Mary Have No Other Kids?

[Circle_Master]

Where are you from Donna? You write with.. different grammer styles. (that is a serious question, not insulting)

[Donna]

Not even Husband knows where I am from....

[hyperdulia again]

I believe that Donna is transported English Catholic lady, circa 1875 and I think it rocks! :)

[Ellenita]

Oi! Less of the bashing of the Brits in this thread!!! :club: :irate:

[Jake Huether]

I posted this in the Apologetics phorum, but it might get better visibility here:

Luke 1:

The Birth of Jesus Foretold

26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,

27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

28 The angel went to her and said, Greetings, you who are highly favoured! The Lord is with you.

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.

30 But the angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favour with God.

31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.

32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; his kingdom will never end.

34 How will this be, Mary asked the angel, since I am a virgin?

Let me highlight the key quotes which undeniably indicate that Mary intended even before she pledged to be married to remain a virgin.

The Angel Gabriel declares to Mary.

You will be with child and give birth to a son

Note, this is in the future tense. You WILL be with child. Not you ARE with child.

When in the future? Is it before Mary is married to Joseph? Is it after? We aren't sure. Mary isn't sure.

Also note, the Angel doesn't explicitly say that her son will be God. Mary can't be sure the child wont be from Joseph. At this point, the child might be from her future husband - because the Angel said she'd have a child in the future. In fact, the reader of the Gospel up to this point has every reason to believe that it would be from Joseph, since Gabriel had just come from talking with Zechariah in pretty much the same exact fashion. And we all know Elizabeth would be with child BY Zechariah. But we can't really be sure. Frankly, the Angel Gabriel leaves a lot to be desired. And consequently Mary must asks:

How will this be, Mary asked the angel, since I am a virgin?

Now, if the Angel tells Mary that in the future she will be with child, and he doesn't explicitly say who the father will be, and Mary is engaged to Joseph, and (main point) if indeed Mary intended on having relations with Joseph...

Why on earth would she, at this point, need to ask "How will this be."? If it is in the future, and Mary will marry Joseph and have normal relations with him in the future, then Mary would have most certainly presumed that it would have been from Joseph!

You see, in Zech's case, he asked "how can this be" but he got busted. Why? Because he presumed correctly that it would be by his wife. But what he didn't believe is that his wife could still have kids by the power of God. Mary on the other hand doesn't get busted. Why? Because she knows that she and her future husband could have kids if they wanted. BUT. she doesn't want to have marital relations with Joseph. And the Angle knows that! So, since Mary has presumed wrongly that the way in which her child would be born would be through intercourse, and she has not (nor will she) have intercourse, then her question is valid.

We can conclude then that Mary had previosly made a vow before God that she would remain a virgin. If she hadn't, then her question is null. Understanding her circumstances, she would have presumed that Joseph would be the father. In which case, then the Angel would have needed to be more explisit prior.

Mary was vowed to be a virgin, despite being engaged, perpetually.

Mary ever Virgin, pray for us.

[Circle_Master]

perhaps Matthew was ignorant of her vow when he wrote "before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit" (1:18) or perhaps Mary understood it will be that she was not going to have relations until Joseph wed her - and knew that was a still good ways off - which is why she couldn't figure out the angel would appear to her now, instead of later.

I would go with the second for the simple reason that I don't believe Matthew would have written ignorantly here.

[Anna]

That's what your translation says. Mine says "before they lived together." Still doesn't mean that they did not remain chaste.

Pax Christi. <><

[jasJis]

It's so easily understood, I can't fathom why understanding is refused.

I got the flu vaccine BEFORE I got the the flu. Does that mean I got the flu eventually? Does it mean I was even exposed to the flu and necessarily would have contracted it?

No.

The exact same thing with Mary's sinlessness. She was vaccinated with Grace, but still needed the Grace. Grace was needed to enable her to not sin. She could not do so without Grace. Grace acted as a preventative to the illness of sin, not a cure for a committed sin.

Protestant insistence that Mary had other children is based in a simple desire to debase Catholicism. It isn't even a universal Protestant doctrine. Ask a Lutheran. The idea Mary had other children is a symptom of Fundamentalist Protestants that fundamentaled themselves to blindness of what has been known and accepted by ALL Christian denominations for hundreds of years. This new idea is creeping into other Protestant denominations because of their desire to 'not be Catholic' and be of one accord with their Protestant Brothers and Sisters.

That is why Catholics will not back down from what has been known as a Truth for all of Christianity. It is issues with denying Truth that is splintering Anglican and Episcaplian congregations and sending them back Home to the Church.

TRUTH can divide or unite us, but it's still Truth. Just as Jesus tells us He loves us all and wants us to be One, He also tells us he will set child against mother, brother against sister. He comes in Truth.

