Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?
- Thread starter melody5697
- Start date
- Status
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I did not know we were having a race??????
I thought we were engaged in a theological debate. I would hate to know that I was winning a race where the stakes are eternal life. That means there is a winner and a loser. I will instead believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and accept His gift of grace so that what He did will pay for my sins and I do not have to run a race at all.
By the way......I agree with you on the Ark thing. It is not only a stretch but an impossibility.
Matthew 1:25 come down to CHOICES doesn't it.
Isn't it just like Acts 1:14?
"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
You either believe what the Scripture says in that Had BROTHERS, or those men mentioned here as replacements for Judas were His cousins which has been over the years the teaching of the Catholic church for one reason only......to propagate their belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Then you must ask yourself WHY Luke would use the WORDS BROTHER when the Greek language has the words for COUSIN and that word is actually used elsewhere in the Bible to describe actual "COUSINS".
At some point in our lives, we all must think for ourselves and ask the Holy Spirit to teach us the truth.
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You said..............
"Perhaps you could show us where in the Bible it says that Mary gave birth to children other than Jesus."
Certainly I can but what is the point my friend. You do not seem able to grasp the Scriptures when presented to you.
Matthew 1:25.............
"that Joseph "had no sexual union with her UNTILL she gave birth to a son Jesus".
That is universally understood to mean that after Jesus was born she no longer remained a virgin, and had normal sexual relations with her husband Joseph.
Acts 1:4...............
"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
You must choose to believe that the word BROTHERS here means cousins and there is NO validity in Scripture to warrant that teaching. There is Catholic dogma but NO Scriptures.
Matt. 12:46.........
"While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
Then you said............
"No. That isn't what "the Protestant churches" do. That may be what your Protestant church does, but it's quite false that this is some universal Protestant belief. This is not the position of the Reformers or of the historic churches of the Reformation."
You are incorrect my friend. Some men in fact said Mary was a perpetual virgin such as Luther and Calvin but they did not represent the totality of the Protestant church. Do you have any idea where the teaching of perpetual virginity came from?
The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from a dubious apocryphal book written well after the New Testament. The book is called the Infancy Gospel of James, The Protoevangelium of James, or sometimes simply Protoevangelium, and it is estimated to have been written in the middle part of the second century.
The Protoevangelium of James is a forgery trying to capitalize on an apostle. James, the half-brother of Jesus, was elevated to an apostle after he saw the resurrected Savior. So some people thought using his name would give some much needed credibility to the book. However, the church rightly recognized this book was not from the Apostle James. The early church father Origen wrote a commentary on Matthew in which he rejected The Protoevangelium of James as spurious and affirmed Mary had other children.
Please do the work and look all of this information up and prove it to yourself.
Upvote
0
kepha31
Regular Member
Any version that pops up when I do a search, but I prefer the RSVCE, it's the work of both Protestant and Catholic scholars.
Since you like to take one word out of context to support an unbiblical agenda, how about you take words like "brought", or "called" or "name" and analyse each individual word to death. Those words are all from the same verse but you make no mention of them. THAT IS NOT HOW TO READ SCRIPTURE. Do you really think that one word in any one verse is going to give you clarity of meaning?
That's not the Holy Spirit revealing a falsehood you.
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
It doesn't say "knew her", it says "knew her not".
Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future.
Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")
1. In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, "How shall this be since I know not man?" This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.
When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already "espoused," according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to "divorce her quietly" (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.
The Case for Mary's Perpetual Virginity | Catholic Answers
Upvote
0
kepha31
Regular Member
Now, I don't want to rehash the old arguments about whether these are Jesus cousins--Matthew himself tells you they are the sons of "the other Mary," not the Virgin Mary, a woman who was at the foot of the cross (Matt 27:56-61) and who in John is identified as the "sister" (GK adelphes) of the Virgin Mary (John 19:25). Instead, I want to focus on a more fundamental objection to the perpetual virgininty of Mary: namely, the plausibility of a married Jewish woman remaining a virgin in the first place. As one of my students put it so eloquently last week: "You don't expect me to believe that they were married and didn't have sex??" Well, yeah, that is what the Church expects you to believe; that is what Christians have believed for almost two thousand years... But is there any historical basis for this, apart from the later practice of Christian "spiritual marriages"?
I was reading the book of Numbers, and found an entire chapter I had never noticed before, regarding vows taken by women. What is fascinating about the passage is that, according to some commentators, it appears to specifically be concerned with vows of sexual abstinence taken by married women. Although this text is universally neglected in discussions of Mary's virginity, consider it closely. (I know it's long, but read it carefully, and then I'll break it down.) The question is: What kind of vows are in view? The answer is given at the end:..
