What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Which do the catholics believe?

francisdesales said:
What is? That you make the presumption that Mary gave birth to other children based on "the brothers of Jesus"?

I'd agree, it is nonsense.

Regards
Click to expand...

Again, I ask - what extrabiblical writings?
 
Folks...
Here is the thing. As has been shown through out the scriptures Mary had other children....Jesus had a slew of half brothers and sisters....Our Catholic friends would have you believe they were A) Josephs kids from another marriage B) They were Jesus cousins and everybody was regarded a brother....C) There was no word for cousin in the Greek which in fact there is.....

So by their logic when we run accross passages like these....

Matt 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.

or

Matt 4:21 Going on from there, He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets. He called them,

Jesus must have meant cousin or perhaps he meant Peter and his half brother Andrew....

Folks...Joesph Loved Mary very much....She is a blessed women for giving birth to Jesus the King of Kings....But she did have other children and she did make mad passionate love to Joseph many times over...Is this dirty? NO WAY...It is what husbands and wives do...They make Love, they have sexual relations....This was ordained by God himself...There is no shame in this...
 
jgredline said:
Folks...
Here is the thing. As has been shown through out the scriptures Mary had other children....Jesus had a slew of half brothers and sisters....Our Catholic friends would have you believe they were A) Josephs kids from another marriage B) They were Jesus cousins and everybody was regarded a brother....C) There was no word for cousin in the Greek which in fact there is.....

So by their logic when we run accross passages like these....

Matt 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.
Click to expand...

Faulty association, Javier. You'd do better comparing oranges and apples.

Regards
 
jgredline said:
Folks...
Here is the thing. As has been shown through out the scriptures Mary had other children....Jesus had a slew of half brothers and sisters....Our Catholic friends would have you believe they were A) Josephs kids from another marriage B) They were Jesus cousins and everybody was regarded a brother....C) There was no word for cousin in the Greek which in fact there is.....

So by their logic when we run accross passages like these....

Matt 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.

or

Matt 4:21 Going on from there, He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets. He called them,

Jesus must have meant cousin or perhaps he meant Peter and his half brother Andrew....

Folks...Joesph Loved Mary very much....She is a blessed women for giving birth to Jesus the King of Kings....But she did have other children and she did make mad passionate love to Joseph many times over...Is this dirty? NO WAY...It is what husbands and wives do...They make Love, they have sexual relations....This was ordained by God himself...There is no shame in this...
Click to expand...

After re reading this, The catholic view is very wrong and I stand by what I said here......If Mary deprived Joseph of marital sex, then she sinned against her husband....So which is it? Is she a sinner or a non virgin...You can't have it both ways....
 
francisdesales said:
The Protoevangelium of James, discusses a plausible explanation that does not disrupt the Scriptures.

Regards
Click to expand...

Are you going to quote it here?

and

Could you explain why when the Scriptures refer to the brothers, the plausible explanation isn't that they were actually Jesus' brothers and sisters?
 
aLoneVoice said:
Are you going to quote it here?

and

Could you explain why when the Scriptures refer to the brothers, the plausible explanation isn't that they were actually Jesus' brothers and sisters?
Click to expand...

Of course it is plausible that Mary had other children IF the Church didn't make the statement that Mary was an ever-virgin. Now, if there was room for doubt on this matter, why do you think that the Church made this an article of faith? What do you think the Church is stating by saying that Mary was always a virgin?

Regards
 
francisdesales said:
Of course it is plausible that Mary had other children IF the Church didn't make the statement that Mary was an ever-virgin. Now, if there was room for doubt on this matter, why do you think that the Church made this an article of faith? What do you think the Church is stating by saying that Mary was always a virgin?

Regards
Click to expand...

The question needs to be: Why does the Roman Catholic church NEED Mary to be sinless and/or a perpetual virgin.

However, before that can be answered, I was hoping that you would post the revelent passages from your 'extra-biblical' sources.

