Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Mary Have Other Children?
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry ^ | Unknown | Matt Slick

Posted on 06/13/2011 3:57:07 PM PDT by HarleyD

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510).

As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm

There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, they hated Me without a cause."

He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Fathers house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."

Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.

To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."

This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." Gods will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.

Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?

Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.

The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.


TOPICS: General Discusssion; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: brothers; cousins; mary; nameonebrother; relatives; stepchildren
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,001-1,026 next last

1 posted on 06/13/2011 3:57:11 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; daniel1212

Something for your read.


2 posted on 06/13/2011 3:58:44 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I always thought Jesus had brothers.
In fact, I always wondered if he had sisters as well.


3 posted on 06/13/2011 3:59:41 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; drstevej; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; Wrigley; Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; jboot; ...

Ping...


4 posted on 06/13/2011 4:01:41 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Um, the essay does not prove Mary had other children after Jesus. The essay does make a great case for Joseph having children who were his by another wife, who perhaps died in childbirth prior to Joseph’s betrothal with Mary. But the Bible really doesn’t make this issue plain. Joseph however is not a part of the New Testament story after childhood of Jesus (the incident where the twelve year old Jesus lagged behind at the Temple and was not missed until the parents were on the road appears to be the last mention of Joseph, IIRC).


5 posted on 06/13/2011 4:03:21 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Of course! Mary was a stereotypical overbearing Jewish mom. Always bugging the Savior.

"Son, why do you have to spend so much time studying Torah at the synagogue? You don't even want to be a Rabbi. Why can't you be a lawyer like your brother Benny?"
6 posted on 06/13/2011 4:04:59 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

“The essay does make a great case for Joseph having children who were his by another wife, who perhaps died in childbirth prior to Joseph’s betrothal with Mary”

With all due respect, this is like the ‘Big Bang’ Theory. There is NO evidence of Joseph having had a prior wife ANYWHERE.
Yet there IS evidence that Mary had other children in this. They are always mentioned with Mary, not Joseph. Why do we just ASSUME that they MAY have been Joseph’s from a prior marriage? This is out of thin air.


7 posted on 06/13/2011 4:07:17 PM PDT by J40000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

No one, picking up a New Testament and reading it through, would conclude Mary remained a virgin. Neither would they conclude that Purgatory is real, that the Bishop of Rome reigns supreme, or that priests are needed to offer a literal sacrifice of the flesh and blood of Jesus each week (or more). Those require scripture to conform to tradition, rather than judge tradition in light of scripture.


8 posted on 06/13/2011 4:08:38 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Of course she did, there is no reason not to believe she and Joseph did not have children.


9 posted on 06/13/2011 4:08:41 PM PDT by svcw (Non forgiveness is like holding a hot coal thinking the other person will be blistered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J40000

Mentioned with Mary may be purely the result of Joseph having died and Mary raised the children and they are loyal to her for her dedication to them. James, brother of Jesus, did not believe in Him until after His resurrection, but then James becomes a prayer warrior for The Christ’s message. The author also fumbled a bit on the simile Jesus posed when He related that all who seek God’s Grace are His brothers and sisters.


10 posted on 06/13/2011 4:13:42 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Salvation

>>It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary’s virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.<<

I think that is a misinterpretation. The Bible is quite clear of a virgin birth of God’s Son. After that it will take some serious archaeological detective work to determine what happened. We know the last quote from Mary in the Bible is at the “water to wine” wedding and she says “do as He (Jesus) says.”

At least that is how I recall it. If someone knows otherwise I will gladly accept being corrected.

Salvation I ping you because I am pretty sure you know a lot about this kind of thing..


11 posted on 06/13/2011 4:14:53 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

The divinity of Jesus of Nazareth inheres in his being one of the three persons of the Trinity, the Godhead, and not in any sense on whether or not his mortal mother bore additional children. He is God, and nothing that any mortal has done or can do can alter that truth. No Christian believes that Messiah did not exist prior to his incarnation in a manner chosen by God to serve His purposes, or that God could not have achieved His purpose by some other means. We presume too much when we undertake to impose conditions on Jesus’ divinity on the basis of the imaginings of our innately sinful and errant minds.


