Steve: “and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,”
let me point out that Mary was only a virgin when she conceived and until she delivered Jesus. otherwise you are stating all of her children were by virgin birth.
BFHU: Not at all. No one but Jesus is born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit. The “brothers and sisters of Jesus” were not siblings but kinsmen or possibly step siblings born of Joseph and a wife who had died. Please see–>Mary Was Only a Virgin UNTIL Jesus was born
Who Were the Brothers & Sisters of Jesus?
Steve:…let me also point out (Rom 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
and to your intended response that “all does not include Mary”
(1Jn 1:10) If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
BFHU: So then do we “make Him a liar” if we contend for the sinlessness of Jesus, too? I am not saying I have not sinned. I am saying that Mary was preserved, by the grace and power of God, from sin, in order to be a perfect vessel for the Son of God Almighty. Does that not just seem more fitting?
Steve: Furthermore, if Mary was sinless or perfect which is what you are claiming by making her sinless, she would have also been conceived by the Spirit of God moving on her mother.
BFHU: Why? That does not seem logical. Do you believe that God lacks the power remove the stain of original sin from the one intended to nurture and give birth to the Holy Son of God? Mary was conceived in the normal way by her parents, who were not sinless. But, God acted to create her immaculate just like He created Adam and Eve. It is not like it was the first and only time God did it.
Steve:At which point she would have been divine and Jesus’ blood would not be the ONLY redeeming blood available to us. But, “by HIS blood…”
BFHU: That is just silly. Mary is fully human just like Adam and Eve, but before they fell.
Steve: Finally, if Mary had been sinless/perfect she would have had no need to be filled with the Holy Ghost (ref. Acts 1 & 2), however she was in the upper room and the Bible states (Act 2:4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
BFHU: Where does Scripture say she would not need to be filled with the Holy Ghost if she were sinless? Mary was a child of the OT covenant.
Steve: She would also have had no need for baptism, which is for the remission of sins according to Peter. If you claim Mary was not baptized, which again is for the remission of SINS, then according to Scripture, which is infallible, she was not even saved.
BFHU: Why would Mary, being sinless, need to be baptized for the remission of….no sin? She is saved. She even calls God her savior. She was saved from the moment of her conception rather than from the moment of baptism.
Steve: (Act 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.(Act 2:39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
God calls men to do what? God calls men to repentance.
(Act 17:30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: this does NOT say with the exception of Mary, it states ALL men.
BFHU: There was no need to say “with the exception of Mary,” because people who were sinners were being called to repentance. The Bible is not a book of systematic theology. You treat it as if it were when you claim that it should have included “with the exception of Mary,” if this was a fact. And I would agree, IF the Bible were a book of systematic theology. But it isn’t.
Steve: Yes, to answer your question, I believe if it is not a Biblical truth, then it is mans theology, and prone to flaws. The Apostles did not teach this nor believe this.
BFHU: I know this is true of you and most Protestants but the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura/Scripture alone. Your assertion of Sola Scriptura is merely a tradition of men.
Steve: Mary did not ascend to heaven, otherwise the “first resurrection” would have already happened that is stated in (Rev 20:5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
The rest of the dead will arise during the second resurrection. If you read the Scripture leading up to 20:5 you will see that those are the dead which will not worship or serve the beast. Then comes the second resurrection in Rev 20:12-15 which ends with the condemnation of those that were not written in the book of life.
BFHU: Are you aware that lots of people, besides Jesus rose from the dead? So, your attempt to interpret the above verses to disprove the Assumption of Mary just does not hold water.
Enoch seems like a possible forerunner of assumption.
Genesis 5:24
Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
Elijah, too, was taken up to Heaven without dying.
2 Kings 2:11
As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
Mt 27:50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Steve: The Apostles only baptized in the name of Jesus, in every Scripture you see where it is mentioned, it is only in His name.
BFHU: The Catholic Church simply obeys Jesus when He said,
Mt 28:8 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
Yes, there are several scripture where baptism is mentioned “in the name of Jesus.” Perhaps the apostles did baptize this way or it may have been a shortened version of the formula “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Regardless of the history we obey Jesus’ command from Mt. 28 and so do most Protestants. Anyone baptized in the name of the Blessed Trinity is truly baptized regardless of which church or who did the baptizing.
Steve: By saying the proper formula is in the “titles” Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then you are claiming the Apostles, whom Jesus himself spent 40 days after his resurrection opening their understanding, were wrong. That is quite a bold statement considering they were the ones who actually penned the NT Word of God as His Spirit moved on them.
BFHU: You are jumping to conclusions. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not plural–titles. It is a singular NAME of the Godhead. It bespeaks of the trinitarian God: One Name, three persons.
Filed under: Ever Virgin, Mary |
Bread From Heaven 
Do I Need to believe that Mary was a Virgin in order to have the Salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ?
But she remained a virgin until her Son was born; & Joseph named Him Jesus Matt 1:25 paraphrased edition.
And he knew her not until she had brought her 1st born son & he called His name Jesus.
He taught them in their synagogue & they were astonished & they said, “Whence has this man’s wisdom, & these mighty works”? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother called Mary? and His brothers, James, Jo-ses, & Simon & Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” Whence then has this man all these things? Matt 13:54-56
This clearly says that these are the children of Mary. I have learned that some are twisting the scriptures & trying to pass them off as either children that Joseph had from a previous marriage, or even cousins. The fact is that there is no hint anywhere in the entire Bible that these are anything but Mary’s children.
It is strange that no even a hint of a previous marriage or children for Joseph. When they went to pay the taxes it would seem that some would have gone with them. But the biggest puzzle of them all. It is a big deal that Mary be a virgin all of her life. She was to pure & Holy to be anything else. And yet, a husband who was very well used; he had at least 7 children of his own besides Jesus. Isn’t a pure, immaculate, eternal Holy virgin entitled to an equal? it doesn’t make sense that she would have to be so Holy but that an equal could not be found for her, or that the father of her sacred son could be the opposite of everything that she was.
I don’t think so. But why can’t you believe it?
1. “BFHU: Not at all. No one but Jesus is born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit. The “brothers and sisters of Jesus” were not siblings but kinsmen or possibly step siblings born of Joseph and a wife who had die”
to say that they were not his siblings but kinsmen or possibly step siblings is an assumption. if solid proof were available there would be no need to maintain the “possibilities”
if you have a Scripture that shows Joseph was married before, please post it so I can have Scriptural evidence that will lead me to the Truth of His Word. guesses and possibilities are not sufficient food for the soul. (Joh 17:17) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
2. BFHU: So then do we “make Him a liar” if we contend for the sinlessness of Jesus, too? I am not saying I have not sinned. I am saying that Mary was preserved, by the grace and power of God, from sin, in order to be a perfect vessel for the Son of God Almighty. Does that not just seem more fitting?
there is no contest on the perfection and sinless nature and life of Jesus. As you stated in your email to me, “and Jesus is God.” God can not sin. However, this is about Mary. If she were immaculate, without spot or stain, why would she have need a savior?
