Mary

[JeffreyLloyd]

John Calvin is good too NYJ.

The point we are making is that the entire Christian Church (Catholic and Orthodox) believed this without question for 1500+ years.

And even the "great" Protestant Reformers did as well. It wasn't until after their death this crazy idea about the Mary's virginity take place.

 

[nyj]

Or Huldreich Zwingli, who in 1524 issued a sermon entitled "'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God".

 

[Oblio]

So... where, when, and most importantly why did this faith of our Fathers and the Apostles get distorted, diluted and finally denied ?

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

So the children after Christ were then adopted??......

 

[nyj]

And even the "great" Protestant Reformers did as well. It wasn't until after their death this crazy idea about the Mary's virginity take place.

Yep, the quote from Calvin is good, but the quote from Ezekiel is even better:

Ezekiel 44:2
And the LORD said to me, "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut."

 

[nyj]

So the children after Christ were then adopted??......

They could have been cousins (adelphos translates to kin). They could have been children of Joseph's.

 

[Oblio]

So the children after Christ were then adopted??......

We know from historical records that they were older, and the Church records that they were children of Joseph who was much older than Mary and was entrusted with her care.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

..I dont see how Protestants ignore Mary. It is wise to say that if you dont agree with Catholic thought, ignorance is present? I dont think so...

I remember as a Protestant teaching a class on woman of the Bible to our Youth Group... Mary was not one of the woman in our book.

We talked about Mary around Christmas and that was it. I've been told I wasn't alone that this is how a lot of Protestant chruches are.

If any Protestant wants to have their mind blown read Scott Hahn's "Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God, in the Word of God."

I believe you cannot read this book and not look at Mary in a whole new way. Even after I became Catholic I still never prayed the Rosary or had a very strong devotion to Our Lady, until I read Dr. Hahn's book.

It's worth every cent.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Yep, the quote from Calvin is good, but the quote from Ezekiel is even better:

Ezekiel 44:2
And the LORD said to me, "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut."

Awesome scripture Tom. Here's 10,000 blessings!

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

They could have been cousins (adelphos translates to kin). They could have been children of Joseph's.

Here's some scripture on it::

Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

scripturecatholic.com

 

[KennySe]

So... where, when, and most importantly why did this faith of our Fathers and the Apostles get distorted, diluted and finally denied ?

THAT is a very deep and truly profound question, Oblio.

It is the very HEART of the matter. WHY?

Why would someone diminish Mary's part of God's plan for our salvation?
(Yes, dear reader, Mary is a part of God's Plan.)

When we answer "why", we can then answer "who".

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

Interesting conversation.

I think the question is IF...not why....

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

We know from historical records that they were older, and the Church records that they were children of Joseph who was much older than Mary and was entrusted with her care.

Who's records, what Church and at what timeframe was this info started?

A catholic record would indeed be biased as there would be much to loose if the actual records showed the timing to settle well with Mary having Children. Im not sure I would trust the catholic recording.

Is there any outside source?

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

Also, what suggests Joseph w/another wife?

 

[Oblio]

Who's records, what Church and at what timeframe was this info started?

A catholic record would indeed be biased as there would be much to loose if the actual records showed the timing to settle well with Mary having Children. Im not sure I would trust the catholic recording.

Is there any outside source?

History does not start, it happens and is recorded.

For 1000 years there was one Church, so to ask what Church makes no sense, she is simply the Church.

Outside source ? Outside of what ? You trust the Church to give you the Holy Scriptures that you revere as the inspired word of God, but not to record the history of her most Holy members; the Saints and most especially the Theotokos ?

What were there be to lose ? Why would the Church have made up these 'tales' that were not true ? Why did the Apostolic Fathers and the Apostles themselves believe this to be true and incorporate this history in the ancient Christian Liturgies and hymns ? Did they somehow know that modern day Protestants would protest her Ever Virginity and prophetically make her into something she was not ? You are starting with what you think is true (or have been taught) and working backwards trying to make history fit your view, saying in effect that since the Church did not believe what my church believes, they must have forged the writings and changed history. Orthodox and Catholics simply present the history and writings of the ancient Church and the Fathers of the Christian faith. To ignore and discount the history of the Church and to cast doubt on the wisdom and truth of the Fathers, is to doubt the very same Spririt filled Church that gave us the Bible.

 

[Oblio]

History of the life of The Theotokos (Discourse on her Dormition)

 

[He put me back together]

Hi folks--I know I keep coming and going, but I thought I'd drop you guys a line in between real-world feats. Just thought I would share the translated lyrics of a very old song with you:
"Hail, most beautiful one,
precious jewel,
Hail, pride among virgins,
glorious virgin,
Hail, light of the world,
Hail, rose of the world,
Blanchefleur and Helen,
Noble Venus!"
--Ave Formosissima (Hail, Most beautiful one)
author unknown

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

Hey you know what, I typed in a entire replay to what you were asking, but BYGONS....

Titus 3

1Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
3At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5HE saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

I thank the Lord for what Ive got, what Ive learned and how blessed my life is thanks to His graces! Ill let snairs such as this one go by the way side.[/i]

As far as Mary goes, she what GOD has made her. I will reply on HIM for what I need to know about Mary.

Sending Kind Regards,
RTH


edited for html coding

 

[Wolseley]

We know from historical records that they were older, and the Church records that they were children of Joseph who was much older than Mary and was entrusted with her care.

Who's records, what Church and at what timeframe was this info started?

Many times Galatians 1:19 is quoted, where Paul mentions "James, the Lord's brother", which is trotted out as "proof" that Mary had more children after Jesus.

Epiphanius (Bishop of Salamis on the island of Cyprus, 315-403 AD) wrote in the Panarion---also known as Adversus Haereses, 377 A.D. (78.13.2 and 14.5 to be exact) that James was 96 years old when he was martyred in 62 AD.

This would make James 34 years old when Jesus was born; if Jesus was Mary's "first-born" as Luke 2:7 asserts, then there is no way that James could have been Jesus' blood sibling.

The Protoevangelium of James, a document dating from between 150 and 180 AD, describes Joseph as "an old man with grown children" (Chapters 9 and 17) who takes Mary as his wife in the role of a protector, she being of the tender age of 16.

Also, what suggests Joseph w/another wife?

If Joseph had grown children before he even married Mary, this strongly suggests he must have been married before. If he was free to take Mary as his wife, it likewise strongly suggests his previous wife, the mother of his grown children, was dead.

A catholic record would indeed be biased as there would be much to loose if the actual records showed the timing to settle well with Mary having Children. Im not sure I would trust the catholic recording.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Oblio]

Shame on me Wols, I even put down that they were older and I missed the obvious conflict with Him being first-born* of Mary, thereby giving evidence that James could not be of her flesh. I knew there was good historical math to back it up too, thanks for filling us in

* remembering that "first-born" does not imply that there was a second or a third in ancient Palestine.