Does Anyone Have Proof Concerning....

[phatcatholic]

this thread is a continuation of the following posts from the "Calling all Scholars and Militants!" thread:

[quote name='StColette']Speaking of FCFC Ezboard, I'm in the need of a little help, I'm still on the subject of "Mary had no other Children" we are going on week 3 with this one lol Does anyone know where I can find reference to the Jewish law that gives the care of a widowed mother into the care of her eldest son and so forth down the line of her sons. I've read reference to it in several articles, but they want more proof than a simple sentence saying that there is a law and Rome didn't make it up. Believe me any help with this would be highly helpful and I would be very thankful.[/quote]

i gave this in response:

[quote name='phatcatholic']i've been looking for the documentation of this, for i too have been wondering about this for a while. so far, i found this, by a mormon. maybe the fact that he contends what the church does about the care of a mother may at least prove that it is not a solely catholic belief. also, the author's bio reveals that he specializes in Jewish and Middle-Eastern culture.

at [url="http://www.ida.net/users/rdk/ces/maritial_customs.html"][b]this article[/b][/url], scroll down to "CHILDREN ARE AN INHERITANCE OF THE LORD". here is [url="http://www.ida.net/users/rdk/p/family.html"][b]the bio[/b][/url] of the author

i'll search for more.....

pax christi,
phatcatholic[/quote]

if anyone can help us find proof for this, that would be very helpful.

thanks...........phatcatholic

[StColette]

All that I have been able to find so far is the following website article

[url="http://wwwsalemfamily.homestead.com/files/030302.htm"] 1 Timothy 5:1-16 [ Care and Feeding of Widows ][/url]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

If Mary had other children, wouldn't they be rejecting their duties as children (as laid out in the 4th commandment), if [i]they[/i] didn't take Mary in themselves?
[quote][b]The Catechism on the Fourth Commandment:[/b]
2218 The fourth commandment reminds grown children of their responsibilities toward their parents. As much as they can, [b]they must give them material and moral support in old age and in times of illness, loneliness, or distress[/b]. Jesus recalls this duty of gratitude.23

For the Lord honored the father above the children, and he confirmed the right of the mother over her sons. Whoever honors his father atones for sins, and whoever glorifies his mother is like one who lays up treasure. Whoever honors his father will be gladdened by his own children, and when he prays he will be heard. Whoever glorifies his father will have long life, and whoever obeys the Lord will refresh his mother.24
O son, help your father in his old age, and do not grieve him as long as he lives; even if he is lacking in understanding, show forbearance; in all your strength do not despise him. . . . [b]Whoever forsakes his father is like a blasphemer, and whoever angers his mother is cursed by the Lord[/b].25

[u]Footnotes:[/u]
23 Cf. Mk 7:10-12.
24 Sir 3:2-6.
25 Sir 3:12-13, 16.[/quote]

[Cure of Ars]

I'm an not a Biblical scholar but this is what I would say.

[quote]"When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband's brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. 
The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. (Deuteronomy 25:5-6)[/quote]


The "without a son" is the key, this implies that if a wife's husband dies but has a son, then she would be in his care. Jesus and Mary would fit this catigory. But when Jesus dies Mary other son should take his place. You keep famly members in the family. A Wife/mother was expected to stay in the family. To give a mother to someone outside the family would go against Deuteronomy 25:5-6 unless there was not a younger brother in line. This is the foot note of the above passage.


[quote] [5] When brothers live together: when relatives of the same clan, though married, hold their property in common. It was only in this case that the present law was to be observed, since one of its purposes was to keep the property of the deceased within the same clan. Such a marriage of a widow with her brother-in-law is known as a "levirate" marriage from the Latin word levir, meaning "a husband's brother."[/quote]

Edited July 15, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]They put this question to him, saying, "Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies [b]without children[/b], his brother shall marry his wife and raise up descendants for his brother.' Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, [b]having no descendants[/b], left his wife to his brother.  The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven.  Finally the woman died. Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her."

Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.

At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.  (Matt 22:24-30) [/quote]

This gives support to the above interpretation. I would also make mention of their being no marriage in heaven to you Mormon friend if you use this passage.

[StColette]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 15 2004, 04:44 PM'] If Mary had other children, wouldn't they be rejecting their duties as children (as laid out in the 4th commandment), if [i]they[/i] didn't take Mary in themselves?
[/quote]
I've put up this arguement with them before and their response was that Jesus would not intrust his mother into the care of his "real brothers" because they were unbelievers so that is why Jesus gave Mary into the care of John.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

There are other arguements for Mary's perpetual virginity, like proving Biblicaly that his four "brothers" were not actually sons of Mary. St. Jerome wrote a GREAT essay on this (after being pressured to reply to a challenge he felt ridiculous), and his opponent never replied:
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm[/url]

Edited July 16, 2004 by thedude

[cmotherofpirl]

and where is their proof of this ?

[StColette]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 15 2004, 07:23 PM'] There are other arguements for Mary's perpetual virginity, like proving Biblicaly that his four "brothers" were not actually sons of Mary.  St. jerome wrote a GREAT essay on this, and his opponent never replied.  I think it was called "On the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin mary" or something like that. [/quote]
I covered this part as well They are stubborn and like to change the subject lol I'll give yall the link to the thread itself. I'm posting under CwgrlAngl03

[url="http://p197.ezboard.com/fformercatholicsforchristfrm2.showMessageRange?topicID=130.topic&start=1&stop=20"]Mary Had No Other Children ?[/url]

There is a fellow Catholic on the thread with me, he posted the Essay by St. Jerome. but like always they tend to ignore our posts.

Oh and beware of the lack of charity that is seen on that board ! It's disgraceful.

Edited July 16, 2004 by StColette

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Yeah Catholic Answers has a good track, but St. Jerome's goes along the same line and is more in depth. If you see above, i've edited my post to include a link to St. Jerome's essay. This is what he though of his opponent and his challenge:
[quote]I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating.
-St. Jerome[/quote]

[StColette]

Thanks

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='StColette' date='Jul 15 2004, 06:57 PM'] I've put up this arguement with them before and their response was that Jesus would not intrust his mother into the care of his "real brothers" because they were unbelievers so that is why Jesus gave Mary into the care of John. [/quote]
but this is pure conjecture. where is there proof? scripture is your proof. it is plainly written in both the places cure cited that the widow should be placed in the care of her sons, unless she has none, in which cause she is put in the care of her brother-in-law. this is obvious. however, scripture neither confirms nor denies that his "brothers" were believers.

btw, who are his "brothers." if they are james and john, then these were indeed believers! heck, james was the leader of the church in jerusalem. have them name who Jesus' brothers are and then prove to you that they were not believers. then watch them say, "oh, but wait, the burden of proof is on YOU"

--Anti-Catholic Tactics 101--

jeeeesh........

[StColette]

Okay i replied to them as best as I could, I should be the last post on the third page lol

And you're right phatcatholic the burden is on me to prove it to them not the other way around. Or so they like to think.

Edited July 16, 2004 by StColette

[phatcatholic]

colette,

also, i noticed that many times in this thread you defend to them why you are catholic. don't even bother. really. your spiritual journey can mirror theirs in every single regard but as long as the end result is different (you ending up catholic, they ending up something else) they will use this opportunity to second-guess your journey, rather or not you were "reeeally" listening to God (or the words of man) and basically throw the entire thread off course.

you should make it of prime importance to never give them anything they can use to divert the topic to something else.

other then that i think u are doing a great job, and i definitely recommend you for "church militant" here at phatmass!

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[StColette]

Thanks Phatcatholic

I know I have to work on not putting a lot of personal opinion into it, I'm learning

God Bless,
Jennie