(Luk 5:31) And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. (Luk 5:32) I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
What did Jesus come to save us from? If we have not sinned, we do not need a savior.
my pointing to (1Jn 1:10) If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. still stands, and is a valid fact for Mary having sinned until Scriptural evidence is given to show otherwise.
3. BFHU: Why? That does not seem logical. Do you believe that God lacks the power remove the stain of original sin from the one intended to nurture and give birth to the Holy Son of God? Mary was conceived in the normal way by her parents, who were not sinless. But, God acted to create her immaculate just like He created Adam and Eve. It is not like it was the first and only time God did it.
First I would like to ask you, do miracles seem logical? Many things God does are not approved by mans logic, but He has done them anyway, such as using a young girl born in sin ,as all are, to come into this world to save it. If it seemed logical for God to use her, the Jews would have had no issue with accepting Him as He was. He did not come as they expected or would accept, because in their minds, logically He is King of kings and Lord of lords, so he would not come as a carpenter. No debate on the OT prophesies of what would happen, but if we are speaking in logical terms that point is valid.
Second, “Do I believe that God lacks the power to remove the stain of sin…” I know without a doubt in my mind, heart, & soul that God can remove any and all sin from us. (Act 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is why we are baptized. The Scripture does not say belief remits sin, or receiving the Holy Ghost remits sin, it states clearly that baptism is for the remission of sin. Our sins are washed away in the water. Sin can follow you to the water, but it can not pass through the water. Once the name of Jesus is applied your past is forgiven or remitted in His eyes.
4. BFHU: Are you aware that lots of people, besides Jesus rose from the dead? So, your attempt to interpret the above verses to disprove the Assumption of Mary just does not hold water.
Now, I am certainly aware that Enoch was not for the Lord took him, and that Elijah went up in a whirlwind. And I am aware as well that when Jesus gave up His Spirit of those dead rising. I was certain I posted something along the lines of, “show me in the Bible where after Jesus ascended and before the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation it states that anyone was resurrected or ascended into heaven.” After going to the original post I see that perhaps I did not post it, and for that I offer apologies for not giving more clarification of my intent. If you will allow, I am inserting it now. For Scriptural reference:
(1Th 4:13) But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
(1Th 4:14) For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
(1Th 4:15) For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
(1Th 4:16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
(1Th 4:17) Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
(1Th 4:18) Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
Paul seems to believe that the dead will rise when Jesus comes again. I put more faith in Paul’s teachings and preachings than I do in what philosophers came up with 200-1900 years later. Paul walked and talked with those that actually walked on the earth with Jesus. If he was wrong in his understanding I believe it would be safe to say that one of them would have corrected him, wouldn’t you agree?
5. BFHU: The Catholic Church simply obeys Jesus when He said,
Okay, you are saying you are in true obedience to Jesus’ words. That would mean that His own disciples disobeyed him. They did not shorten His name as you mention. They actually used His name. He said to be baptized in the name, singular as you pointed out. They followed His teaching and instruction to the letter, don’t you agree?
I am going to write you a check for one million dollars, yet where it says signature I am going to write “father, son, and brother.” Will that hold any authority when you take it to a bank? No. It requires my legal name. …in the name of the Lord Jesus Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16, 1Cor 6:11; …in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 2:38; in all of these they are calling on the name of Jesus.
(Act 4:12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
This is their understanding of what He said to them in Matt 28:19. They were His disciples & He spent 40 days after His resurrection opening their understanding to His Word. If they got it wrong after more than a couple of years walking with Him on earth, then 40 days of having His teaching, then I dare to say we have no chance.
I make no leap to conclusions, I am simply following what His Holy Word says they preached and believed.
With the love of Jesus Christ in my heart towards you,
Steve in SC
The Bible clearly says that they are the children of Mary. There is not even a faint hint that Joseph was married before or that these were his children alone. It calls them the children of Mary & Joseph. Your strong wish that this be not so is not backed up by the facts.
Examples:
But she remained a virgin until her Son was born; & Joseph named Him Jesus Matt 1:25 paraphrased edition
…and he knew her not until she had brought forth her 1st born son & he (Joseph) called His name Jesus. Matt 1:25 King James version
Joan B: Can you educate us ignorant Catholics as to …
1) Why was Jesus alone called the son of Mary and never so designated for the so called “brethren of The Lord”?
2) In Nazareth, why did his townmates (who should know the composition of the family) refer Jesus as “THE son of Mary” and not “a son of Mary”? (Mk 6:3).
3) When Jesus went to Jerusalem at the age of 12, there was no mention of any other children with the family. Where were them?
4) Again at Cana, only Jesus alone was identified as the son of Mary.
5) Where were the other siblings or children of Mary at Calvary?
6) Why did Jesus, as an observant Jew, give the care of his mother, Mary, to John the Apostle if there were other siblings in violation of the Mosaic prescriptions?
7) In the same token, wouldn’t Mary be neglectful of her own obligation by abandoning her other “children” and went to stay wtih John?
8) Why the complete silence of the first Christians and Church Fathers about the existence of the “other children of Mary”?
6) What did scripture REALLY say about the “brothers of The Lord”, identified in Mt 13:55 and Mk 6:3 as James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Judas/Jude?
All I can do is to quote scriptures straight from the Bible which is my only source. Rev 22:17 says that anyone who adds to these prophecies or takes away from these prophesies God will take away his share of the Tree of Life & in the Holy City just described.
This is the straight stuff from the Holy Book” But she remained a virgin until her son was born; & Joseph named Him Jesus Matt 1:25 paraphrased edition.
And he (Joseph) knew her not until she brought forth her 1st born son; & he (Joseph) called him Jesus. Matt 1:25 King James version
In the old testament when they married the Bible sad that “He knew her.” to indicated sexual relations.
And when they came out of the synagogue they entered into the home of Simon (Peter) & Andrew with James & John. and Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, & they tell Hi about her. He came & took her by the hand, & lifter herup, & immediately the fever left her & she ministered to them Mark 1:29-34
While He (Jesus)talked to the people, His mother & brethern stood without desiring to speak wit Him. Then one said, “Your mother & brothers stand without, desiring to speak with you, He answered & said to them: “Who is my mother & who are my brothers?” He stretched His hand towards His disciples & said, “Behold my mother & my brothers. Whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, the same is my brother & sister & mother Matt 12:46-50 Also Mark 3:16 He was speaking of a spiritual level. The crowd knew who Mary & His brothers were & they called them by name.
