Mary Have No Other Kids?

[ironmonk]

I disagree with both your comments hyperdulia

I believe Scripture to have a plain meaning, and I've never known anyone to write in a way other than that. The oracle of Delphi is said to have written with multilayered comments, but I wouldn't compare Scripture to her.

Israel as the Holy Church I can't agree with either. That would be some of my dispensational blood :D. If you want to argue that, that would be an entire bathtub of worms I'm afraid.

Like I said before... this is a major flaw in protestant theology.... it's shallow.

Jesus spoke in parables.

The bible is 100% true, but how it is true is where protestants fail. It is not plain and simple. It is deep, and always has been. You might want to start reading the first 400 years of writings.

As far as what's true... We see that Christ said the smallest seed was a mustard seed... but we know that the smallest seed is not the mustard seed... Now, Jesus being God knows this... did He lie? or was He wrong? - If He did either, how can He be God?

There is the third answer... that protestants fail to see because they split from the Church established by Christ (Acts 20:30).

The mustard seed was used because that was something that they could understand. Many things in the bible are true based on the teaching... not the events... Some things are both... some things have multiple meanings.

Unless you are infallible, then you saying that any interpretation that the Catholic Church teaches is wrong, is foolish on your part.

Scripture tells us that private interpretation is wrong and dangerous. So, you need to find out what has been taught since the beginning of Christianity in 33 AD... if your church did not exist then, for the Love of Christ, you should search for the One that did.

Acts 8:30-35 - And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? 31Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth. 33In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth? 34And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? 35Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.

2 Peter 1:20 - Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:16 - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Nothing really more to be said on the subject...

Your Servant,

ironmonk

[Circle_Master]

Ironmonk, I don't disagree with every Catholic interpretation. I just think that there are better answers than many the Catholics put forth.

You gave three verses, but you forgot a few things about them.

When Philip spoke to the Ethiopian, at the end it said he preached to him about Christ showing how He was in the Isaiah passage. No one before Christ coming had the correct interpretation and so thus Philip gave him the gospel message. This wasn't in writing before this time, so he had to. Using this to say he couldn't figure it out on his own is very true, except he only had half a bible as well.

Your verse from 2 Peter 1:20 say "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. " and what does it say next? 2 Peter 1:21 "prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. " This passage is not about interpreting Scripture for us, but saying that a prophet didn't just figure it out and write it, but was revealed it from God. Unless you are saying that you have a lot of prophets in the Catholic Church this doesn't apply either.

2 Peter 3:16 far from concludes anything. Your first two verses failed to meet the context first, this one saying "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort" doesn't mean that you have to have a gift of .. whatever gift you believe Catholics to have. It means, do not be ignorant and unstable (of weak faith I assume), and you can see results of that in Evangelical Pluralism I believe (example case).

33 AD... if your church did not exist then, for the Love of Christ, you should search for the One that did.

my church? Christ has always had a church from the very beginning. For many long years the majority of Christians were considered part of one Catholic Church.

[Dave]

When Philip spoke to the Ethiopian, at the end it said he preached to him about Christ showing how He was in the Isaiah passage. No one before Christ coming had the correct interpretation and so thus Philip gave him the gospel message. This wasn't in writing before this time, so he had to. Using this to say he couldn't figure it out on his own is very true, except he only had half a bible as well.

So until the Bible came into existence (which even then didn't benefit many, as most people were illiterate), people were deprived of truly hearing the Gospel? Hardly. The Gospel was still spread orally despite the absence of a Bible. And once the complete Bible appeared, the Gospel was still spread orally because of the widespread illiteracy.

Your verse from 2 Peter 1:20 say "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. " and what does it say next? 2 Peter 1:21 "prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. " This passage is not about interpreting Scripture for us, but saying that a prophet didn't just figure it out and write it, but was revealed it from God. Unless you are saying that you have a lot of prophets in the Catholic Church this doesn't apply either.

You fail to see that all these different Bible interpretations that Protestants have come from the biased will of man. God, on the other hand, has revealed the truth regarding Scripture through His Church, which cannot teach incorrectly.

