Mary's Virginity

[goldenchild17]

I am discussing Mary's virginity with some people and I was presented with a long argument that I can't refute. I am going to post the argument and I would appreciate it if someone could look at it and help see it's problems. Thank ya's. This argument is in response to me asking for some verses in which the alleged "brothers and sisters" of Jesus are mentioned. Thanks...

[quote]OK, lets look at a few verses starting in John 15

1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. ( obviously this is Jesus speaking)..........20 Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. 25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, 'They hated Me without a cause.'

Then in John 2 12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days. 13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!" 17 Then His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up."

Now lets look in Psalm 69 4. They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.

9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Both the passages in John are clearly talking about Jesus and both are found in Psalm 69, so it appears that Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm. So why is this important.... well, lets look at a few more verses in Psalm 69 6 Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. 7 Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. 8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children...... Now you can argue that brethren are not brothers or sisters, but some other relation, however you cannot do the same with " my mother's children"....... It would make no sense at all to say " I am a stranger to my 'cousins/relations', and an alien unto my mother's 'cousins/relations', clearly " my mother's children" are just that, Jesus' mothers ( Marys ) children.

To show that He was indeed a " an alien unto His mother's children".....John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" To argue here that "His brothers" are some male relation doesn't fit in the context of this passage. It is quite specific, carpenters son (Joseph), His mother ( Mary ) and his brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas).... if you wish to very clearly identify a person, you give precise details that will point to only the person you are speaking of ( details that are well known about them, like who their brothers are). I can imagine that there were many in the crowd who had cousins/ male relations named James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas... but I doubt there were any others who had 4 brothers with those 4 names.

Mark 6 1 Jesus left that part of the country and returned with his disciples to Nazareth, his hometown. 2 The next Sabbath he began teaching in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They asked, "Where did he get all his wisdom and the power to perform such miracles? 3 He's just the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us." They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him. 4 Then Jesus told them, "A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family. Jesus Himself is saying that HIS RELATIVES AND HIS OWN FAMILY ( his brothers) did not believe in Him. Why if " his brothers James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon" were relations, did Jesus give 2 classes of people here: RELATIVES AND OWN FAMILY"?????

I suppose one could claim that " HIS OWN FAMILY" just meant Mary and Joseph, because obviously if Jesus had no brothers or sisters then His "family" only included His mother and father. However, I doubt the Catholic church would make a claim that Mary and Joseph did not " honor" Jesus, or that Jesus was wrong in his claim that " His own family" did not honor HIm.[/quote]

I've never heard this one before...

[StColette]

[quote]Lk:1:34:

34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? (DRV)

It has been believe since the early Church Fathers that Mary had taken a vow of life long virginity. If she had not she would not have said "How shall this be done" Since she was betrothed to Joseph and they were to be married, if she had not taken a vow of life long virginity she would have probably answered "when shall this be done"

Lk:1:35:

35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (DRV)

By this verse one can see that the Holy Spirit has taken Mary on as a spouse.

Brethren of Christ

The argument over the term "brother" that leads many to think that Mary had other children could be more fully understood by lloking at the context in which this term is used and by searching through Holy Scripture to get a fuller picture of what the authors were truly saying

Acts 1:12-15 ... apostles, Mary, "some women" and Jesus' "brothers" number about 120. That is a lot of "brothers."

DRV Bible Version

Acts:1:12-15
12 ¶ Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey. (DRV)
13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James. (DRV)
14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (DRV)
15 ¶ In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty): (DRV)

Surely Mary could not have had 120 children. But if you look you will see that the brethren referred to in Acts:1:14 and Acts 1:15 are the same ones. So how could this be???? It isn't possible plain and simple fact.