He taught them in their synagogue & they were astonished, they said, Hence has this man’s wisdom, & these mighty works (miracles) Is this not the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother called Mary? & His brothers James, Jo-ses, Simon & Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then has this man all these things?” Matt 13:54,56.
Also Luke 8:19-21
These all continued with one accord in prayer & supplication, with the women, & Mary, the mother of Jesus,& with His brothers. Acts 1:14
But of the other apostles, I saw none except James,the Lord’s brother.” Gal 1:19
After the wedding He (Jesus) left for Capernaum for a few days with His mother & brothers & disciples. John 2:12
Jesus bothers urged Him to go to Judea or the celebration. John 7:3
It was not long afterwards that Jesus rose into the sky & disappeared into a cloud, leaving them staring after Him. As they were straining their eyes for another glimpse; suddenly 2 white robed men were standing there among them & said, “Men of Galilee, why are you staring at the sky?” Jesus has gone to heaven, & someday just as He went, He will return.
They were on the Mount of Olives. They walked back to Jerusalem & held a prayer meeting in an upstairs room of the house where they were staying. A list of those who were present at that meeting: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, James (son of Alphaus,) Simon, also called the Zealot, Judas, (son of James), and the brothers of Jesus,& several women, including Jesus mother were also there. Acts 1:9-14 Also Mark 3:16-19
This is the best that I can do. I have recently learned that some are trying to say that Joseph was married before & these were his kids from a former marriage & just in case that didn’t fly they said if not from a former marriage they were probably cousins.
This book is the straight stuff. For anyone to say that they were Mary’s step kids they have to pull speculation from out of their heads. And as I reported earlier their is a warning to take away from, or to add to this Book.
Someone who is trying to say that what is reported is not really what it is has to have a reason to not want the truth to be told. I would ask myself why would this be? It would have to be explained to me.
Joan B:
(1) “All I can do is to quote scriptures straight from the Bible which is my only source. Rev 22:17 says that anyone who adds to these prophecies or takes away from these prophesies God will take away his share of the Tree of Life & in the Holy City just described.”
Let’s do just that.
(2) “This is the straight stuff from the Holy Book” But she remained a virgin until her son was born; & Joseph named Him Jesus Matt 1:25 paraphrased edition.
And he (Joseph) knew her not until she brought forth her 1st born son; & he (Joseph) called him Jesus. Matt 1:25 King James version
In the old testament when they married the Bible sad that “He knew her.” to indicated sexual relations.”
“Until” in Mt 1:25 has a wider usage than that in scripture.
(3) “And when they came out of the synagogue they entered into the home of Simon (Peter) & Andrew with James & John. and Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, & they tell Hi about her. He came & took her by the hand, & lifter herup, & immediately the fever left her & she ministered to them Mark 1:29-34. While He (Jesus)talked to the people, His mother & brethern stood without desiring to speak wit Him. Then one said, “Your mother & brothers stand without, desiring to speak with you, He answered & said to them: “Who is my mother & who are my brothers?” He stretched His hand towards His disciples & said, “Behold my mother & my brothers. Whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, the same is my brother & sister & mother Matt 12:46-50 Also Mark 3:16 He was speaking of a spiritual level. The crowd knew who Mary & His brothers were & they called them by name.”
Again, my question is why Jesus alone esd called the “son of Mary”?
(4) “He taught them in their synagogue & they were astonished, they said, Hence has this man’s wisdom, & these mighty works (miracles) Is this not the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother called Mary? & His brothers James, Jo-ses, Simon & Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then has this man all these things?” Matt 13:54,56.
Also Luke 8:19-21
These all continued with one accord in prayer & supplication, with the women, & Mary, the mother of Jesus,& with His brothers. Acts 1:14
But of the other apostles, I saw none except James,the Lord’s brother.” Gal 1:19”
Why is Jesus alone consistently called the “son of Mary”? “Brethren” or “brother” has a different sense in Hebrew than the inadequate translation into English. I will elaborate later.
5) “After the wedding He (Jesus) left for Capernaum for a few days with His mother & brothers & disciples. John 2:12
Jesus bothers urged Him to go to Judea or the celebration. John 7:3
It was not long afterwards that Jesus rose into the sky & disappeared into a cloud, leaving them staring after Him. As they were straining their eyes for another glimpse; suddenly 2 white robed men were standing there among them & said, “Men of Galilee, why are you staring at the sky?” Jesus has gone to heaven, & someday just as He went, He will return.”
Sorry, I still don’t see where Jesus’ brethren were called the sons of Mary. C’mon … all I need is just one time !!!
6) ” They were on the Mount of Olives. They walked back to Jerusalem & held a prayer meeting in an upstairs room of the house where they were staying. A list of those who were present at that meeting: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, James (son of Alphaus,) Simon, also called the Zealot, Judas, (son of James), and the brothers of Jesus,& several women, including Jesus mother were also there. Acts 1:9-14 Also Mark 3:16-19
This is the best that I can do. I have recently learned that some are trying to say that Joseph was married before & these were his kids from a former marriage & just in case that didn’t fly they said if not from a former marriage they were probably cousins.”
Of course, the bible is silent as to whether Joseph was a widower or if he had other children from a previous marriage. The cousin theory is another tradition. None of which contradicts the bible where it is silent.
7) “This book is the straight stuff. For anyone to say that they were Mary’s step kids they have to pull speculation from out of their heads. And as I reported earlier their is a warning to take away from, or to add to this Book.
Someone who is trying to say that what is reported is not really what it is has to have a reason to not want the truth to be told. I would ask myself why would this be?”
Actually, what is “added” is an absolutist insistence that the “brethren” are the son of Mary when the bible never said so.
8) “It would have to be explained to me.”
Of course, you seem to be a reasonable person to me. I won’t address the nuance of “brethren” or “brother” and “until” right now. Let me see if I can dig out something instead. Patient.
Joan B: Please do a “search” on “Perpetual Virginity of Mary” on this blog (top right corner of the home page) and you will find a whole discussion between Arne and me on the same topics (Mt 1:25 “Until” and the “brethren” of Jesus). Just forward until you get to the posting on November 6, 2012. It will be worth your time.
Dear surkiko: I believe that you are a wonderful person & that if the world was filled with people like you that it would be heaven on earth. I am likewise & we both got that way from 2 different paths. I read the post that you wanted me to & I still believe the same. I may be wrong but I think that you asked why the brothers were not referred to as Mary’s children. If you did I would say that they were never referred to as Joseph’s children either. In 2 different scriptures it says that Mary brought forth her 1st born son. This was written after Jesus grew up so to call Him the 1st born would indicate that He had other siblings.
