Catholic Mary

Mary had no other children after Jesus was born. She remained a virgin her entire life. I came to this conclusion in the 7th decade of my life after a careful search of the Scriptures. However, I was unable to reach this conclusion until I opened my mind to the possibility and actually looked at the overwhelming evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Here are some of the things I found.

1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord.

2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by language such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.

3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly reasonable.

4. None of the early church fathers advocated that Mary had other children. On the other hand, many of them advocated her perpetual virginity. Of particular note among this group were Jerome, Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).

5. The early reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary.

6. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.

The only difficult Scripture for those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary is Matthew 1:25 ("but [Joseph] kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son"). The implication is that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus. But the language of the Bible does not bear this out. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 15:25, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." Should we infer that He ceases to reign after He has put all His enemies under His feet? Likewise, we need not infer that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus.

 

All you have produced is the personal opinions of various humans! But these opinions are rediculous when just common sense is applied to such passages as:

Mt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Notice that the home town folks point out "his" father and mother! Cousins would not be identified with "his" mother and Father but with their own father's and mother's. The idea these are his cousins is pure theological bias without any objectivity whatsoever.

In regard to the cross and committing his mother, a believer, into the care of John another believer, is normal when all his brethren and sisters were unbeliever's.


Tell me Zenas why do you remain in a Baptist church? You are not a Baptist by any stretch of the imagination in doctrine or in practice! Are you there to proselyte for the Catholic cause??? Are you on the same journey as TS on your way out and back to Mamma Rome???

 

Your Scriptural search wasn't careful enough.

Matthew 1:25 And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
--The word "till" indicates that afterward, after Christ was born he had relations with Mary. Mary did not remain a virgin. This verse explicitly says so.

Matthew 1:25 and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus. (WEB)

(Mat 1:25) But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus. (Contemporary English Version)

You can't really deny the meaning of this verse. Just look at the various translations. Its meaning is very clear. There is no question that she did not remain a virgin. Just by this one verse we have absolute verse. But there is more:

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
--Here are the names of his half brothers and half sisters are mentioned as well. Plenty of proof that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. She had many children.

According to Mat.1:25, the children came from Mary. This is a no-brainer.

The Bible has greater authority. The context in Mat.13:54-57 includes both Mary and Joseph and all the brothers and sisters. It is Jesus immediate family. That is the context. You can't get around this fact.

You are delving into RCC myth--the myth that Matthew was first written in Aramaic. It wasn't. It is myth. Such a gospel has never been found. It doesn't exist. There are over 5,000 MSS in existence today. Not one of them gives any indication that Matthew was ever written in Aramaic.

That being the case the Greek word for brother is adelphos, which means brother, and is properly translated. There is another word for cousin. It could have been used but wasn't. There was no Aramaic word used. Your argument is bogus.

Nonsense. It was a fair question since she was a virgin. She was asking how was this biologically possible since she was a virgin. Mary was espoused to Joseph, ready to be married. Joseph had relations with her shortly after Christ was born as it says in Mat.1:25.

If she was already pregnant (by the Holy Spirit) and still a virgin, her question was very legitimate. Again, your argument makes no sense.

None? And we are just to take your word for this?? I don't think so. I would rather take what the Bible teaches anyway.

I don't know of the former, but Augustine was one of the Catholic "fathers". Of course he believed it--along with all the other RCC lies. What would you expect? The Bible plus one is greater than the world without the Bible. You are espousing an unbiblical philosophy.

Most of these men were Catholics trying to reform the RCC from within. What do you expect? When the got kicked out of the Catholic Church they brought much of the RCC baggage with them.

The half-brothers of Jesus did not get saved until after the resurrection. It was inconceivable that Christ would entrust Mary to an unsaved person even if it were her own kin. She would be better taken care of with his own close group of disciples, the same group that she found herself praying with in Acts 1.

The language can't be any clearer than to come right out and say that Joseph had intercourse with Mary. But the translators were not so blunt; they didn't have to be.

non sequitor.

 

Lutherans and the Reformed affirm that Mary was "ever virgin":

Book of Concord:
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

"The Book of Concord refers to Mary as “blessed” (AC III 1), “pure, holy, and ever-virgin” (SA-I 4)"

Second Helvetic Confession:
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

"the ever virgin Mary"

 

Christ came to save people from their sins; not Mary.
One of the last acts the Christ did on the Christ was to take care of his earthly mother, or the person who played that part.
Consider: Mary was now old. She was old enough to be a grandmother. Her sons were all grown. In just a couple years or so, James, the half brother of Jesus will be the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. However, John was the youngest. All of his works were written in the 90's and he probably lived into the first part of the 2nd century. He is also called "the beloved disciple" or "the disciple whom Jesus loved." To this disciple (John) he committed the care of Mary. John was young, strong, had the means to take care of Mary, and had the love and devotion that would be needed to care for her. If you wanted someone to take care of your mother, wouldn't you seek out someone who you knew would show much love and care? An unsaved person could never show the love that John could show.

 

Like I said, the Bible never says that Mary had children. Of course, it doesn't say that she diidn't either. So I guess you all are entitled to your opinion. I would just note that there is no recorded history of anyone believing Mary had other children until well after the time of Luther and Calvin. It wasn't even a debated matter. If it had been, I may not have ever changed my mind about this after believing the other way all these years. There is nothing new under the sun. If it is new it's probably wrong and the idea that Mary had other children is a new idea.

 

Proselyte of course! The RCC tries to keep at least one family of undercover Catholics in every Baptist church to convert as many members as they can. Since they move them around from time to time, I'm coming to your church next to steal both of your members.

No I'm not on the same journey as TS. TS went from Catholic to Baptist and back to Catholic. I, on the other hand, grew up a Baptist and never left. I remained in the church of my birth until age 25 and have been happily serving in the same church for nearly 42 years. So I have only belonged to two churches--ever. I love everything about it except their beliefs, which they don't really wear on their shoulders.

 

Maybe not, but that is really speculation on your part, isn't it. Scripture doesn't say one way or the other. But she certainly seemed exalted when portrayed in Revelation 12:1.

This is not exactly a portrait of the cleaning lady.

 

This belief is very old. It was and is called Nestorianism and was denounced as heresy at the Council of Ephesus.

 

And that is the very heart of Marian devotion, to point people toward Jesus. From the time she gave birth to her beloved Son, Mary's unwavering purpose has been to bring people closer to Him so that they will do whatever He says.

 

As it stands, your statement could be misleading, Jerome. It seems to suggest that all who espouse Reformed theology ("the Reformed" to use your wording) believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary). That just is not so.

Also, your wording of your second link could be seen as saying that the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals holds to the perpetual virginity of Mary. But the Alliance site includes several Reformed statements of faith/catechisms, not just the Second Helvitic Confession. Many of those do not say that Mary remained a virgin. As far as I am aware, the Alliance does not teach perpetual virginity.

 

Mary

The last recorded words of mary in the bible are found in the gospel of John .

John 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

In this verse we notice that mary doesnt direct men to obey "Her" or any other human being , she points them to the Lord Jesus Christ .

 

So you are a Roman Catholic in "beliefs" as you just admitted you are not Baptist in belief? Moreover, the "Baptist" church you belong to does not really teach and practice what they say they believe "they don't really wear on their shoulders"??

So, you do have some beliefs and they are not Baptist beliefs and you are a deacon in the church! Tell me, do you teach any Sunday school class? If so, do you teach what you really believe or do you teach what the Southern Baptist Sunday School literature teaches???