Mary Have No Other Kids?

[jasJis]

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.

Don't be over confident in your sight now. I had 30+ years of Catholic eyes with the bonus of 12 years of Catholic education and I still did not see.

Christian Witness, from various denominations, helped me to see. I'm Christian with sight now because I've been helped to see with my eyes of Faith. Some of my Christian loved ones call me Catholic and think it's different. It's not, it's just Christianity with better vision.

I used to think I didn't need lot's of things...

Then I learned what I needed was God's grace and He's giving it to us in many ways, through many people, and many things.

The thing I see most clearly now...

my need for His grace, and it's abunance. :cool:

[Donna]

Ellenita:

Hyper didn't bash the Brits: he complimented them and me.

jasJis and I obviously love them...being married to or having British blood relatives! (Makes for interesting 4th of July celebrations, don't it jas?)

Agreed: it doesn't matter to Protestants Mr. Master and Bruce describe, as to whether or not Our Lady is ever-virgin.

Various comments:

1. "Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool." God the Father speaking to God the Son, in the psalms. Does this"until" mean that once Christ's enemies are made His footstool, He will no longer then sit at the right hand of the Father? The Douay Rheims version of Scripture also says in Matthew, "before they came together"; and St. Jerome addressed this long, long ago. If the Fathers say it, and if it's defined De Fide, that is well enough for a Catholic and more certain than any one of us researching the matter (but by all means, research away). If the Church thinks it's a big deal, it is.

2. Would our Lord really give His Mother over to St. John (while on the Cross) if there were other children of Mary's?

On Marian Devotion:

1. Nowhere has an angel ever adressed and diminished itself to a human person, save for the "angelic salutation": Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee...

2. This angelic salutation is intimately tied to our literal salvation being brought forth. Hence devotion to the "Hail Mary" whose proper title is "The Angelic Salutation" is a mark of the elect (being the prime devotion to Blessed Mary) for these reasons:

a) By it, was repaired the whole world.

b) We are bound to honor our carnal mother and father, and Jesus Christ is a perfect Son whom we must imitate, because His mother is ours according to His great favor and grace.

c) He who does not wish to have the Immaculate as his mother neither has Jesus Christ as his brother.

d) Christ is the new Adam (Hebrews); Mary, the new Eve. By one came ruin. By Mary, came life.

e) "My soul magnifies the Lord" is why devotion to Our Lady can only bring one nearer to Christ; she is the Christ-bearer and the mirror of justice, that peron closest and most like to Christ of angels and men.

"From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed"is why the ages have always produced those who sing her praises, and who serve her as the Queen of angels and men, in and through her divine maternity which has knit mystically in her womb the members of Christ their head, together.

f) God has willed that salvation (ie, Jesus) come through her via the Incarnation and "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews).

Why don't you complain directly to God about it, asking Him in all sincerity and repeatedly, to show you why Catholics do such repugnant things? I am sure such a method will satisfy all your questions.

Edited January 5, 2004 by Donna

[Jake Huether]

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.

As a rebuttle to my statement this makes no sense. Either you are confused by what I said, or you haven't yet taken what I said to heart.

1) What does "come together" mean to you? It doesn't need to mean "have sex". No where else in the Bible does "come together" mean that. It usually is refered to as "laying with them" or something like that. Matthew very well may have been ignorant of her vow. But we believe that the written word of God is inspired by God. Therefore, I agree that I don't think Matthew's writing at least was mistaken. I think that a number of interpritations of it might be mistaken. But the correct interpritation doesn't include it meaning that Mary would later have other children.

2) Mary INDEED understood that she would remain a virgin until they got married (did you not read what I wrote). And it wasn't a "good ways off". If they were betrothed, then it was most likely soon.

That was the whole point. Even if it was in the distant future it wouldn't matter. Mary had presumed wrongly that her son would be via intercourse. Otherwise her response would have simply been "how can this be." But she added, "since I do not know man". This shows that she understood [wrongly] the angel to say that she would have a child by Joseph. The Angel told her that she would have a child in the future. If Mary's intention was to have relations with Joseph in the future, and she had already wrongly presumed the child to be concieved via intercourse, then she wouldn't have needed to interject "since I do not know man", much less "how can this be". She had already concluded that the child would be born via intercourse. So since she would never have intercourse (even in the future), she wanted to know how it would be.

[Jake Huether]

It's the 'rumor-wheel' if you will.

Speaking of wheels. Not to take this thread of track. But ever since the reformation Protestants have been trying to re-invent the wheel using Scripture.

You will NEVER ever be able to re-create Christianity (i.e. the will of God) using nothing but the Scripture. It isn't possible.

