In this passages [multiple Gospels] - Mary is clearly identified with only Jesus - explicitly … he is not one of several sons of Mary - but of Mary - singularly … and it also names Joseph as Jesus’ father … but as you agree - Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus …

So here it is … the same passages that identify - explicitly - Joseph as Jesus’ father [which you agree is not accurate and in conflict with other passages] and which **does not **- explicitly- identify other children as being Mary’s uterine children is somehow to be interpreted as proving that Mary gave birth to these other children

Sorry - I can read the scriptures - I can place women with children - which Randy did very clearly - and there are no children - other then Jesus - of Mary to be found …

I read the entire bible and I enjoy biblical exegesis … Even before I was a Catholic - I never found the “other” children of Mary that you assert …

You lambast the Protoevangelium James - when it suits you - cite it when it suits you … I do not rely upon it … like the Gospels of Thomas - they are interesting but not all that useful …

Many scriptural scholars and linguists - far more knowledgeable then you or I - have studied these passages in the extant original and in the various translations …

I know my educational background with the scriptures and theology … I have read many more learned scholars [Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish and Protestant] … I have read the ECFs. I am telling you the honest truth - your testimony does not sway me - your assertions and red herring comments and twisting of passages -

Why should I believe that you - theta - are so much brighter, more enlightened and intelligent?

What is your educational background? Where did you study?
What papers have you published?
What books have you written?