Numbers 30:3-5 Vows Taken by A Young Woman in Her Father's House
Numbers 30: 6-8 Vows Taken by a Married Woman
Numbers 30: 9-12 Vows Taken by a Widow or Divorced Woman
Context: Vows to "Afflict Herself"
[13] Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void. [14] But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. [15] But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity."
All right: so what does all of this mean? The key is in the final section; the chapter is concerned with a woman's vows to "afflict herself," which, as the great Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom points out, was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. Similar terminology is used in descriptions of the Day of Atonement, when Jews were expected to fast and refrain from sexual intercourse (see Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15). .............. It is discussing three kinds of vows:
1. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
2. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
3. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.
In all three cases, the binding nature of the vow is dependant on whether the male party (whether father or husband), upon hearing of the vow, said nothing and in thereby consented to it. In each case, if he heard the vow and accepted it, the vow is perpetually binding.
Now, what this means is that if a young Jewish woman--say, Mary, in this instance--took a vow of sexual abstinence, and her legal husband--in our case, Joseph--heard of the vow and said nothing, then the vow stands, and she is bound to keep it. This provides a solid historical basis for Joseph and Mary having a perpetually virginal marriage: indeed, Numbers is very explicit in the final verse that if the husband changes his mind "and makes them null and void after he has heard of them," the the sin will be upon him: "he shall bear her iniquity" (Num 30:15). One can easily imagine a situation where some husbands would think better of deciding to accept such a vow! But as Matthew's Gospel tells us:. If Mary took a vow of sexual abstinence--and her words "How can this be, since I know not man?" in Luke are evidence that she did (Luke 1:34)--and if Joseph accepted this vow at the time of their wedding, then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin.
However implausible it may sound to a sex-saturated Western culture that a man would ever do such a thing, the fact of the matter is that the Old Testament appears to assume it as a real possibility. Indeed, the fact that an entire chapter of the Bible is devoted to it appears to suggest that vows of sexual abstinence on the part of women must have been a visible enough part of the culture that a law was necessary to deal with the situation! (This should come as no surprise to students of antiquity; consecrated virgins were part of the religious landscape of the ancient world). Should there be any doubt about this, I would suggest in passing that the reader call to mind the controversy that faced Pauline churches about young widows renegging on their vows of sexual abstinence (1 Timothy 4) and the otherwise difficult and confusing passage in 1 Corinthians about what a man should do about marrying his "virgin" (1 Cor 7:36-38). If both these texts apply to the situation envisaged in Numbers 30, then Mary's situation is anything but unique in culture.
I was reading the book of Numbers, and found an entire chapter I had never noticed before, regarding vows taken by women. What is fascinating about the passage is that, according to some commentators, it appears to specifically be concerned with vows of sexual abstinence taken by married women. Although this text is universally neglected in discussions of Mary's virginity, consider it closely. (I know it's long, but read it carefully, and then I'll break it down.) The question is: What kind of vows are in view? The answer is given at the end:..
Numbers 30:3-5 Vows Taken by A Young Woman in Her Father's House
Numbers 30: 6-8 Vows Taken by a Married Woman
Numbers 30: 9-12 Vows Taken by a Widow or Divorced Woman
Context: Vows to "Afflict Herself"
[13] Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void. [14] But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. [15] But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity."
All right: so what does all of this mean? The key is in the final section; the chapter is concerned with a woman's vows to "afflict herself," which, as the great Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom points out, was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. Similar terminology is used in descriptions of the Day of Atonement, when Jews were expected to fast and refrain from sexual intercourse (see Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15). .............. It is discussing three kinds of vows:
1. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
2. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
3. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.
In all three cases, the binding nature of the vow is dependant on whether the male party (whether father or husband), upon hearing of the vow, said nothing and in thereby consented to it. In each case, if he heard the vow and accepted it, the vow is perpetually binding.
Now, what this means is that if a young Jewish woman--say, Mary, in this instance--took a vow of sexual abstinence, and her legal husband--in our case, Joseph--heard of the vow and said nothing, then the vow stands, and she is bound to keep it. This provides a solid historical basis for Joseph and Mary having a perpetually virginal marriage: indeed, Numbers is very explicit in the final verse that if the husband changes his mind "and makes them null and void after he has heard of them," the the sin will be upon him: "he shall bear her iniquity" (Num 30:15). One can easily imagine a situation where some husbands would think better of deciding to accept such a vow! But as Matthew's Gospel tells us:. If Mary took a vow of sexual abstinence--and her words "How can this be, since I know not man?" in Luke are evidence that she did (Luke 1:34)--and if Joseph accepted this vow at the time of their wedding, then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin.