Otherwise it would have been written only son. In both the scriptures, one says that they didn’t have sexual relations until after her son was born & the other one said that “He knew her not until after her son was born.”
I just read some mini biographies from a book titled Far From Rome and Near to God. This book has biographies of 50 priests who left the Catholic Church & why they left. The excerpts were from the biographies of 5 of the priests. I’ll snitch a bit of the bio from priest #3 as this is the favorite of those that I read.
I’ll leave out the part of the 9 different parts of his education before ordination & the 4 years after ordination. I’ll start with his ordination which was at the Shrine of Immaculate Conception of Mary in Wash D.C. He served as a diocese priest in San Diego & entered the Navy as a Roman Catholic Chaplain. Apparently his mother became a Protestant convert. He had a lot of conversations with his mother & he began to see a gradual change come over her. In time he realized that these Catholic beliefs are not only not in the Bible but are contrary to the clear teaching of scriptures. He left the church, got married & understood that he had been relying on his own righteousness & religious efforts & not the completed sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The church never taught me that our righteousness is fleshly & not acceptable to God, nor that we need to trust His righteousness alone. During all those years of the sacraments of monastic I had relied on the sacraments of Rome to give me grace to save me. I spotted another article about why are so many priests leaving the Catholic Church. I hope that I can find it again; sounds interesting.
Not only that but I had time to do a scan of an article that claims that the pope claims to be the same as God! If so he actually belongs to Satan. Jesus clearly said that there is only one way to God, the Father, & He is it. We are to pray to the Father in Jesus name & if we ask believing we will receive it. Of course we cannot ask amiss. We can’t pray that anything be contrary to the scriptures or that someone marry us or hire us. We will reap big trouble if we use prayer in a satanic way.
Joan B: Thank you for being so charitable esp. in agreeing to read the log on an old discussion on Perpetual Virginity. We can certainly agree to disagree, and let God grows and the Spirit blows as He will. If you don’t mind, I will say that “first born” in historical bible language and culture did not necessarily mean only in the biological sense but commonly in the superlative dignity, place or status of a person instead. I believe that I already give the examples in the log. So “first born” did not necessarily mean there were other blood siblings to follow necessarily. The other thing is that we should not depend too “dogmatically” on an English translation of the bible since a word in another culture and time can be very inadequately expressed accurately into another language. I read the bible liturgically with the Church and today’s gospel reading happens to be Matt 1:25. I’m using the RSV and the translation there is rendered “When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but BEFORE THEY LIVED TOGETHER …” Of course, I’m not implying that only the RSV got it right. The point is that we can be too absolutist about the a particular translation of the bible. The more important point is that the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity is an ancient belief of the Church of God, and it’s sole purpose is always Christological because it (like the “Theotokos” doctrine) defends the truth about the nature of Christ and the triune God against heresies. It is always the belief of the the Church of God, so one MUST possesses a moral certitude to depart from it (but what’s the point of disagreeing with the Church on this in the first place, one may ask … It’s not crucial to salvation). The tradition of the “brethren” theory is only a theory and not a doctrine of the Church and is not SACRED TRADITION.
I heard about the book you referenced. To be fair, I will buy and read it as a way of returning your favor to read my log on Perpetual Virginity. I hope to find an e-book version of it quickly. Hope we can talk again at another time.
I really like you. If you was my neighbor I would want to be one of your best friends. We can disagree in a civilized way. God gave each of us the gift of free will & we each have a right to seek in our own way.
Remember that in the Old Testament the 1st born son got the father’s blessing. It was very important. Remember when Jacob cheated Esau out of his birthright?
The book may or may change your thinking but I do believe that you will find it to be very interesting reading just as the lives of these are very interesting. I saw a headline; didn’t have time to look into it. I may try to do a web search using those words; oh, the headline asked why are so many priests leaving the Catholic church?
I love you like a sister; if you are a girl, can’t tell by your name; like a brother if that fits. I am an 82 year old great grandmother on one & another on the way really soon.
“BFHU: I know this is true of you and most Protestants but the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura/Scripture alone. Your assertion of Sola Scriptura is merely a tradition of men.”
Forgot to include this.
Our “traditions of men” are founded on Biblical Scripture.
(Deu 4:2) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(Gal 1:6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
(Gal 1:7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
(Gal 1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
(Gal 1:9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
(Rev 22:19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
I do not add to the Bible, I do not take from the Bible. If I can’t show you in Scripture what I believe, then I have no right to teach it to you as Biblical fact. I do not preach, teach, treach, or think along lines different than what I find written in the Word of God. Is not His Word enough to show me how to live a holy & acceptable life for Him? You have said to others, “show me one Scripture that says doctrine has to be from the Bible.” I challenge you to show me one that says otherwise. Show me where the Bible says philosophy of men is sufficient and equal to God’s Word. Show me where it says our wisdom is enough to lead us to righteousness. If you can not show me in the Word of God, you have no proof. If we are going to just use what men make up, or what sounds good, or what we consider wise thoughts, we may as well toss the Bible aside and embrace Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Confucianism.
I for one believe the Word of God. I believe with every fiber of my being, Gen1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Deut6:4 “Hear oh Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD.” John 1:1 “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” John 14:3 “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” John 14:14 “If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” John 14:18 “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” 1Tim3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
I believe and trust:
Deut8:3 “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”
Mat4:4 “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
May your life be founded on the Word of God, and on the Rock for which there is no storm in life, or devil in hell that can prevail against.
Steve in SC
Steve,
Where in Scripture does it limit Religious Truth to only what can be found in scripture? Sola Scriptura is a Tradition of Men started by Martin Luther a mere 500 years ago. We do not subscribe to it nor to Protestant interpretations of scripture. Sorry.
We will stick to the Gospel as passed down to us for 2000 years both written and oral, as St. Paul exhorted the Thessalonians. The Faith, ancient yet ever young. So, while your arguments might impress you and orther Protestants they make no inroads on Catholic Faith.
(Jer 17:9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
If man’s heart will deceive him and is desperately wicked, why would you put your trust into the things that come from it rather than in the Word of God?
I will stick with what the Bible says. If you can offer anything at all in Scripture to support your belief & stance please post it or email it to me if you’d prefer.
Though I ask you a question and give my final thought about your system of beliefs and doctrine.