John says it quite clearly at the end of his gospel (if everything Christ did was written down, the world wouldn't be able to hold all the books).

Moreover, if you think about it:

If you believe that the Bible is inspired, then you MUST ask yourself, "self, how do you know the Bible is inspired."

And your answer, after research, will be: The Catholic Church told us that it was. And if you believe the Church didn't error in picking the right Scriptures, then your next question should be, "why not believe the Church's interpretation of these Scriptures"?

[Jake Huether]

2. Would our Lord really give His Mother over to St. John (while on the Cross) if there were other children of Mary's?

Another nail in the coffin. Great point.

But I know how some Protestants ration this one:

Jesus' other siblings were sinners, and Christ wouldn't want his mother in their hands.

Which of course makes no sense whatsoever. Christ left the Church in the hands of Peter, who had denied him 3 times!

The reality is:

Mary had no other Children. And the significance of this is GREAT. Why? Because it is TRUE. One is true the other is lie. You can't say, oh it doesn't matter... It does. Why let a lie linger? If there is knowledge of Truth, then this is significant.

It is also significant because we are the Body of Christ. Mary the Mother of Christ, is the Mother of US because of the fact that in Christ we are one. Had Mary had other children then certainly there would be a conflict of interest.

[jasJis]

Hey, hey, Jake. Good to see you back. All is well with you, I hope!

Excellent post. Touched on a point I was goint to bring up.

Jesus Christ, the Man, with his last dying breaths, gave Mary to John, and John to Mary. It is more than a human act. It is a Divine Act of His Will, with intent and purpose.

Why would God do this? Why would God say "Woman, behold your son." and then to His Disciple: "Behold, you mother."

Circle, you asked what is the signifigance of this. I can't answer you completely because it is that significant. You said you don't care because it doesn't seem important. I care because I recognize it is important because it was important for God to say that.

Picture yourself at the foot of the Cross. Jesus has been hanging for hours. He moves his head a little and says to His mother, "Woman, behold your son." and he says to you, his disciple, (not one of the Apostles) and says "Behold, your mother." God gave you to Mary as her son as He hung dying.

It seems very important. At that moment, and for many days, you may be thinking, "What did Mary NEED another son for? What do I NEED another mother for? It all seems so..... UN-NEEDED."

I'm not exceptionally devoted to Mary like you see many Catholics behave. I haven't felt the Spirit move me so. I do recognize grace when I need it and I find comfort and peace knowing I have a spiritual Mother that I was given to, and she was given to me. I understand completly that devotion and piety because it's source is God's Love. It's another way God chose to give us even more of His Grace, regardless of our feelings or abilty to recognize the NEED for it. God's gifts aren't just us getting what we NEED. Gifts of Love from the God of All go beyond our small understanding of our NEED.

We're spiritual infants compared to Mary because we are so small and young in Grace. We can't even begin to understand our NEEDs any more than a child understands good nutrition. We recognize our NEED for nurishment when we recognize our hunger, but are we to feel vegetables as UN-NEEDED because we don't hunger for them more than we hunger for a cup-cake?

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Hey Jake, welcome back man, havent seen ya in a while either. Hope your holidays were great.

I havent seen circle address my post yet so Im reposting it. Just because I have nothing else to do and I wanna bring up my post numbers.

--------------------------------------------------------

Bruce and Circle, you say:

Matthew,[5] "And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogues, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" Luke also in the Acts of the Apostles relates,[6] "These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

I say:

Observe, James and Joses are sons of Mary, and the same persons who were called brethren by the Jews. Observe, Mary is the mother of James the less and of Joseph. And James is called the less to distinguish him from James the greater, who was the son of Zebedee.

John says,[1] "But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." No one doubts that there were two apostles called by the name James, James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphaeus. Do you intend the comparatively unknown James the less, who is called in Scripture the son of Mary, not however of Mary the mother of our Lord, to be an apostle, or not? If he is an apostle, he must be the son of Alphaeus and a believer in Jesus, "For neither did his brethren believe in him." If he is not an apostle, but a third James (who he can be I cannot tell), how can he be regarded as the Lord's brother, and how, being a third, can he be called less to distinguish him from greater, when greater and less are used to denote the relations existing, not between three, but between two? Notice, moreover, that the Lord's brother is an apostle, since Paul says,[2] "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." And in the same Epistle,[3] "And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars," etc. And that you may not suppose this James to be the son of Zebedee, you have only to read the Acts of the Apostles, and you will find that the latter had already been slain by Herod. The only conclusion is that the Mary who is described as the mother of James the less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother, the one who is called by John the Evangelist "Mary of Clopas," whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason. But if you think they are two persons because elsewhere we read, "Mary the mother of James the less," and here, "Mary of Clopas," you have still to learn that it is customary in Scripture for the same individual to bear different names. Raguel, Moses' father-in-law, is also called Jethro.