2 Peter 3:16 far from concludes anything. Your first two verses failed to meet the context first, this one saying "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort" doesn't mean that you have to have a gift of .. whatever gift you believe Catholics to have. It means, do not be ignorant and unstable (of weak faith I assume), and you can see results of that in Evangelical Pluralism I believe (example case).

So "hard to understand" really doesn't apply to anyone with strong faith? That's absurd; having a strong faith is no guarantee of being free from error. Heck, Martin Luther had a "strong faith;" it was so strong that he taught that that was all that was necessary to gain heaven, whereas that had NEVER been taught until he came on the scene. He's a sad example of what happens when you decide you can interpret Scripture apart from the Church.

my church? Christ has always had a church from the very beginning. For many long years the majority of Christians were considered part of one Catholic Church.

Yes, Christ has had a Church from the very beginning, but that Church was the Catholic Church -- the Roman Catholic Church, that is! That's what all Christians were a part of for centuries until the "Protestant reformers" came on the scene. There was no Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Assembly of God, Lutheran, or Episcopal Church back then.

[Circle_Master]

So until the Bible came into existence (which even then didn't benefit many, as most people were illiterate), people were deprived of truly hearing the Gospel? Hardly. The Gospel was still spread orally despite the absence of a Bible. And once the complete Bible appeared, the Gospel was still spread orally because of the widespread illiteracy.

I agree completely. You missed my point if you think I was arguing otherwise.

You fail to see that all these different Bible interpretations that Protestants have come from the biased will of man. God, on the other hand, has revealed the truth regarding Scripture through His Church, which cannot teach incorrectly.

Don't be blind man, "the church" hasn't ruled an interpretation on that and you know it. The verse Ironman used says prophets did not prophecy by interpreting Scripture but by revelation. That's what the verse says, to say anything else is to criticize my ability to read english.

So "hard to understand" really doesn't apply to anyone with strong faith? That's absurd; having a strong faith is no guarantee of being free from error. Heck, Martin Luther had a "strong faith;" it was so strong that he taught that that was all that was necessary to gain heaven, whereas that had NEVER been taught until he came on the scene. He's a sad example of what happens when you decide you can interpret Scripture apart from the Church.

Stop arguing like that. You know I didn't say that, and the passage doesn't either. It says "hard to understand" by people "unstable" AND "ignorant". You just argued the entire thing based on unstable and didn't deal with ignorant. I did, now please try to argue against what I say and not twist my words.

[M.SIGGA]

As my new AVATAR indicates, Galileo was right after all...

Just took a few centuries for the Catholic Church to come clean on it...

Without jumping into this debate, your avatar bothers me b/c Galileo was not right after all. Pope Urban VIII allowed Galileo to write Dialogues as long as he treated the Copernican theories as a hypothesis instead of fact. Galileo not only disobeyed, but explained Copernican theories as truths in a comical parody that portrayed the Pope as being stupid. Galileo was a respected scientist and writer in favor with the Church and was going to recieve the Imprimatur before he was tried. Today it is factual evidence that the Copernican system is a good guess, but is not true. JPII's papal apology never said Galileo was right and that's a really dishonest and a flat-out-wrong statement on your behalf. That's a hit below the belt.

[Dave]

I agree completely. You missed my point if you think I was arguing otherwise.

My point was that the Bible alone is NOT sufficient by itself.

Don't be blind man, "the church" hasn't ruled an interpretation on that and you know it. The verse Ironman used says prophets did not prophecy by interpreting Scripture but by revelation. That's what the verse says, to say anything else is to criticize my ability to read english.

Makes no difference. Say what you want, but the Church does teach that God has revealed the meaning of Scripture through His Church, which, after all, has been teaching that same truth for 2000 years. How do you claim to know what the Church teaches and what it doesn't? To this day the Church spreads the Gospel through revelation as it's contained in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Stop arguing like that. You know I didn't say that, and the passage doesn't either. It says "hard to understand" by people "unstable" AND "ignorant". You just argued the entire thing based on unstable and didn't deal with ignorant. I did, now please try to argue against what I say and not twist my words.