However implausible it may sound to a sex-saturated Western culture that a man would ever do such a thing, the fact of the matter is that the Old Testament appears to assume it as a real possibility. Indeed, the fact that an entire chapter of the Bible is devoted to it appears to suggest that vows of sexual abstinence on the part of women must have been a visible enough part of the culture that a law was necessary to deal with the situation! (This should come as no surprise to students of antiquity; consecrated virgins were part of the religious landscape of the ancient world). Should there be any doubt about this, I would suggest in passing that the reader call to mind the controversy that faced Pauline churches about young widows renegging on their vows of sexual abstinence (1 Timothy 4) and the otherwise difficult and confusing passage in 1 Corinthians about what a man should do about marrying his "virgin" (1 Cor 7:36-38). If both these texts apply to the situation envisaged in Numbers 30, then Mary's situation is anything but unique in culture.
Upvote
0
Evan Briggs
Active Member
Please understand that I ask and challenge this doctrine in love and that I love you kepha31.
Respectfully, I challenge you to provide me scriptures where it says that Mary stayed a virgin.
Please understand that I only find scripture that implies that Mary had other children and did not stay a virgin.
Also, that the term "knew" in scripture ALSO means to have sexual relations. See below:
“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.”
Genesis 4:1 KJV
“And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”
Genesis 4:17 KJV
I understand that you say that you use what ever version you see when you are doing research online. I only read the KJV but sometimes will compare verses with other versions.
I would like to point out other versions of the Bible with Matthew 1:25 and Gen. 4:1 and Gen. 4:17
“But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.”
Matthew 1:25 NLT
“but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”
Matthew 1:25 NASB
“But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”
Matthew 1:25 NIV
-----------------------------------------
“Now Adam had sexual relations with his wife, Eve, and she became pregnant. When she gave birth to Cain, she said, “With the Lord’s help, I have produced a man!””
Genesis 4:1 NLT
“Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."”
Genesis 4:1 NASB
“Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.””
Genesis 4:1 NIV
---------------------------------------
“Cain had sexual relations with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Then Cain founded a city, which he named Enoch, after his son.”
Genesis 4:17 NLT
“Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.”
Genesis 4:17 NASB
“Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.”
Genesis 4:17 NIV
I myself I know will not be the one to reveal this truth to you. The only person that can is the Holy Spirit. I humbly ask you to ask the Lord to reveal to you if the Catholic teaching behind this is true or not.
May God bless you!
Upvote
0
kepha31
Regular Member
I would have to quote half the Bible. There is no explicit verse that says Mary remained a virgin, and there is no explicit verse that says the Bible is the sole rule of faith, so you impose a double standard. God made Mary holy to bear the Messiah, and whatever God makes holy, STAYS HOLY.
Lots of people think that. Funny how not one early reformer taught this stuff. Maybe you could name one.
So what. None of this applies to Mary. "knew her not" does not mean "knew her later". The Greek hous doesn't allow it. I'm surprised you would wave a single word "knew" around like a flag but ignore the Greek meaning of "until". Doesn't it fit your preconceptions?
I have already refuted the "until" argument in post #1145 as well as here. The Greek for "until" is heos. It always references the past, never the future. I find it very annoying when someone repeats the same argument while ignoring previous replies. Isolating "knew" proves nothing. I don't accept the NIV and neither do a lot of Protestants.
-----------------------------------------
These verses have nothing to do with Mary.
Catholic teaching is true, we have God's promises that they can't be anything else.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
PeaceB
Well-Known Member
- Apr 20, 2017
- 1,592
- 662
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
Earlier you stated that the doctrine comes from the Infancy Gospel of James, which teaches that the brothers are children of St. Joseph from a prior marriage.
So even if one takes the narrower view of the Greek word, for the sake of argument, that still would not prove your point.
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,428
- 26,869
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
No, no it is not universally understood to mean that.
The earliest tradition is that these are the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. Step brothers, not cousins.
1) Your argument insists that the Protoevangelium is the source, that needs to be substantiated.
2) It is just as likely that the Protoevangelium merely reflects an already established tradition.
3) The validity of the Protoevangelium is irrelevant.
4) No one claims the Protoevangelium is authoritative.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
kepha31
Regular Member
The Protoevangelium is not to be classed with the Gnostic writings of old, which were products of heretical groups, claiming secret knowledge. We cannot elevate this work to the level of Sacred Scripture, as it has no guarantee of inerrancy. This early work reflects at least some ancient traditions, held by at least some substantial part of the early Church.
EWTN.com - protoevangelium of James
The Protoevangelium is not official Church teaching, but that is no reason the throw it out the window. It's still a significant historical document.
Copyists would often sign their work with the name of the original author as a gesture of honor, not as a sleazy deceptive forgery.
EWTN.com - protoevangelium of James
The Protoevangelium is not official Church teaching, but that is no reason the throw it out the window. It's still a significant historical document.
Copyists would often sign their work with the name of the original author as a gesture of honor, not as a sleazy deceptive forgery.