Why as a religion that claims Christianity do you sneer and look down your nose to people who believe and trust in the Word of God? I offered you nothing that was not founded in Scripture. Yet your responses are based upon things you claim the apostles believed, yet none of them spoke about it in the slightest degree and you could offer no Scripture to support. If it were based on, “it was just accepted”, then they would not have had to mention baptism ever again after Jesus mentioned it, because that seems like an accepted part of salvation. However, it is mentioned over & over to prove it’s importance. You offered philosophy, I offered Scripture. You say it impresses me and others that I can give a decent argument about it, I disagree, because the Word is what impresses. The Word is life changing. It is Truth, and in It are no flaws. If my beliefs, that I showed you were based on Scripture, are unacceptable to you because they disagree with what you want it to say, does that mean I am not “sticking to the Gospel.” If the Scripture does not bear witness to what you preach as a gospel or doctrine, then it is a man’s personal opinion and/or philosophy. Regardless if you accept that or not.
(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
If the “faith” that was passed down to you is not founded on the Word of God, but rather based on the philosophy of men that didn’t walk with Christ and did not agree completely with what Scripture teaches, you are inherently & willfully deceived by your own heart.
Agape love from my heart through Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior,
Steve in SC
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, & out of the holy city & from the things which are written in this book. Rev. 22:19
You asked why Jesus alone was called the son of Mary. Actually, the brothers were never referred to as the sons of Joseph either. Jesus was the star of the experience.
Joan B: It appears that the Bennett book is only available in print only. These days, I prefer to have it as an e-book so I will probably wait and search again at a later date. Actually, I’ve read many such stories and is keenly aware of the various reasons why people had left the Church (Protestants were becoming unchurched in droves too) in the past decades. It was a confused time, and I think that many people also conveniently forgot the discipline of obedience of faith by not allowing the “self” in all of us to decrease so “Christ must increase”.
I was just discussing with a Jehovah Witness. He couldn’t shake his “arianism” by pointing to an obscure passage where Christ was called the “first-born” of all creation (Col 1:15) which seems to suggest that Christ was also a creature being the firstborn of creation in time. Similarly, your insistence to interpret first-born in the absolutist biological sense can also result in a unorthodox view of the true nature of Christ. Solomon was not the first-born in time of all of David’s sons, yet he was named the firstborn (Ps. 89:27). Also, Isaac, Jacob and Ephraim received the blessing of the firstborn though they were not first-born in time.
“Actually, the brothers were never referred to as the sons of Joseph either.”
So maybe they were not the sons of Joseph either. With a bit of study, these “brothers” can be clearly identified in scripture as children of other parents. The point here is that they were distinctly not designated as “son of Mary”, and as you would also aptly point out … neither were they referred as being the sons of Joseph. Given the lack of a precise word for “brother” in either Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (NT), it will be a giant leap to construe it to mean a blood sibling only. [Abraham and Lot called each other “brother” although they were really uncle and nephew (Gen 13:8, 14:16)].
God has graced you with a long life with great grandchildren. Not bad at all for being obviously quite tech savvy too. Praise be His Name. I am a male, and not as much marvelously endowed with life wisdom yet. ;))
The Bible clearly says that the were the children of Joseph & Mary. Remember the time that Jesus was teaching a crowd of people & the people knew Him & were amazed at his knowledge. They said, “Isn’t His father a carpenter? Isn’t His mother called Mary & His brothers & sisters, Are they not with us?” That is just one of the mentions.
Why are people so eager for the Bible to not be telling it like it is that they will speculate on the possibility that info not even hinted at in the Bible may be what is meant?
Two different scriptures say that she was a virgin until after the baby was born. It boggles my mind to think that such a thing as a previous marriage & at least 6 kids by an earlier marriage would not even be hinted at anywhere in the whole book. It is easier to believe that it means exactly what it says.
“Isn’t His father a carpenter? Isn’t His mother called Mary & His brothers & sisters,”
Only Mary was called the mother of Christ. The bible never said that Mary was the mother of “the brothers and sisters.” To claim more is trying to “prove too much” and going “beyond what’s written.” The belief of the blood siblings of Christ is very novel (probably only about 100-200 years old). For almost 2000 years before that, all Christians believed that Christ was the only son of Mary. You are running against the whole tradition of Christianity, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches and all the apostolic Churches founded by the Apostles themselves. Even Martin Luther believed it. Modern American Protestantism is far removed from orthodoxy and the original Apostolic Faith. Please do a serious research on the topic.
I have ran across several articles that the Pope claims to be God & one quoted a pope that said that he could over rule Jesus. Do you have any ideas about that?
Let’s keep to facts. Give us a citation of the source so we can read it together for ourselves.
I will have to look them up. One was in the Catholic Enclycopedia. A specific one was named like volumn xx??? I have to dig thru the paper blizzard to find it. But you might just do a search of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I want to do it myself if I can find the time. I am getting behind in my emails. A lot of them are junk that I just delete but it sure can slow me down. I prefer serious discussions. A generic search of popes may lead you to it. I saw it quoted but haven’t been able to get to looking it up.
Dear Joan,
I can guarantee you that the Pope has NEVER claimed to be God. It was an accusation made by an anti-Catholic. Don’t forget who was a liar and accuser from the beginning……
I didn’t claim it; just wanted to know if you had heard such a thing.
Hi I typed in Amazon Books Far From Rome Near To God. I got a copy for #=$3.92 plus $3.99 postage. They had one for $10.26 that would be in better condition. The copy that I bought will be okay but maybe look a bit used.
I often buy from Alibris & it might pay to check there to see if they have a better deal. If you don’t mind buying via mail this is a good way to go.
Dear Joan,
I have not had time to read your many comments b/c I am preparing for a son’s wedding. Sorry. But here is the Catholic explanation of the brothers and sisters of Jesus as well as another perspective of, “virgin until” argument.
Who Were the Brothers & Sisters of Jesus?
Mary Was Only a Virgin UNTIL Jesus was Born.
The Bible clearly says that Mary is their mother. The Bible also in about the 3rd scripture from the end that if anyone adds to or takes from this book that they will be given all the plagues mentioned in the book & your name will (be removed? or Not be found in/ the Book of Life. You can web search it to get it straight.
It clearly says, in several different scriptures that Mary is their mother. I’m can’t accept anything but face value.
Please show me where it is said that Mary was the mother of the “brothers and sisters”? Just one time !!!!
Jesus was in the synagogue teaching & they were astonished they knew him & were astonished at his wisdom.
“He taught them in their synagogue & they were astonished, & they said, “Hence… (I’m going to make the language modern in a place or two;you can check me out to make sure I say what it says. Hence is not a word that we use anymore) I’ll start over:
“He taught them in their synagogue & they were astonished, & they said, “From where is this man’s wisdom, & the mighty works? “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother called AMary? & His bothers,James, Joses & Simon & Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then has this man (known) all these things? Matt 13:54, 56
It clearly says that His father is Joseph, His mother is Mary & his brothers & sisters are here too. It says his mother and father & brothers are all here. There is not a hint that it can mean anything else.