12 posted on 06/13/2011 4:17:47 PM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

>>”Why can’t you be a lawyer like your brother Benny?” <<

He can walk on water and heal cripples, but can he spend a minute to talk to his mother? I am kvetching here and all he can think about is humanity! What, I am not part of humanity?

More Manachevitz, please. Did you know this was water this morning?

(am I going to be punished for that?)


13 posted on 06/13/2011 4:18:52 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Joe 6-pack

He did plainly say, “Do this in memory of me.”


14 posted on 06/13/2011 4:20:17 PM PDT by definitelynotaliberal (There is no native criminal class except Congress. Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I’m sure He did have sisters. I suppose it was the culture at the time, but, when Jesus fed the 5000, He only counted the men, not the women and children. I’ve always felt also, that Jesus had brothers and sisters because God loves His creation. Told us to go and multiply and I don’t believe God would have left Mary without other children. Also, back then women didn’t have jobs, relied heavily on husbands and their children. Especially as they grew older.


15 posted on 06/13/2011 4:21:40 PM PDT by MsLady (Be the kind of woman that when you get up in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Elsiejay

You raise good points. Are you aware that cells from a gestated child remain alive in the uterine tissue of the mother for possibly the rest of her life? If one believes Jesus was man AND God in His flesh, then cells from his time in Mary’s womb would also be ‘cells from God’. Would it be profane to have other children conceived in such a place? ... I’m asking, not preaching.


16 posted on 06/13/2011 4:24:14 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

These are aomong the stupidest threads I have seen on FR in a long time

Mary had a husband, Jesus talks about ‘brothers’

Mary and Joseph were ‘doing it’

What the heck is the problem with that, that it deserves 2 thousands years of speculation?


17 posted on 06/13/2011 4:25:15 PM PDT by Mr. K (CAPSLOCK! -Unleash the fury! [Palin/Bachman 2012- unbeatable ticket])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Of course not! It was the best wine the governor of the feast had tasted!


18 posted on 06/13/2011 4:25:15 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Oh, goody, the literalists are at it again.

Just a note to the author: Catholic “tradition” and the selections as to what constituted the New Testament of the Bible were one and the same for 15 centuries, and the “Catholic” version of the New Testament hasn’t changed since then. Isn’t it highly unlikely that the Catholic Church just happened to miss, for 2000+ years, that the New Testament contradicted its teaching? But there are still those who think a smoking gun lurks somewhere . . .

This reminds me of the Sarah Palin email dump.


19 posted on 06/13/2011 4:28:13 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

**Did Mary Have Other Children?**

Simple answer — No. If anyone would have touched her, the Ark of the New Covenant, they would have died just like the people who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant died.

Also — look up in your Bible:

How many times is the word “brethren” used?

A lot!

They lived in family courts, usually with relatives around them. These relatives were called “brethren” or cousins. It’s the language of that day.


20 posted on 06/13/2011 4:28:14 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MsLady
I don’t believe God would have left Mary without other children.

Why did Jesus commend Mary to John's care as he was hanging on the cross, if she had other children to take care of her?

21 posted on 06/13/2011 4:29:25 PM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory; and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
I laugh every time a thread like this comes up, for your founders believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Virgin Birth—or Prophetic Slip?
The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
Aeiparthenos (An Anglo-Catholic Priest on Mary's Perpetual Virginity)
[Why I Am Catholic]: Because of the Protestant Reformers Beliefs On Mary
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Mary: Virgin and Ever Virgin
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Protestant Reformers on the Virgin Mary
Zwingli’s’ Mariology: On Mary “Full of Grace”

22 posted on 06/13/2011 4:31:30 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mach9

You mean like for 2000 years refusing to allow Bishops to marry when the Bible clearly teaches they can be and should be if they can’t bridle their lusts? Yeah, I think they missed this one too. The plain reading of it is, yes, he had brothers and sisters and Joseph knew his wife Mary.


23 posted on 06/13/2011 4:32:22 PM PDT by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
"As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible."