I never twisted your words, so please stop accusing me of things I'm not guilty of. The way you phrased your statement in your previous post, I thought you meant "of weak faith" referred to being both unstable AND ignorant. But guess what? People of weak faith are both of those. Now please start dealing with what I say and stop claiming that I twist your words without actually trying to refute what I say.

[littleflower+JMJ]

amesome stuff catholicandfanatical! ^_^

heres for more reading...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

God bless!

+JMJ

[angelica]

In historical documents relating to the Mother of Jesus, Mary has always been publicly noted by her peers as "Virgin Mary". It has never been noted otherwise.

Edited December 31, 2003 by angelica

[Circle_Master]

      Her friend Ignatius to the Christ-bearing Mary.

Thou oughtest to have comforted and consoled me who am a neophyte, and a disciple of thy [beloved] John. For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting thy [son] Jesus, and I am astonished by such a report. But I desire with my whole heart to obtain information concerning the things which I have heard from thee, who wast always intimate and allied with Him, and who wast acquainted with [all] His secrets. I have also written to thee at another time, and have asked thee concerning the same things. Fare thou well; and let the neophytes who are with me be comforted of thee, and by thee, and in thee. Amen.

Or perhaps you mean something else? Here is a letter from Ignatius that doesn't refer to her as "Virgin Mary"

[angelica]

QUOTE 

      Her friend Ignatius to the Christ-bearing Mary.

Thou oughtest to have comforted and consoled me who am a neophyte, and a disciple of thy [beloved] John. For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting thy [son] Jesus, and I am astonished by such a report. But I desire with my whole heart to obtain information concerning the things which I have heard from thee, who wast always intimate and allied with Him, and who wast acquainted with [all] His secrets. I have also written to thee at another time, and have asked thee concerning the same things. Fare thou well; and let the neophytes who are with me be comforted of thee, and by thee, and in thee. Amen.

Or perhaps you mean something else? Here is a letter from Ignatius that doesn't refer to her as "Virgin Mary"

Of course everytime Mary is mentioned, her virginity will not be mentioned every single time. Something that is already well known does not have to be repeated when the writers know readers already know it to be true (in the time period context). When her virginal status is specified, however, she is noted by her peers as "Virgin Mary."

[Freaky Chik]

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:18

"came together" means to be sexually intimate with one another.

it speaks "came together" as if, it happens in the future... after the birth of Christ.

[angelica]

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:18

"came together" means to be sexually intimate with one another

.

Who interpreted that "came together" meant "sexually intimate with one another"?

"Came together" can also mean "coming together" in marriage to actually be married. Mary was pledged to be married, but hadn't married YET, so they hadn't come together in marriage yet.

This is a good example of why we need someone with authority to interpret scripture--one phrase cannot means whatever someone says it mean unless they have the authority of Jesus Christ, which the Catholic Church has.

As noted Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid says in his book, Why is that in Tradition? , the Catholic Church speaks with Christ's own authority. "Just as he said, "Whoever listens to you, listens to me. And whoever rejects you, rejects me" (Luke 10:16; cf. Matthew 16:18-19, 18:18). St. Paul himself explains that he, as a member of the magisterium of the infant Church, had the obligation of making sure the Church understood the message in accordance with the way in which he had inteded it to be understood:

"Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold fast--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with scriptures..." (1 Corinthians 15:1-3, RSV)" (To continue from the book:)

"First, notice the words St. Paul chooses:

a. There is a body of teaching that "you have received" (Greek: parelabete);

b. Which "I preached" (Greek: euangelion);

c. You are to "hold it fast" to this body of teaching, meaning you are not permitted to neglect or dispense with this oral teaching;

d. St. Paul "delivered" (Greek: paredoka) this teaching orally, and now, in his Epistle, he is reminding us to adhere to that orally delivered teaching;

e. This orally transmitted teaching corresponds with and complements that teaching of Scripture, just as it is a sure interpretation of what it reflects in Scripture (i.e., the inextricable linkage between Scripture and Tradition [found only in the Catholic Church]);

f. St. Paul reminds his readers that he, too, "received" this oral teaching first and then handed it on to them (which is the precise meaning of Tradition: receiving it, handing it on, etc.);

g. It is the role of the magisterium (Latin: teaching office; cf. Matthew 28: 19-20), represented here by St. Paul, one of the Church's first bishops and Doctors, to explain the meaning of Scripture and faithfully deliver the message to the faithful.)"