[Ellenita]

I've been thinking alot about Mary recently - boy, am I mad that she is virtually sidelined by most protestant churches to the 'christmas story'.

I feel like I am only just beginning to know this incredibly amesome woman - what a witness of complete obedience to God she is, and what a powerful message that is to me a Christian woman who repeatedly asked what place there was for women in the church and felt bereft of examples in the various protestant churches which I attended.

I really love the understated way the writers of the gospels write how she accepted the news the angel gave her and then agreed to God's plan! She must have been in complete turmoil and gone through doubts but still remained obedient. I would imagine that Joesph went through similar feelings. It seems completely reasonable to me to think that having gone through the physical, emotional, and spiritual process of allowing themselves to be used as the means of the Son of God to be born human they would think it was such an amesome thing, an incredibly precious gift from God, that they would choose to remain celebate in their married life.......

But like I said, I'm only really just beginning to get to know her, so maybe I'm way off beam here.......

[Circle_Master]

Protestant insistence that Mary had other children is based in a simple desire to debase Catholicism.

actually, I really don't care.

But doing my first studies on it, without ever thinking of if it was important to Catholicism or not, Scriptures indicate that she did have kids. You can argue against it-but it seems to indicate that she did have kids.

Now the Church Fathers... Mary was a legend - legends are always exaggerated over time. That is a natural man response. It's the 'rumor-wheel' if you will.

[jasJis]

That's where we differ, Circle.

I DO care to know about my God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. Truth is important because God is never false. The Truth of Mary's childlessness speaks of her fidelity to God, and His to us. It speaks of the Divine Nature of Jesus the Human.

Christians CAN and WILL argue against you. They don't even have to be Catholic.

Think about your 'rumour-wheel' concept. If humanity's ability to share it's understanding of God is that frail, then you must conclude doubt is mandated when considering the New Testament as Scripture. Why do you think Smith came up the the "golden tablets". There had to be something printed from God's own factory that was completely seperated from human involvement.

Edited January 5, 2004 by jasJis

[Bruce S]

I've been thinking alot about Mary recently - boy, am I mad that she is virtually sidelined by most protestant churches to the 'christmas story'.

I feel like I am only just beginning to know this incredibly amesome woman - what a witness of complete obedience to God she is, and what a powerful message that is to me a Christian woman who repeatedly asked what place there was for women in the church and felt bereft of examples in the various protestant churches which I attended.

Funny, just got off the phone with a Catholic where this was part of our conversation.

I mentioned to him, that in the past 15 months I had been attending church, with the exception of the Christmas story, Mary has been mentioned....

Not once.

Why is that statement important? Well, for our side of the street, perhaps we SHOULD study Mary, the biblical Mary, who she was, what she did, and why God chose her.

But, equally, we might ask the Catholics ....

WHY? Why is the Marianian emphasis, and it grows ever and ever more important to them so DARNED CENTRAL, to a story where Jesus is the central character, and the redemtive agent?

IF Mary is a virgin forever OR NOT, does it change on IOTA of the basis of Christianity? No. Not one thing changes if she had no children, or seven as we think she had, [the numbers of 'sisters' is undefined]

Where does Mary being AS DEFINED by Protestants change anything, anything at all? It doesn't.

What these arguments are all about is the TOTALITY of Catholic doctrine. Mary has been elevated, enshrined, made INTO a role that more or less defines Catholicsm to Protestants.

That MUST be defended at any and all cost, for if it isn't, just about everything else that defines the Catholic "distinctives" will come under scruitiny.

Thus Catholic apologists are forced into massive Greek convolutions and hoop jumping to prove a point, that DOESN"T COUNT.

See the irony of all this?

If Catholics need this to appeal to some inner level of human need, why don't protestants have the same need?

The thing that I personally have trouble with, is not the Mary veneration, go ahead, no sweat off anyones brow, but the APPARITIONS.

Those are just plain problematical to me. We have "Mary" appearing all over the world, talking to people, giving instructions...

Yet this is NOT supposed to be the way Christianity works. The Holy Spirit is given that role, by Jesus himself, not to apparitions and VERY questionable situations.

Mary did what Mary was designed to do, if she were a virgin forever, it is really NOT important at all, just odd. But hey, who cares? It means NOTHING to a Christian if she was or was not.

[Circle_Master]

That's where we differ, Circle.

I DO care to know about my God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. Truth is important because God is never false. The Truth of Mary's childlessness speaks of her fidelity to God, and His to us. It speaks of the Divine Nature of Jesus the Human.

I want to know about God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength as well.