I could not manufacture cousins or step-children or any meaning except to take it at face value which is what we are supposed to do with the Bible.
Sorry, still naught about Mary being the mother of the “brothers and sisters.” (Hope you are not mad with me!).
Do you know how I can email to the sponsors of this blog? I would like to forward our debate to some of my friends & family. Thank you
Try this: /https://bfhu.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/2694/ will take them straight to this thread.
Thank you: My family is all Protestant except that one of my daughters married into the Catholic church. She sent her 2 sons to Catholic School in, or near Sausalito, California. Thank you. They are super busy so they may not get involved but they will find this to be very interesting.
This scripture names them as a family & there is nothing that says that Joseph is either. It has never spelled out Joseph as the father in any manner that they named Mary. Two scriptures say that they had sexual relations after the birth of the baby. That spells it out that Mary is the mother of them. To say that they are anything but the children of both you have to invent the relationship. The scriptures clearly name them as the parents.
I have seen some articles that say that the popes claim to be God & also that they say that they are Jesus in the flesh If that is so then Rev. 17 may be saying that the pope is the antichrist.
It seems that you haven’t really taken the time to read the discussion log about Perpetual Virginity. Please also read bfhu’s (Pam) recommended readings for you on March 20, 2014 at 8:09 pm.
I read it but I was ;not impressed because it is contrary to scripture. The 3rd from last verse in the Book of Revelation warns not to add or subtract from this book or we will be given the plagues mentioned in it.
Besides the 2 scriptures that I have quoted to you before that say they were not sexually intimate until the baby was born; that obviously means they were after the baby was born or there is no use to mention it.
When Joseph became espoused to Mary it is obvious that he was expecting to be getting a wife. He found out after he married her that she was pregnant & he was planning to divorce her quietly when the angel of the Lord told him in a dream that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
There are a lot of verses that say that her & Joseph are the parents of all of the kids.
I am only willing to accept the scripture at face value. There is no chance at all that there would be no mention of a previous marriage & children.
To take a story that identifies them as a family in several scriptures without mentioning a previous marriage or children is too much for me to accept.
There is too much evidence that Mary is the mother of all of the children for me to put something in the account that wasn’t even hinted at.
For me to buy the perpetual virgin I have to add something that clearly is not stated. And I am too much a believer in the threats to add to & take from the scriptures that I have been divinely given to do that even if I wanted. I don’t have any problem with Mary living true to the marriage.
In that book with bios of why 50 priests left the church, of the 5 excerpts from the book that I read; Priest # 3 was surprised, when he began to study, to learn that a lot of the things that the church was teaching are not in the Bible; but are contrary to what the Bible actually says. This must be one of them.
Dear Joan,
Regarding Rev. and taking away to or adding to ….
1) “prophecy of this book” does NOT refer to the whole Bible as we know it today b/c it DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME JOHN WROTE REVELATION. So it much more likely was merely referred to his book of Revelation, only.
2) This interpretation is further supported because everyone who uses this verse to bash Catholics is often ignorant of a similar verse in the 5th book of the OT:
By using the logic of excluding Oral Tradition with Rev. 22, Protestants, once they find out about Deut.12, should only adhere to the first five books of the OT and exclude all the rest of the Bible, if they were consistent, so that they would exclude any additions from the very first warning in Scripture.
But this would be silly because both the Rev and the Deut passages are merely referring to the books they are contained in.
Don’t add or take away from the commands in Deut.; don’t add to the Prophecy of Rev. Asserting that the Revelation passage refers to the whole Bible, just because Rev. is the last book of the NT cannot stand since it was written 400 years before the Bible was canonized.
Oral tradition doesn’t cut it. The Bible is the inspired work of God.
I go only by what it tells me.
There is not even a hint that Joseph was married before. He married Mary expecting to get a traditional wife. After he found out that she was pregnant he planned to divorce her quietly but a dream revealed that she was a virgin.
Also, if it was so important that she be pure all of her life then she should have been given a pure husband. God could surely magically produce a pure virgin for her to spend her life with.
If he wasn’t expecting to marry a wife who was going to be a wife, why would he plan to divorce her? What difference did it make?
The scriptures do not contain all the information that you are requesting because they were never meant to. As St. John says in 20 & 21 The world could not contain the books if everything were written. So he was only aiming to give info pertinent to salvation. And yet the Bible NEVER says that Scripture ALONE contains all the information . Jesus did not instruct the Apostles to write but to teach.
If it was important it would have been included. What it does say is very clear.
This is your opinion. It was not as important to communicate Mary & Joseph’s detailed biography as it was to give the Gospel of Life.
It is important if it is the truth. The fact that nothing is said is all the proof that I need.
Joan B: Your views are hardly sola scriptural but the injection of personal opinions which are diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the whole Christian Church for 2000 years. Isn’t it rather scandalous to Christ (and the world) how two Christians can draw such extreme opposing conclusions while both claiming to be guided by the Spirit of Truth? When did the corinthianized behaviors become a happy model for Christians? One simply cannot fully understand the Christian faith until one appreciates the Jewishness of Christianity and Christian bible by the beginning of an appreciation for its roots in ancient Jewish culture, language and customs from another place and another time. As for me, I choose to be obedient to an authority given by Christ to teach in His Name, a Church prophesized in Mt 16:18 and founded on Pentecost in Jerusalem, AD 33 and is still extant today.
I can see that we are not getting anywhere so we should just permit to agree to disagree here. We can discuss another topic if you want to share it. As far as the Bennett book is concerned, I will purchase it to keep my end of the deal to you. I doubt that there’s anything in it that is new. In the tumultous time of the 1960s-70’s, many Catholics incl. priest and nuns were simply very poorly catechized and formed in faith. The Church anticipated this period of great crisis of faith for the world in general, and had summoned the 21st Ecumenical Council in 1962. I’m a survivor, and is better for it because I never lost faith by allowing the Church to illumine and guide me with her ancient wisdom.
Blessing,
The scriptures clearly claim that she was a virgin until after the baby was born.
They also claim that Joseph was expecting to get a wife, who was going to be a wife, he found her with child & was going to quietly divorce her.
It is incredible that no previous marriage, or children by Joseph would not even have been hinted at. Several scriptures call them a family & not one says different. I am not willing to accept speculation as a fact.
We are not going to agree on this one for sure. You have to invent any claims that the scriptures don’t make.
This will be my last response on this topic. Please excuse me if I’ll be a bit blunt:
“The scriptures clearly claim that she was a virgin until after the baby was born.”