Gen 14:14 ... Lot, Abraham's nephew (Gen 11:26-2 , described as Abraham's brother

DRV Bible Version

Gn:11:26-27
26 And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran. (DRV)
27 ¶ And these are the generations of Thare: Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran. And Aran begot Lot. (DRV)

Gn:14:14:
14 Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken, he numbered of the servants born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, well appointed: and pursued them to Dan. (DRV)

King James Bible Version

So Lot is Abram's nephew and his brother ?!?!?! How could this be ??? Its is because brother is used as signifying kinship.

Gen 29:15 ... Laban, Jacob's uncle, calls Jacob his "brother" (KJV).

DRV Bible Version

Gn:29:10-15
10 And when Jacob saw her, and knew her to be his cousin german, and that they were the sheep of Laban, his uncle: he removed the stone wherewith the well was closed.
11 And having watered the flock, he kissed her: and lifting up his voice wept.
12 And he told her that he was her father's brother, and the son of Rebecca: but she went in haste and told her father.
13 Who, when he heard that Jacob his sister's son was come, ran forth to meet him: and embracing him, and heartily kissing him, brought him into his house. And when he had heard the causes of his journey,
14 He answered: Thou art my bone and my flesh. And after the days of one month were expired,
15 ¶ He said to him: Because thou art my brother, shalt thou serve me without wages? Tell me what wages thou wilt have.
(DRV)

Here we are again. Laban is Jacob's uncle yet Laban calls Jacob his brother. Again meaning kinship.

John 19:26-27 ... Jesus gives care of Mary to John, not one of his "brothers."

DRV Bible Version

Jn:19:26:
26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
Jn:19:27:
27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. (DRV)

Jesus gave his mother into the care of his believe disciple and told Mary " Woman, behold thy son" and to the disciple in return Jesus said "Behold thy mother" Since we are all the disciples of Christ through our baptism we are given unto the Virgin Mary just as she is given unto us.

In regard to the following verse in the Bible, the meaning of until, unto, or till is often misconstrude.

DRV Version Bible

"Mt:1:25:
25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus. (DRV)"

2 Sam 6:23, Gen 8:7, Dt 34:6 ... "until, unto, or till"

DRV Bible Version

2Sm:6:23:
23 Therefore Michol the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death. (DRV)

DRV Bible Version

Gn:8:7:
7 Which went forth and did not return, till the waters were dried up upon the earth. (DRV)

Mt 12:46-50

46 ¶ As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.
47 And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.
48 But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?
49 And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren.
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.(DRV)

First of all the word "brethren" means member or sect. It is different than saying " your brothers." Secondly all are considered Christ's brother, and sister, and mother are who do the will of God.

Other Marys

Mk:15:40:

40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph and Salome, (DRV)

Mk:15:47:

47 And Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where he was laid. (DRV)

Mk:16:1:

1 ¶ And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus. (DRV)

Mt:27:56:

56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (DRV)

"Mary the mother of James and Joseph" is not identified as the Mother of Jesus, and there are many Marys in the Bible so this can not be the Mary, the mother of Jesus, since she is always identified that way. as for " Mary the mother of James, Joseph, and Salome" this was not the Mother of Jesus Christ, for it would have said that.

At the Cross

Jn:19:26:

26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.

27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. ( DRV )

If Mary had any other children, her son Jesus Christ would have intrusted them with her care, not the disciple. And since Mary had no other children it would make sense for Jesus to give his mother into the care of his beloved disciple

Early Church Fathers on " The Perpetual Virginity" ( gathered from www.catholic.com )

Origen

"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).


Hilary of Poitiers

"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26-27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).


Athanasius

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360 ] ).


Epiphanius of Salamis

"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).


Jerome

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).


Didymus the Blind

"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Pope Siricius I

"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius

"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Pope Leo I

"His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450 ] ).