How could Mary have other children when she is a perpetual virgin?

It is written (Ezech. 44:2): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it." Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this--'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'--except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this--'it shall be shut for evermore'--but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?"

God Bless,

CatholicAndFanatical

[Ellenita]

Ellenita, Hyper didn't bash the Brits, he complimented them and me.

Donna I was joking! :D

I know Hyper wouldn't bash the Brits....he wants to move over here.......I suspect he can't resist the lure of the teapot!!

(It can't be our weather!!)

I love Hyper, he always makes me laugh.... :D

[Katholikos]

Protestants:

We've had to defend our Mother countless times against protagonists like you. If I say my Mother had no other children, and you come to my house centuries later and say, "Oh, yes, she did," I'd have to ask, who is in the best position to know -- members of the Catholic family who were there with her in the Upper Room at Pentecost, or Protestants who are reading our family album called the Bible and twisting it to "prove" their case? We have known since the beginning of Christianity that Mary had no other children. Our ancestors in the Faith knew her well, were in her company, and have told us, passing the truth down generation after generation. And then you Protestants come along, 21 centuries later. You don't know our Mother personally like we and our ancestors have known her, but you say "Jesus was not an only child." Bull-oney!

I wrote this for phatmass in a previous life. I haven't checked the links lately. They were working when I wrote this, but I don't know about now. You don't need the links to follow the logic and the Scriptures.

You insist that Mary had other children. You undoubtedly are relying on these verses, among others:

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?"

Mark 6:2-3 - "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"

Gal. 1:19 - "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother."

These verses actually named the Lord's brothers.

Let's look at James, Joses (or Joseph), Judeas (or Jude) and Simon.

Let's begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this has to be the other James, called in Scripture James the less:

Mark 15:40, "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome."

So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That's two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve:

Matt 10:3, "...'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus."

This too is talking of James the Less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. So what gives? It is NOT a trick and not really that hard! Pay attention, now. Alphaeus is this James' father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now let's do serious Bible Study. Go to Strong's and the KJV (both Protestant).

http://www.khouse.org/blueletter/

Go to that link, and search for these two passages, one at a time: Matt 10:3 and John 19:25. In the first, click the 'C' icon for the Strong's Concordance, then click the Strong's number for the name Alphaeus. Comes up 'father of James the Less'. We knew that. Now hit the back button to start again with John 19:25. Go to the Concordance ('C' icon), then hit the number for Cleophas, and gosh: it comes up father of James the less!

In other words, Alphaeus and Cleophas are simply two forms of the same name, and that is all we had to establish. Happens a lot in Scripture (John 11:16, Thomas, which is called Didymus; Acts 13:1 Simeon that was called Niger, etc...). So, James and Joseph are the sons of Cleophas (or Alphaeus) and a woman named Mary. Right?

Now, remember when we read in Mark 15:40 where a Mary who was the mother of James the less was standing off from the Cross? Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion:

John 19:25, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the 'sister' of Our Lord's mother - Mary!

This still leaves Jude and Simon, though, of the brothers named, right? Your hypothesis is still hanging on by a thread! Two of the four 'brothers' have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary!

Acts 1:13 "...James, the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelo'tes, and Jude the brother of James..."

There goes Jude out of the picture! Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle:

Jude 1:1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James...

It is not only NOT being upheld that these brothers 'may' be Our Lord's siblings, but that idea is being REFUTED by the Scripture. See what happens when the Gospels are harmonized? This error about the 'brothers and sisters of Jesus' has been pointed out to Protestants since 1517, but you and others keep on repeating it. A little of the right kind of scripture study, if you'd only take the time to do it, would clear this error right up for you. The first thing you need to do is stop bringing pre-conceived ideas to the Scriptures and finding the answers you want (twisting the Scriptures) instead of studying the Scriptures to find what's really there.

Oh wait! One more! There is still Simon, the fourth brother!

Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ!

Luke 6:15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, Mark 3:18 Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean...

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

Now, about that, and Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a 'brethren' or 'brother' of Christ, a thought for you! Let's go to John's Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren,

relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called 'brethren'!

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to 'Do whatever he tells you.'

Think about that a second. What would give this woman from Nazareth any position to boss around someone else's servants in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be that she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast... So Simon is from Cana, and a 'brother' of the Lord!

He's not a sibling though, but very likely related to some degree or other. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but the mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus' mother Mary. Even here 'sister' may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family, which is not likely.