Agreeing with bruce however - it doesn't change anything for us. The message is of Jesus, not Mary

Think about your 'rumour-wheel' concept.  If humanity's ability to share it's understanding of God is that frail, then you must conclude doubt is mandated when considering the New Testament as Scripture.  Why do you think Smith came up the the "golden tablets".  There had to be something printed from God's own factory that was completely seperated from human involvement.

exactly. Scripture.

[jasJis]

I want to know about God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength as well.

Agreeing with bruce however - it doesn't change anything for us. The message is of Jesus, not Mary

exactly. Scripture.

I'll respond to the two thing in your post, why Mary matters and Scripture.

I don't consider Bruce's post as worthy of consideration because of the nature of the sincerity in his posts, but I will generally respond to it for your benefit since I do believe you will be consider the answer.

Scripture: You do understand and know and accept how the New Testament came about and was codified, don't you? You accept the New Testament as Scripture, I didn't think you were Mormon. Okay, consider this. Between Christ's Ascension and the Gospels were written, how did they exist? Humanity by iteself could not accomplish this feat. A little historical research into Confuscious' writings would illustrate the impossibility of this task. But it happened. The versions of the Written Word that existed are/were amazingly the same. Stunning when you consider the decades it existed in by purely verbal means. How could we do this? Were their Gold scrolls floating around? It existed by the direct and real intervention of God's grace, through the Holy Spirit, that kept His Word alive and intact in humanity. We eventually were graced with the ability to get it written and cannonized. God has not withdrawn His Grace. It still exists and preserves the understanding and authority of His Word in it's completeness. That Grace is the Holy Spirit. It exists beyond our human lifespan and human understanding. The Body of Christ exists since it was established at Pentecost. Without a break. It will exist foreever. It is not corrupted, nor is His word. We too are part of the Body. What we bring it does not corrupt God's Will or Purpose. Sin does not thwart Him. Nothing does. The only wound the Body suffers is the loss of you, or I, or any of our neighbors. The Body is us now, and the Apostles now, and the Holy Spirit Now. We are combined as one Body and exist because of Christ. We in Him, He in us.

That, my brother, is the effectiveness and power of God. What understanding of Truth that exists then, exists now. Perfectly because of the Grace that exists in His Body, the Church. We are sometimes graced to contribute to the understanding, but the Complete Truth already exists. Deny the Truth, and you deny the grace of Eternal Truth and allow yourself to believe a falsehood.

Do not limit what God can (and has) worked through humanity. His Word does not have to exist seperate from humanity because He provides the Power of His Grace for His Word to dwell WITH humanity eternally.

I'll get back to you on Mary's role to give you a chance to respond to this.

[Bruce S]

Okay, consider this. Between Christ's Ascension and the Gospels were written, how did they exist? Humanity by iteself could not accomplish this feat. A little historical research into Confuscious' writings would illustrate the impossibility of this task. But it happened. The versions of the Written Word that existed are/were amazingly the same. Stunning when you consider the decades it existed in by purely verbal means. How could we do this? Were their Gold scrolls floating around? It existed by the direct and real intervention of God's grace, through the Holy Spirit, that kept His Word alive and intact in humanity.

This isn't as "neat and tidy" as you have outlined it above.

Read Paul. Count the number of times, Paul, and later, other Epistle writers warn that there are FALSE TEACHINGS ... INSIDE OF, concurrent to, those writings.

Apparently, even then, there were folks INVENTING myths, elaborating upon, adding to..."The message we taught you"

And, if the TOTALITY of Paul's writings be read, you can clearly see that he was so worried that the BASIC truth was being distorted, that he went so far as to warn that "Even if an Angel should appear..." with new "truths" not to believe that ANGEL, and that is strong language indeed.

Later, when it came time to Cannonize doctrine, the church [there was no ROMAN Church quite yet...almost, but the Greeks certainly didn't grant primacy at that time] had a terrible time deciding what writings were authentic, and if some of the people in disagreement to the accepted doctrines VOTED IN BY SLIM MAJORITIES I might add, are to be read, you will see that the doctrine we accept today, isn't as clear as some would like, scripture was the result of a BEST EFFORT at selection.

We know the propensity of human nature is to elaborate, extend, define, redefine, and keep adding to things. Look at any body of law, starts out simple, but give it a few decades, and rooms of documents, new extensions, and interpretations morph into existance.

Same process with Mary.

We start with a defined role, and next thing you know people are standing in line for days to kiss a PHOTO of an apparition, "maybe" real from Mexico. That entire process is immaterial, and frankly TO THE PROTESTANT MIND, odd indeed.

Now, I had a Catholic mind for over 20 years, and LOVED the Mary thing, now with Protestant eyes, I can see where that was something that just....might be....

Unneeded.