Council of Constantinople II

"If anyone will not confess that the Word of God ... came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her, let him be anathema" (Anathemas Against the "Three Chapters" 2 [A.D. 553]). [/quote]

This is a combination of a lot of rebuttals over this subject that I've done. pick it apart there may be something useful

God Bless
Jennie

[Guest JeffCR07]

I would also like to just briefly comment on this particular argument, as it is, perhaps, your opponent's strongest, though still weak:

[quote]Both the passages in John are clearly talking about Jesus and both are found in Psalm 69, so it appears that Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm. So why is this important.... well, lets look at a few more verses in Psalm 69 6 Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. 7 Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. 8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children...... Now you can argue that brethren are not brothers or sisters, but some other relation, however you cannot do the same with " my mother's children"....... It would make no sense at all to say " I am a stranger to my 'cousins/relations', and an alien unto my mother's 'cousins/relations', clearly " my mother's children" are just that, Jesus' mothers ( Marys ) children[/quote]

Your opponent's conclusion is the only one that you can make...if you go into scripture telling yourself that "I will not believe the catholic teaching."

However, that teaching easily reconciles the "dilemma" posed by your opponent. In fact, these verses are a wonderful tool for the catholic apologist, for they show clearly a plethora of articles of catholic faith.

Before He died upon the cross (as Colette has shown) he gave Mary to John, that she might become the mother of all believers, as we are brothers with her Son, Christ, who is our God and Lord. Moreover, we (his mother's children - read brothers & sisters - in faith) alienate him with our sin. Please note that we place a world of seperation between himself (and Heaven) via sin. This passage serves not only to uphold teachings on Mary as mother of us all, but also on the existence of mortal sin, which seperates us from He who saved us.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[goldenchild17]

Thanks, you're stuff is good. I would help if someone could explain the link to the verse in Psalms that I was given. It is being used to show that Mary had other children.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 27 2004, 01:20 AM'] Then in John 2 12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days. 13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!" 17 Then His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up."

Now lets look in Psalm 69 4. They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.

9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Both the passages in John are clearly talking about Jesus and both are found in Psalm 69, so it appears that Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm. So why is this important.... well, lets look at a few more verses in Psalm 69 6 Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. 7 Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. 8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children...... Now you can argue that brethren are not brothers or sisters, but some other relation, however you cannot do the same with " my mother's children"....... It would make no sense at all to say " I am a stranger to my 'cousins/relations', and an alien unto my mother's 'cousins/relations', clearly " my mother's children" are just that, Jesus' mothers ( Marys ) children.

To show that He was indeed a " an alien unto His mother's children".....John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him. [/quote]
his error in logic is found in this statement:[list]
[*]Both the passages in John are clearly talking about Jesus and both are found in Psalm 69, so it appears that Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm.
[/list]
a psalm from the bible is Messianic b/c verses in it forshadow Christ--not necessarily b/c every verse in the psalm forshadows Christ. so, while verses 4 and 9 do make Psalm 69 Messianic, that does not mean that every verse is likewise Messianic. so, his reasoning fails when he claims that verse 8 ("alien unto my mother's children) is a description of Christ just b/c verses 4 and 9 are.

even if verse 8 were referring to Christ, Jeff's suggestion of the "mother's children" being you and i who separate ourselves from God via sin is a possible interpretation.

[quote]To show that He was indeed a " an alien unto His mother's children".....John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.[/quote]
by equating the "mother's children" with Jesus "brethren," this reasoning [url="http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm"][b]begs the question[/b][/url] b/c he is using as a premise what he is attempting to prove. that's kinda like when you define a word and you use the word in the definition (my third grade teacher always said that was a no-no)

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited July 27, 2004 by phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

Okay so only some verses foreshadowing Christ need be present to make it a messianic psalm. Wouldn't that make them all messianic psalms?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 27 2004, 04:39 PM'] Okay so only some verses foreshadowing Christ need be present to make it a messianic psalm. Wouldn't that make them all messianic psalms? [/quote]
not necessarily

the introduction to the Psalms found in the NAB describes many different types of psalms besides those that are Messianic:[list]
[*]The Hebrew Psalter numbers 150 songs. The corresponding number in the LXX differs because of a different division of certain psalms. Hence the numbering in the Greek Psalter (which was followed by the Latin Vulgate) is usually one digit behind the Hebrew. In the New American Bible the numbering of the verses follows the Hebrew numbering; many of the traditional English translations are often a verse number behind the Hebrew because they do not count the superscriptions as a verse.