So, in your mind is the Mormon 'extra-biblical' book also the inspired Word of God?
 
Its possible that this may be off-topic. Unless I am making a major blunder, I assume that both Protestants and Catholics believe that Mary was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Does anyone share my "concern" that the fact of her virginity has been wrongly interpreted by believers (whether Protestant or Catholic) as somehow indicating that being a virgin is a "morally superior" state than being a non-virgin?

Since, I also assume that we all agree that acts of sexual congress (I love getting to use that expression) within marriage are not sinful at all, presumably being a non-virgin is not, in fact, a morally inferior state to be in if one has indeed entered that state with one's spouse during marriage.

I guess I am wondering about the significance, if any, of Mary being a virgin at the time of her pregnancy with Jesus. I am inclined to speculate that God arranged things the way that He did in order to produce a miracle for us rather than to send us any message about the moral superiority of the state of virginity. But I suspect we may have gotten the wrong message, at least to a certain degree, and I wonder whether this has contributed to a subtle demonization of human sexual conduct (even in mariage).
 
aLoneVoice said:
The question needs to be: Why does the Roman Catholic church NEED Mary to be sinless and/or a perpetual virgin.
Click to expand...

AH! NOW you are on the right track, aLoneVoice...

I think when the typical Protestant reflects on the Catholic's staunch view, it raises eyebrows... "WHO CARES"... might be the response, no?

The very short of the "why" is because Mary is seen as a reflection of the fulfilled Church in so many ways in the Scriptures. It is hidden, it is implicit, but it jumps out at you when the verses are meditated upon after one is alerted to them! I get goosebumps just thinking about the mystery that was formerly hidden and is now revealed. It seems so obvious now!

An example is Revelation 12. Of course, the "woman" is the Church, the People of God. But it ALSO is the "woman" whom Jesus refers to in His public life, the ONLY name Jesus calls Mary... the woman. Who else gave birth to the Son who would rule with an iron scepter? The Church as a Body and Mary as an individual.

As such, Mary MUST be a virgin - just as the Church is a virgin bride presented to Christ. BOTH are virgin mothers. The Church gives birth to Christ in each and every Christian - and does so immaculately and without blemish (blemish understood as heresy or deviation from the faith given).

This is only the tip of the iceberg, ALoneVoice. You have asked the correct question. The reason has very little to do with Mary's personal life and more so with WHAT the Church is, just as Mary's title "Mother of God" reflects on WHOM Jesus (the Body of Christ, the Church) is... It is an intricate web that continues to amaze me as I think about how God has revealed this truth to us.

Whether Mary remained a virgin is not merely a footnote in history. It is a valid reflection on what God has created with the Church.

aLoneVoice said:
So, in your mind is the Mormon 'extra-biblical' book also the inspired Word of God?
Click to expand...

No. There is no more public revelation - which is an Apostolic Tradition, by the way. The canon is closed ONLY because the Church infallibly teaches that.

Regards
 
Ah... and see this is where you NEED Mary to remain sinless and a perpetual virgin - because if you are wrong, and she isn't - then a lot of the Roman Catholic doctrine goes down the proverbial toilet.

I would suggest that you are misunderstanding the woman in Rev. 12. The woman is not the Church - but Israel.
 
This is twice now that you have responded, but have not shared the 'extra biblical' passages that are relevant to your 'doctrine'.

Also, why do you accept the "Protoevangelium of James" and not the book of Mormon?
 
reply

The woman is most certainly Israel. Check out Gen. 37:9, as it might give one some clues about this woman.



May God bless, Golfjack
 
aLoneVoice said:
Ah... and see this is where you NEED Mary to remain sinless and a perpetual virgin - because if you are wrong, and she isn't - then a lot of the Roman Catholic doctrine goes down the proverbial toilet.

I would suggest that you are misunderstanding the woman in Rev. 12. The woman is not the Church - but Israel.
Click to expand...

The Church is Israel continued, brother. There is no "two" peoples of God. Do you think Christ was starting a new religion? He came to fulfill the law.