So, do you still want to convince us that where you find the words 'brothers and sisters' in Scripture it means blood siblings, in spite of what the Scripture shows?

Not that it's needed at this point, or shouldn't be...but we do also read about Our Lord's sisters, correct? Maybe they can bail you out on this!

Mark 15:40 "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome." If this Mary, the wife of Cleophas, is the mother of James the less and Joseph, and also of Salome, then Salome could be called a sister of the Christ just as her blood brothers (same mother) could be called brothers of Christ, without being a sibling, right?

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

There is not one word of Scripture that speaks to Mary and Joseph

having other children, and every single brother or sister of the Christ mentioned by name in the Scriptures can be shown, from the Scripture 'alone', to be somebody else's children. I repeat, every single one!

There was no word for 'brother' in Aramaic. The word they used meant every degree of relationship from blood brother, to a member of the same tribe, to a citizen of the same nation. This was a culture in which members of the extended family and even citizens of the same country were called 'brother.'

We phatmassers are not blood brothers and sisters of Brother Adam, but we call him 'brother,' don't we? Don't you call fellow church members "brother"? Many Protestants do.

A little Scripture study would help you avoid these mistakes. You begin with the premise that Mary was NOT a forever-Virgin and misread the Scriptures, instead of doing the research.

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

Edited January 5, 2004 by Katholikos

[Circle_Master]

CatholicandFanatical - I wrote a response for that somewhere, but it doesn't seem to be this thread. Sorry, it took a while to figure it all out so I'm not going to do it again.

JasJis - I started working on a response, lost it, and have now decided I really am so .. unconcerned about this point that I'll just give it to you if you want. It really doesn't matter to me.

Katholikos - I might read it later

Edited January 5, 2004 by Circle_Master

[Circle_Master]

I do still find it humerous though that you think Joseph would marry someone who has taken 'vows of virginity'. And also that you think 'before they came together' doesnt imply sexual relations. I guess Joseph and Philo were a bit confused when they wrote about coming together (the phrase) meaning sexual relations.

[Jake Huether]

CatholicandFanatical - I wrote a response for that somewhere, but it doesn't seem to be this thread. Sorry, it took a while to figure it all out so I'm not going to do it again.

JasJis - I started working on a response, lost it, and have now decided I really am so .. unconcerned about this point that I'll just give it to you if you want. It really doesn't matter to me.

Katholikos - I might read it later

Is it me, or is this becoming a typical response to some very good arguments?

It really does bug me:

"I MIGHT read it" "I'm unconcerned" etc.

This response seems to pop up when the debate gets really deep. (and even sometimes when it is very obvious).

Christ said if you were lukewarm he'd vomit you out.

Don't be lukewarm. Read the responses and take them to heart. Don't be to prideful to give in to reason. If you are seaking the truth and honestly want to know Christ better, there would be never a time when you would be unconcerned, etc.

If you love God the Son, then you should love His Mother. And if you really loved him and his mother, then you'd want to get to know her.

To love God with all your heart and soul is to love his family and friends with all your heart and soul. It is important to know the truth about Mary. To be unconcerned with a lie about her is to be unconcerned about how this might effect God Almightly. And that, my friend, is a very grave and dangerous thing.

[Circle_Master]

Jake, I have four long posts to respond to. It would take me at least 2 hours to go through all the Scripture and build a coherent argument to deal with all of them. This is not something I really feel like doing. And, when you say "I MIGHT read it" you don't know what you are referring to. It is Liko's post I said that to, and it is because typically he has false information in his and they are very flammatory and insulting.

[Circle_Master]

I just listened to this again, and it issues all of the arguments you brought up. It is a little lengthy, but if you are curious I would suggest you listen through it.

http://www.straitgate.com/esgm.ram

sometimes the site is not up, good luck.

It is a debate by "Eric Svendsen, founder and director of New Testament Research Ministries and author of the book Evangelical Answers, debate Catholic apologist, Gerry Matatics, on the issue of Mary's Perpetual Virginity in front of a hostile Roman Catholic audience"

[Jake Huether]

typically he has false information in his and they are very flammatory and insulting.

Typically? What?

I've been on this phorum for almost 2 years. And in the two years I have never read anything of Likos' that contained "false information".

You've been on the phorum for a little over two weeks (maybe), and you are saying this is typical of him.

**slapps forehead** good grief.

I'm just saying, it is "typical" of anti-Catholics to say, "I MIGHT read your post" or "oh well, I don't really care anyway".

That's a lukewarm attitude. If you aren't concerned about Mary's perpetual Virginity, then you aren't concerned with Truth.