The superscriptions derive from pre-Christian Jewish tradition, and they contain technical terms, many of them apparently liturgical, which are no longer known to us. Seventy-three psalms are attributed to David, but there is no sure way of dating any psalm. Some are pre-exilic (before 587), and others are post-exilic (after 539), but not as late as the Maccabean period (ca. 165). The psalms are the product of many individual collections (e.g., Songs of Ascents, Psa 120-134), which were eventually combined into the present work in which one can detect five "books," because of the doxologies which occur at 41:14; 72:18-19; 89:53; 106:48.

Two important features of the psalms deserve special notice. First, the majority were composed originally precisely for liturgical worship. This is shown by the frequent indication of liturgical leaders interacting with the community (e.g., Psalm 118:1-4). Secondly, they follow certain distinct patterns or literary forms. Thus, the hymn is a song of praise, in which a community is urged joyfully to sing out the praise of God. Various reasons are given for this praise (often introduced by "for" or "because"): the divine work of creation and sustenance (Psalm 135:1-12; 136). Some of the hymns have received a more specific classification, based on content. The "Songs of Zion" are so called because the exalt Zion, the city in which God dwells among the people (Psalm 47:96-99). Characteristic of the songs of praise is the joyful summons to get involved in the activity; Psa 104 is an exception to this, although it remains universal in its thrust.

Another type of psalm is similar to the hymn: the thanksgiving psalm. This too is a song of praise acknowledging the Lord as the rescuer of the psalmist from a desperate situation. Very often the psalmist will give a flash-back, recounting the past distress, and the plea that was uttered (Psa 30; 116). The setting for such prayers seems to have been the offering of a todah (a "praise" sacrifice) with friends in the Temple.

There are more psalms of lament than of any other type. They may be individual (e.g., Psa 3-7; 22) or communal (e.g., Psa 44). Although they usually begin with a cry for help, they develop in various ways. The description of the distress is couched in the broad imagery typical of the Bible (one is in Sheol, the Pit, or is afflicted by enemies or wild beasts, etc.)--in such a way that one cannot pinpoint the exact nature of the psalmist's plight. However, Psa 51 (cf also Psa 130) seems to refer clearly to deliverance from sin. Several laments end on a note of certainty that the Lord has heard the prayer (cf. Psa 7, but contrast Psa 88), and the Psalter has been characterized as a movement from lament to praise. If this is somewhat of an exaggeration, it serves at least to emphasize the frequent expressions of trust which characterize the lament. In some cases it would seem as if the theme of trust has been lifted out to form a literary type all its own; cf. Psa 23, 62, 91. Among the communal laments can be counted Psa 74 and 79. They complain to the Lord about some national disaster, and try to motivate God to intervene in favor of the suffering people.

Other psalms are clearly classified on account of content, and they may be in themselves laments or psalms of thanksgiving. Among the "royal: psalms, that deal directly with the currently reigning king, are Psa 20, 21, and 72. Many of the royal psalms were given a messianic interpretation by Christians. In Jewish tradition they were preserved, even after kingship had disappeared, because they were read in the light of the Davidic covenant reported in 2 Samuel 7. Certain psalms are called wisdom psalms because they seem to betray the influence of the concerns of the ages (cf. Psa 37,49), but there is no general agreement as to the number of these prayers. Somewhat related to the wisdom psalms are the "torah" psalms, in which the torah (instruction or law) of the Lord is glorified (Psa 1; 19:8-14; 119). Psa 78, 105, 106 can be considered as "historical" psalms. Although the majority of the psalms have a liturgical setting, there are certain prayers that may be termed "liturgies," so clearly does their structure reflect a liturgical incident (e.g., Psa 15, 24).