Again, another problem with the Protestant doctrine of Scriptural exclusivity that suggests that all that was revealed by God, for all purposes, is contained in one handy-dandy book. Let's examine the Bible, not by a dissection of each word and verse, but at the level of its intended scope and purpose.

The Bible was not intended to be a science or a history book, it is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences or history from it. In the words of (then) Cardinal Ratzinger; "Holy Scripture in its entirety was not written from beginning to end like a novel or a textbook. It is, rather, the echo of God's history with his people. It arose out of the struggles and the vagaries of this history, and all through it we can catch a glimpse of the rises and falls, the sufferings and hopes, and the greatness and failures of this history. The Bible is thus the story of God's struggle with human beings to make himself understandable to them over the course of time; but it is also the story of their struggle to seize hold of God over the course of time."

One cannot get from Holy Scripture a scientific explanation of how the world arose or a detailed historical account of irrelevant happenings. Again n the words of Cardinal Ratzinger; "one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time -- from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring."

The Holy Scripture is ambiguous on this issue but the Holy Tradition holds that Mary was otherwise childless and that is good enough for me.

24 posted on 06/13/2011 4:33:04 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Luke 2:7 calls Jesus her first-born son. To me that means she had other children.


25 posted on 06/13/2011 4:33:19 PM PDT by carton253
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sigzero
"You mean like for 2000 years refusing to allow Bishops to marry when the Bible clearly teaches they can be and should be if they can’t bridle their lusts?"

What perverted cult are you referring to, because that is not the teachings of the Catholic Church.

26 posted on 06/13/2011 4:34:33 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

People are forever going to argue this one *and* it makes no difference what-so-ever.


27 posted on 06/13/2011 4:35:54 PM PDT by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I am going to go ahead and say it, the Catholic worship of Mary is heresy.


28 posted on 06/13/2011 4:37:23 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I’m reminded of my grandmother, a staunch Baptist, explaining the references to wine in the Bible. According to her, the many refrences weren’t about any alcoholic wine, but simply a Jewish version of Welch’s grape juice.

The controversy about the family members of Jesus is discussed in great detail and with lots of scholarly references in the book, “The Jesus Dynasty” by Dr. James Tabor, head of the Dept of Religion at U North Carolina.

You can’t read this book without coming away with the conclusion that the “perpetual virginity of Mary” theory is much like my Grandmother’s Jewish grape juice theory—something that was invented much later to meet the required tenets of a theological matter of faith.


29 posted on 06/13/2011 4:38:17 PM PDT by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The essay does make a great case for Joseph having children who were his by another wife, who perhaps died in childbirth prior to Joseph’s betrothal with Mary.

Then by that logic why are not Joseph "earlier" children from a first marriage traveling with there Father and Stepmother "Joseph & Mary" at Jesus birth?...

30 posted on 06/13/2011 4:40:36 PM PDT by tophat9000 (Global Warming, undeniable truth; Obama, infallible genius; Apple perfect, invented everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

lol...that is funny. So all those poor schucks arguing that the RC church should allow its priests to marry....what a waste of time arguing something that doesn’t exist. Please.


31 posted on 06/13/2011 4:41:03 PM PDT by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mach9
"But there are still those who think a smoking gun lurks somewhere . . ."

If there's a smoking gun anywhere it'll turn up and blow the tush off of those folks who think five hundred years of carnal BS is superior to two thousand years of Christ directing His Church. Of course, they'll either reinterpret it or otherwise discount it as fact the same way they do everything else that doesn't agree with their own carnal understanding.

The same appeal Satan made to Eve works all the time these days as well. People want to be as god and place their own understanding above what they're commanded which is to take up their cross and follow Him. They're not commanded to reinterpret or rewrite everything to suit their own carnal understanding and then carry any little wood chips that remain after they're done carving everything up to suit themselves rather than accepting what has been Christian knowledge for two thousands years.

32 posted on 06/13/2011 4:41:13 PM PDT by Rashputin (Obama is insane but kept medicated and on golf courses to hide it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sigzero

Trick question? Maybe you should let us know where the New Testament, or the Old for that matter, refers to Bishops and the conditions of their ordination, consecration . . .