The problem is not that NO, it doesn’t. You failed to understand the Jewish nuances. We are talking about cross-cultural and linquistic traditions, never mind the vast separation in time and place. Even in just one single language of English, to say “gay” used to mean “happy” but means homosexuality almost exclusively in modern usage. “To pray” used to be just an act of petitioning (“Pray your honor, Judge”) instead of the novel interpretation of it as “worship” exclusively by modern Protestants. If you have learned anything at all, it’s to NOT absolutize the meaning of an English word when you don’t really understand the original intent and usage of the language of the bible and its writers.
“They also claim that Joseph was expecting to get a wife, who was going to be a wife, he found her with child & was going to quietly divorce her.”
Emphasis of Mt 1:25 is the miraculous conception of Christ, not the maritial relationship between Joseph and Mary before and after the birth of Christ. The “until” is at best, a vague and very inadequate translation of ancient Jewish usage. Remember, KJB is just a very fallible translation so put all your faith in it. Why don’t you compare and utilize more recent translations with better scholarship? You will find that the context of “until” is expressed very differently than KJB. You may even consider using a Catholic bible (NAB, RSV-CE, Douay Rheim, New Jersusalem Bible (JB) since the Christian bible is the family book of the Catholic Church. Protestants are just borrowing it without knowing where and how it came about. While at it, you may want to find out the Jewish tradition of being one consecrated to God whether in single or married state. Mary was consecrated to God as a perpetual virgin but you will never know it if you are so focused on text proofing as a Protestant hobby.
“It is incredible that no previous marriage, or children by Joseph would not even have been hinted at.”
Maybe it’s because everything is so focused on Christ and salvation. Christ “is”, but the bible “is not” the only (alone) source of Christian faith and truths (See 2 Tess 2:15). The heresy of “bible alone” was an invention in the 16th century and its bad fruits are the division of Christianity with resultant individualistic Christians who are forever rebellious to authority. Instead of being saved by grace through faith [by work of love … not by faith alone … for faith apart from works is dead … but faith working through love” (Rom 3:28, Jas 2:24, 26, Gal 5:6)], Martin Luther inserted (yes, blatantly added) the word ALONE (“allein”) after the word “faith” in Rom 3:28 (“So halten wir nun dafur, da_ der Mensch gerecht wird ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben”) to justify his new doctrine of Sola Fide. The heresy of “eternal security OSOA” is the step child. What about St. Paul’s warning of having to work out our salvation “with trembling and fear” (Phil 2:12) and the perseverance to cross the finish line (2 Tim 4:7, Heb 12:1)? What about his unwavering exhortation to the Christians in Galatia of the necessity to walk by the Spirit: “(because) immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like … shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:19-21). Likewise to the Christians in Corinth: “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10)? We need to know history, history.
Yes, but no one is also insisting that every Christian has to believe about the cousin or step-children theories (It is not a doctrine). But It will very wrong to absolutize your personal opinion that Mary had other kids when the bible is silent on it and your view is at odd with 2000 years of Christianity. What make you the authority? Remember Mt 18:17 about the conduct of Christians in the Church? The bible in the NT was VERY intolerant about factious and disorderly “corinthianized” behaviors. These Corinthian Christians were so carnal that the elders of the Corinth church again had to petition the Church of Rome for intervention by Pope Clement I to settle more seditious and factional struggles there around AD 90.
It will be wise to follow the example of St. Paul who sent to see Cephas (Peter) to make sure that what he’s preaching is in line with the universal Church “lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain” (Gal 2:1-2). If you really want to educate yourself on the Sacred Tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, I dare you to read the “Proto-evangelium of James” (AD 125) or the treatise called “On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary” by St. Jerome (AD 380). St. Jerome (who translated the bible into the vernacular Latin) rebuked the heretic Helvidius for challenging the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity by calling it “novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world” with scriptural arguments and the witness of early Christians like Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. Don’t you think that the first Christians who walked and talked with Christ, Mary and Joseph and the Apostles might have a better perspective on the Holy Family than someone from the 21st century who is very disconnect from Mother Church for the last 500 years? Can you even imagine a period of 500 years in the desert? The republic of America was not even born yet. One should not be too surprise if there is a disconnect with family history and heritage.
You can have the last say and I won’t reply to it.
God bless and keep you, Joan!
Dear Joan,
Yes, the Scripture does say she was a virgin until she gave birth. But the Scripture nowhere tells us that Mary and Joseph had other children. That is your interpretation. It is not wrong but there is an alternate interpretation. We must go outside of Scripture to determine which of these two legitimate interpretations is the Truth. They cannot both be accurate. Historically, all Christians believed Mary had no other children. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin. So, as Frances says it is American Protestantism that has made the claim that Mary and Joseph had other children.
It is not as if they could not have had a normal marriage after Jesus was born and had children. But the historical fact is that she did not. So, we are only upholding what is True. Shall we tell lies to appease our Protestant Brothers and sisters?
She wrapped her 1st born in swaddling clothes. This was written by the disciples long after Christ was born. A 1st born is followed by more born. Other wise she would have wrapped her baby in swaddling clothes. Saying that they did not have intimate relations until the baby was born means to the ones in my orbit that they did afterward. Otherwise there would have been no need to mention it at all.
It pointed out that they did not have intimate relations while the baby was in the womb.
There is not a hint that Joseph had been married before nor that he had children from a previous marriage. This is too big of a story to not have been reported. You have to pull any other interpretation out of thin air.
Dear Joan,
Your adherence to Sola Scriptura is a Tradition of men begun by Martin Luther…
Sola Scriptura: A tradition of Men
Sola Scriptura: A Tradition of Men 2
Sola Scriptura: A Tradition of Men 3
It is a gift from God. When we have to invent things that contradict with the scripture we are desperate. I do believe that you are a great person who wants to do what is right. But tradition or no tradition, the Bible doesn’t lie.
You have to really want those kids to be step children to want me to see contrary what the book says. The Bible clearly says that the children belong to Mary & Joseph. No where does it even hint that they belong only to Joseph.
Accepting tradition would be calling the current scriptures liars & that I can’t do.
Dear Joan,
Sacred Tradition is merely the Teaching of the Apostles that did not get written into the NT. It is even mentioned in Scripture.
Word of mouth-Oral
Letter-written
Your are right. The Bible doesn’t lie. But, nothing is Scripture forbids Sacred Tradition and it certainly is not the same as “calling the current Scriptures liars”. Why do you even think this? The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and nothing we teach may contradict it.
All Scripture MUST be interpreted, however. What we are dealing with is a difference of interpretation. No one is lying. But we know who is a liar from the beginning….the Father of lies. Why do you think there are thousands of different Protestant denominations?