Regards
 
aLoneVoice said:
This is twice now that you have responded, but have not shared the 'extra biblical' passages that are relevant to your 'doctrine'.

Also, why do you accept the "Protoevangelium of James" and not the book of Mormon?
Click to expand...

I don't have the time to read the writing and find the quote you desire. I do not accept either book as Scripture.

Regards
 
Re: reply

golfjack said:
The woman is most certainly Israel. Check out Gen. 37:9, as it might give one some clues about this woman.
Click to expand...

I already said that the woman was Israel/Church. She is also Mary. There are multiple layers of Scriptures that we should not ignore.

Regards
 
francisdesales said:
I don't have the time to read the writing and find the quote you desire. I do not accept either book as Scripture.

Regards
Click to expand...

I do not understand. You do not 'accpet' it as Scripture, but that was the first thing you used to defend your beliefs? Why mention it if you do not accept it as Scripture?
 
francisdesales said:
The Church is Israel continued, brother. There is no "two" peoples of God. Do you think Christ was starting a new religion? He came to fulfill the law.

Regards
Click to expand...

This is a topic for another thread in regards to the relationship between the Church and Israel - however - Rev 12 is clearly talking about Israel.

You arguement, if I understood it, was that Mary is a symbol of the church, and Rev 12 was your proof. Scripture does not claim that Mary is a symbol of the Church - and Rev 12 does not prove it.
 
aLoneVoice said:
I do not understand. You do not 'accpet' it as Scripture, but that was the first thing you used to defend your beliefs? Why mention it if you do not accept it as Scripture?
Click to expand...

I never said that the Protoevangelium of James was Scripture. It is not, although some of the early Church DID accept it before the Canon was set. It merely offers a valid explanation for the "brothers of Jesus".

Although it is not Scriptures, all truth is not found within Scriptures. For example, the Great Wall of China. I believe it exists, although it is not mentioned even one time in the Bible. The Bible is not an all-inclusive history of the world, or even of Palestine.

As to the "brothers of Jesus", I think a careful analysis would shed some serious doubt on them being the biological children of Mary. Here is something I should have done a long time ago...

In Matthew 13:55, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas are listed as "brothers". We know for a fact that the word "brothers" has multiple meaning. Thus, to get a fuller picture, we must go to other Scriptures (or sources).

Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 tell us that two of these "brothers" James and Joseph, are sons of a DIFFERENT Mary. Since Mt 13:55 does not distinguish between the 4 "brothers", we can assume they share similar relationships to Jesus. Thus, if two are cousins or even further removed relationships, then the other two are also likely to be of similar distance removed from Jesus' earthly relationship.

More proof?

Some of these brothers advise and reprimand Jesus (John 7:3-4 and Mark 3:21). Younger brothers NEVER admonish an elder brother in Jewish culture.

The brothers of Jesus are NEVER called the sons of Mary. Jesus is called the son of Mary, but never a son of Mary.

In Matthew 15, Jesus condemns the Pharisees because their Korban rule allowed children to avoid their responsibility of caring for their parents. Now, at the foot of the cross, in John 19:26-27, Jesus entrusts Mary to John, who is not a sibling of Jesus. If Jesus had younger sibling, he would have been dispensing His own siblings from their important responsibility and obligation. This inconsistency is inconceivable for God.

In Acts 1:13-14, the followers of Jesus, including Mary, John, and the "brothers of Jesus" were gathered in the upper room. IF Jesus had other siblings, why does Mary go home with John, not Jesus blood brothers? Again, this situation cannot happen in Jewish culture.

Extra-biblical writings also maintain Mary's ever-virginity. We never hear of a "son of Mary" besides Jesus in any other writing. A careful look at Scriptures is enough to prove that the Catholic defense of Mary's virginity is consistent with what we know about Jewish culture and what is presented in the Bible.

Hopefully, I have provided enough evidence to put this matter to rest.

Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top