Patrick Madrid provided an example of how easy it is to misinterpret written words in his book "Where is That in the Bible?" He gives an example by using 1 sentence and emphasizing different words. Say this sentence aloud emphasizing the italicized words:

I didn't say you stole it.-means-"it wasn't me that said it"

I didn't say you stole it.-means-"I didn't actually say you stole it"

I didn't say you stole it.-means-"I didn't say it was you"

I didn't say you stole it.-means-"I'm not accusing you of stealing"

I didn't say you stole it.-means-"you stole something else"

This one simple sentence can take on all kinds of different meanings depending on how the writer/speaker meant it. That one sentence has 1 specific meaning to the author, but readers can mistake it to mean something else if not interpreted correctly.

The above example shows how easy it can be to misinterpret writing especially writing as complex as Scripture. Jesus Christ left his authority with the Catholic Church and she is gives the final interpretation.

[jasJis]

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:18

"came together" means to be sexually intimate with one another.

it speaks "came together" as if, it happens in the future... after the birth of Christ.

Hey, hey, Freaky.

I hope you've been well. We've missed you, even though some people have recently said we like non-catholic Christians here so we can "play with them".

You are reading too much into that phrase. An action before something happens only means the second action did not happen yet, it does not mean it neccessarily will happen. For example:

"The policeman talked to the suicidal man before he jumped." That doesn't mean the man jumped afterwards, it only means the conversation happened before he jumped. The suicidal man could easily have changed him mind or been prevented from jumping, and the statement is still true.

We would have to look at the historical context of the policeman and the suicidal man. Talking with the policecaption, are we told the policeman prevented the suicide attempt? Reading the newspaper, de we get an account of the thwarted attempt? Do we hear the story from the suicidal man's son, who was born afterwards?

That historical context example above is what the Catholic Church holds as part of the Body of Faith. The Church had hundreds and thousands of real-life witnesses to Jesus' life and ressurection. He did not appear to just the 11 Apostles after His ressurection. What the Church has collectively known and taught for belief (historical context) is part of the Tradition that is preserved and referenced as understanding develops. The Grace of God is too tremendous to be percieved by one mind, one set of eyes. But the Church as a whole, provides and preserves the Big Picture so that the Deposit of Faith is always available to each of us as individuals in accordance with each of our own personal needs. In other words, the Church acts as the Refridgerator that God keeps stocked so we each can go and fill our plates in accordance to our hunger and nutritional needs.

So back to the question of Mary having no other kids. One has to research and consider what has been believed and taught by the Church 500, 900, 1.300, and 1.877 years ago. What did the other witnesses, friends, disciples, and followers, know as common knowledge and share in word and writing when speaking of Jesus? You've got to look all the way to the back of the Fridge to see what God keeps stocked in it.

Edited December 31, 2003 by jasJis

[cmotherofpirl]

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:18

"came together" means to be sexually intimate with one another.

it speaks "came together" as if, it happens in the future... after the birth of Christ.

no it doesn't, that is just your interpretation.

It means before they moved in together.

[NewReformation]

You are reading too much into that phrase. An action before something happens only means the second action did not happen yet, it does not mean it neccessarily will happen. For example:

"The policeman talked to the suicidal man before he jumped." That doesn't mean the man jumped afterwards, it only means the conversation happened before he jumped. The suicidal man could easily have changed him mind or been prevented from jumping, and the statement is still true.

Anybody listening to that sentence would believe the man jumped. The grammatical construction and wording used in that sentence all indicate that the man jumped. You'd have to use different wording in order to make your illustration work. You'd probably need another example altogether.