Are they all lying except the one who got it right? No. They are all sincerely teaching their INTERPRETATION Scriptures.
What the Catholic Church teaches does not contradict actual Scripture anywhere. It does however, contradict Protestant interpretation of Scripture. Joan, Do you think you can interpret Scripture infallibly?
When tradition is contrary to the scriptures I choose the scriptures.
2 different scriptures say that Mary & Joseph did not have sexual relations until after the baby was born.
Jesus called Mary woman because she is the mother of Jesus & not of God. He is both God & man but He always called his mother “woman.”
I will have to seek the source but it is said that Jesus asked His disciple to take care of Mary because the brothers were not yet believers. I have never bothered to look that up.
A previous marriage & children is mighty big news. It is incredible that it wouldn’t even be hinted at.
Also if Mary was so sacred that she could not have other children of her own it doesn’t make sense to me that she would be given a husband that did.
There is a scripture that says to not be unequally yoked. It sure makes sense if having other children would pollute her the to have a polluted husband is what she got. It doesn’t compute.
Joan: When tradition is contrary to the scriptures I choose the scriptures.
BFHU: We both choose Scripture. Whether you realize it or not, you are, in addition to choosing Scripture, choosing your interpretation or an interpretation of Scripture you have been taught. I am choosing the interpretation that has been held for 2000 years. It is also the interpretation of the Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus Christ Himself, upon Peter and the Apostles. Our Apostolic Teaching (or SACRED TRADITION) is not contrary to Scripture at any point.
Joan:2 different scriptures say that Mary & Joseph did not have sexual relations until after the baby was born.
BFHU:There is no scripture that says Mary was a virgin until AFTER the baby was born. You have just broken the rule about not adding to Scripture. The way you interpret this is not wrong but there is Biblical precedence for interpreting until as follows:
Joan:Jesus called Mary woman because she is the mother of Jesus & not of God. He is both God & man but He always called his mother “woman.”
BFHU: Jesus is God as you say. But, He is also fully man. Mary gave birth to Jesus. She did not give birth only to a human person. Jesus was God/Man; fully both at the same time. Since Jesus was God Mary is the mother of God. Not because she created God or preexisted Jesus but b/c she was His mother.
Jesus addresses Mary as woman, not our of disrespect since that would be a sin against honoring father and mother, but because he was highlighting her role as the Second Eve. Whereas the 1st Eve sinned the 2nd Eve (Mary) was sinless.
Joan:I will have to seek the source but it is said that Jesus asked His disciple to take care of Mary because the brothers were not yet believers. I have never bothered to look that up.
BFHU: That is a very common Protestant INTERPRETATION in a futile attempt to rebut the Catholic contention that Jesus disrespected his siblings by giving His mother to St. John; but you will not find that explanation anywhere in Scripture.
Joan:A previous marriage & children is mighty big news. It is incredible that it wouldn’t even be hinted at.
BFHU: The Catholic Church is not dogmatic that Joseph had other children. This explanation is the earliest commentary on the brothers of Jesus. But in the 4th century St. Jerome pointed out that the word brother could denote a sibling or other close relationship. As it still does today in English. We use “brothers and sister” all the time and do not mean literal siblings.
Joan:Also if Mary was so sacred that she could not have other children of her own it doesn’t make sense to me that she would be given a husband that did.
BFHU: Mary could have chosen to have children. But, Mary took a vow of virginity. Joseph was betrothed to her as a brother/husband to be her protector. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit who conceived in her Jesus. If you were Joseph would you enter in to the place where God the Holy Spirit entered? Where God the Son dwelt for 9 months?
Joan:There is a scripture that says to not be unequally yoked. It sure makes sense if having other children would pollute her the to have a polluted husband is what she got. It doesn’t compute.
BFHU: Yes, Joseph was not sinless. But he was a godly man. Mary was a Godly woman and both were devout Jews.But, I have never heard the admonition “not to be unequally yoked” to refer to the level of sinfulness. If every husband and wife had to be equal in sin and holiness there wouldn’t be too many marriages. Beside how would this even be determined?
The word stepchildren is not mentioned or hinted at.The scriptures clearly say that the son of the carpenter, & Mary & His brothers& his sisters are with us. Everyone recognized them as a family. I ordered the book about why 50 priests left the church. There were excerptsof 5. Excerpt of #3 said that he was surprised at how many things the Catholicchurch taught that were “not” in the Bible, but were actually contrary to theBible.I have read the scriptures & I am not going to stretch what they say to meansomething that I would rather that they have said.
On “Far from Rome” … edited by ex-priest, Richard Bennett:
Here’s a review from someone identified as a “Baptist with some Catholic beliefs” from 2011:
“I’ve read quite a bit of Richard Bennett’s stuff. It’s a sad story. He struggled with alcoholism. He struggled with doubts. He struggled with authority. I’m not a mental health professional but I would say he also suffered from depression. In my opinion he was not called to be a priest, but just sort of stumbled into it. Then it appears that his training was lacking in a lot of things. Not someone who is very convincing, but I suppose someone who has a lot of the problems he has had could identify with him.”
Tearing Richard Bennett down will not help. His bio is in the book along with “FORTY NINE” others. Not only that but I have been told that a search would expose a lot more of them.
Personally, I don’t have a lot of problems. When I get a problem I go to God in Jesus name & He takes care of it. A lot of prayers get instant answers & some take a long time, but in God’s time each one is answered so I feel well cared for & every day I am thanking God a lot for the wonderful loving care that He is giving to me.
You need to take an honest look. Truth is not what we wan it to be; it is what God says it is. The priests recognized that they were misleading a lot of people. They repented & God forgave them & they got that peace that one who walk with God have.
If you keep this up, especially as well as you can quote the scriptures that oppose what you say & you refuse to accept them because you want them to mean something else; this is very serious.
Joan B: You cannot be too one-sidedly opinionated. For every ex-priest Bennett who left the Church with an axe to grind, there are also a manifold of converts into Catholicism from the best and brightest of Protestantism in the past decades, who unlike the Bennett’s … only have goodwill and kind words for their earlier formation and spirituality as Protestants, but now felt the call of obedience into Christ’s Church which offers the fullness of the truth. In the journey to Catholicism, many have paid a very high price in term of career, earning a livelihood, reputation, the shunning of family members and friends, etc. Yesterday, my heart stopped as I listened to a pastor-convert from the Church of Christ giving his testimony of the painful experience of losing his wife and children in the process of conversion. If this is not for the pure love of God, I don’t know anymore …
Dear Joan,
I have unapproved your last comment. You posted nothing but slander without any link to provide support for the assertions.We hope to have a conversation here by asking and answering questions and explaining our perspectives. So it might be better to have a conversation about one assertion at a time.