Upvote
0
kepha31
Regular Member
Zephaniah 3:14-20
Daughter of Zion is the personification of the city of Jerusalem. Zion was the name of the Jebusite citadel that later became the City of David. In the many texts of the Old Testament that speak of the Daughter of Zion, there is no real distinction to be made between a daughter of Zion and the city of Jerusalem itself.
In the Old Testament, the title Virgin of Israel is the same as the Daughter of Zion. The image of the bride of the Lord is found in Hosea, Chapters 1-3: It reflects the infidelity of the people to their God.
Jeremiah 3:3-4 speaks of prostitution and the infidelity of the bride. Virginity in the Old Testament is fidelity to the Covenant. In 2 Corinthians 11:2, Paul speaks of the Church as a pure virgin. Here, virginity is the purity of faith.
Throughout the Old Testament, it is in Zion-Jerusalem that God shall gather together all of his people. In Isaiah 35:10, the tribes of Israel shall gather in Zion. In Ezekiel 22:17-22, the prophet describes God’s purification of his people that shall take place “within” the walls of the city, in the midst of Jerusalem.
The Hebrew word used to describe this inner section of the city is “beqervah,” a word formed from the root “qerev” meaning something deep, intimate, situated deep within a person. It also means the maternal womb, the intestines, the breast, the insides of a person, the most secret area of one’s soul where wisdom, spirit, malice and the Law of the Lord dwell. Therefore, the city of Jerusalem has a definite maternal function in the history of salvation.
The Second Vatican Council formally called Mary “Daughter of Zion” in the dogmatic constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium” (No. 52). The Church’s appropriation of this title for the Mother of the Lord has a rich Scriptural foundation. Mary illustrates the prophecies of the Old Testament that ascribed value to the eschatological role of woman as mother both of the Messiah and of the new people of God.
The title Daughter of Zion evokes the great biblical symbolism of the Messianic Zion. Mary illustrates the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures which ascribed value to the eschatological role of woman as mother both of the Messiah and of the new people of God: the individual person and the whole people being very closely united, in line with the cultural structures of Israel.
For the prophets, the Daughter of Zion was the spouse of the Lord when she observed the covenant. Mary’s role as Daughter of Zion, or for that matter any of her roles in the life of God’s people, can never be understood independently of Christ and of the Spirit, which he bestows upon all humanity in dying on the cross.
Mary, Daughter of Zion, is the archetype of the Church as Bride, Virgin and Mother. It is not only biological virginity, but also spiritual virginity, which means fidelity to the
Scriptures, openness toward others, and purity in faith.
Mary’s words to the servants at the wedding banquet in Cana (John 2:1-12) are an invitation to all peoples to become part of the new people of God. Mary is the new “Daughter of Zion” because she has invited the servants to perfectly obey Jesus the Lord. At Cana this new Daughter of Zion has given voice to all people.
Both at Cana and at Calvary (in John’s Gospel), Mary represents not only her maternity and physical relationship with her son, but also her highly symbolic role of Woman and Mother of God’s people. At Calvary, more than any other place in the fourth Gospel, Mary is “Mother Zion”: her spiritual maternity begins at the foot of the cross.
As “Mother Zion,” she not only welcomes and represents Israel, but the Church, the People of God of the New Covenant. At the foot of the cross, Mary is the mother of the new messianic people, of all of those who are one in Christ.
She who bore Jesus in her womb now takes her place in the assembly of God’s holy people. She is the new Jerusalem: In her own womb was the Temple, and all peoples shall be gathered back to the Temple, which is her Son. The Mother of Jesus is indeed the Mother of all of God’s scattered children. She is Mother of the Church. Mary is the first Daughter of Zion, leading all of God’s people on the journey toward the Kingdom.
Shout for Joy, O Daughter Zion! – ZENIT – English
Upvote
0
Evan Briggs
Active Member
Upvote
0
- Nov 28, 2003
- 21,563
- 12,110
- 58
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm quite sure I've made it clear to you before that I am not Catholic.
You add to those words by saying Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary after Jesus was born. Matthew is only telling his readers that Jesus was not born of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary. The "until" simply determines the time period he is referring to. It does not require a change of condition after as you wish to insist.
Now you resort to proof texting out of context. Numbers 30 clearly shows the possibility of celibate marriages, not to mention the number of times in Scripture where families have only one child, or others who could not have any children.
LOL, what more godly offspring could there be than God the Son.
Mary had already produced the greatest fruit possible.
I don’t know why you set up this straw man. No one has ever suggested it meant otherwise.
Catholics don't have a monopoly on this. It was the only teaching until some people decided they were smarter than everyone before them.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
kepha31
Regular Member
You are following a man made tradition that was invented in the 19th century. Mary having other children is not in Scripture. I'm still waiting for the name of an early reformer that taught differently. For Mary, a true Temple, to share her womb with anyone other than the Messiah, diminishes the uniqueness of the incarnation. That is why, IMO, it is a doctrine of demons.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