It is obvious that not all of the psalms can be pigeon-holed into neat classifications, but even a brief sketch of these types help us to catch the structure and spirit of the psalms we read. It has been rightly said that the psalms are "a school of prayer." They not only provide us with models to follow, but inspire us to voice our own deepest feelings and aspirations.
[/list]i hope this helps..........pax christi,
phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

Okay that helps a lot. For anyone interested, here is the link to the discussion.

How 'bout this... I asked her why Jesus' is referred to as "THE son of Mary" instead of "A son of Mary". This was her response.

[quote]Ok, when you explain to me why all these say " THE son"
Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Matthew 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them

Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

Matthew 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

Mark 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

Luke 3 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, ...... which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, ....... which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, ...... 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham,

I could go on with this for quite awhile.... but the point is rather clear that just because it says " the son" does not mean there were no other sons.....We all know that David was not the only son of Jesse, or James the only son of Zebedee... I guess you will need to answer to me why these do not say " a son" if you feel that it saying " the son" has some significant meaning.[/quote]

[P3chrmd]

goldenchild...I tried to help you out some...I just posted twice...and pointed out some things that hadn't been pointed out yet

[phatcatholic]

goldenchild,

woh, ur opponent makes a good point. i don't see anything wrong w/ it either. the "a son" vs. "the son" argument may not be a good one to use afterall. you may want to concede that he is correct, but also be quick to point out that since the perpetual virginity of Mary does not depend on this one argument, you can lose this round and still have much reason to believe in and defend Mary's virginity.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 28 2004, 01:09 AM'] Okay that helps a lot. For anyone interested, here is the link to the discussion.

[/quote]
what's that link again? i don't see it in ur post

[Cure of Ars]

Well if every aspect of Psalm 69 is directly related to Christ then Jesus must of sinned because verse 6 says it;


"God, you know my folly; my faults are not hidden from you." (Psalm 69:6)

If this does not reffer to Jesus then "my mother's sons" could also not reffer to Jesus.

[StColette]

This might be a weak arguement but its the best I can come up with for right now.

The use of "the son" could actually be argued but in a completely different way. If you are careful of how you read verses that "supposedly" refer to the other children of Mary, you will see that they clearly never refer to them as her children. An example of this can be found in

Mt 6:3

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him. (DRV)

These brothers are never referred to as the children of Mary, but rather as the brothers of Jesus, the only person that is ever referred to as the child of Mary is Jesus.

Acts 1:14

14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (DRV)

No where in any part of the Bible does it clearly state that these children belonged to Mary directly, the only person who she is directly labeled the mother of is Jesus.

I don't know if that'll help any but I'll keep looking

God Bless,
Jennie

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 28 2004, 01:28 PM'] goldenchild,

woh, ur opponent makes a good point. i don't see anything wrong w/ it either. the "a son" vs. "the son" argument may not be a good one to use afterall. you may want to concede that he is correct, but also be quick to point out that since the perpetual virginity of Mary does not depend on this one argument, you can lose this round and still have much reason to believe in and defend Mary's virginity.

pax christi,
phatcatholic [/quote]
Sorry, here it is.
[url="http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=80897&page=4&pp=15"]http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/show...97&page=4&pp=15[/url]

I am not doing as well as I could be, but I'm still learning and it's good practice. Opinions and suggestions are welcome. And yeah, I already decided to leave that one alone, it's not that important. I just wanted to see if you would spot something that I didn't see.

[P3chrmd]

I've added some more things to the fourm...im trying! LOL...Im not that good of a defender but I try so hard for Our Lady! cause...


God is watching us...from a distance...



sorry I couldn't help it...the song is on the radio right now as I type this...!!!