33 posted on 06/13/2011 4:42:16 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

>>The Bible was not intended to be a science or a history book, it is a religious book<<

You gonna GET IT NOW!


34 posted on 06/13/2011 4:42:31 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Yo, bro!


35 posted on 06/13/2011 4:43:45 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

>>I am going to go ahead and say it, the Catholic worship of Mary is heresy.<<

It isn’t “worship,” but I will now stand back and watch the result of your tossing a skunk into this particular punch bowl...


36 posted on 06/13/2011 4:44:40 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mach9

1 Timothy 3 gives the qualifications for Bishop.


37 posted on 06/13/2011 4:47:13 PM PDT by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

“Did Mary Have Other Children?”

James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.


38 posted on 06/13/2011 4:50:55 PM PDT by Grunthor (Make the lefts' collective brain cell implode; Cain/Bolton 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Thanks for the ping. It was a good read.
39 posted on 06/13/2011 4:51:19 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
If Scripture does not tell us definitively one way or the other, we should not spend our time on speculation.

GOD directed what would be written in what we know today as the Bible. If we needed more details, they would have been provided.

40 posted on 06/13/2011 4:51:36 PM PDT by ken in texas (Can't Afford a Tagline... send money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; TSgt; RnMomof7; Alex Murphy; wmfights; Forest Keeper; the_conscience; Dutchboy88; ...
Excellent article, Harley.

Yes, Mary had other children. Mary was the earthly mother of the Christ child, but she was no mother to you nor me.

DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS?

When we carefully consider the Biblical record, the question itself seems quite ridiculous, because it is so clear even from the context of many of the scriptures that He did. The only major religion that chooses to dispute this is the Roman Catholic religion. Roman Catholicism dogmatically maintain that following the Lord's birth, Mary continued in her virginity the rest of her life and never bore any more children. This in direct contradiction to everything in scripture which shows that though Joseph and Mary did not come together before Jesus was born, they did afterward, and the Lord indeed blessed them with Children.

With so much Biblical validation for this, the question is, why would anyone attempt to dispute it, or even want to? The answer is as simple as the word 'tradition'. It is because these scriptures directly contradict Roman Catholic tradition which glorifies Mary as a perpetual virgin, Co-Redemptrix, and Mediatrix. If this church were to confess that the scripture is correct and Mary had other children, it would destroy their well oiled myths about Mary. Therefore, a way had to be devised which would justify this teaching...

The usual errors from the same suspect for the same superstitious, tyrannical reasons.

41 posted on 06/13/2011 4:52:18 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

” .. . rather than accepting what has been Christian knowledge for two thousands years.”

And, not that it should matter to Christians and Jews, that knowledge also reflects even older, or at least independent, tenets of natural law.


42 posted on 06/13/2011 4:52:18 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

Other than the difficulties of traveling with a very pregnant woman so no attention for a bunch of rowdy kids along to the census accessor, I have no idea. The same quandry would apply for the story of Jesus at 12 getting left behind at the Temple ... no other children are mentioned in that story either.


43 posted on 06/13/2011 4:55:00 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Mary and Joseph were ‘doing it’

What the heck is the problem with that, that it deserves 2 thousands years of speculation?


Some faiths lose their freaking minds at the thought of Mary EVER having sexual relations with her husband.


44 posted on 06/13/2011 4:55:31 PM PDT by Grunthor (Make the lefts' collective brain cell implode; Cain/Bolton 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

I may be wrong, but didn’t the Bible mention that Joseph didn’t (or was prohibited to) have relations with Mary until after Jesus was born?


45 posted on 06/13/2011 4:55:57 PM PDT by boop ("Let's just say they'll be satisfied with LESS"... Ming the Merciless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: carton253

A most excellent point! I had forgotten the wording of that passage.


46 posted on 06/13/2011 4:58:26 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Jesus’ instructions to John to take care of Mary, as his mother, upon his crucifixion seem to imply that Mary had no other children.

Also... with 5 children in on the discipleship game with Jesus. How is there no role for Joseph, their father on earth, in their formation and ministry?


47 posted on 06/13/2011 4:58:59 PM PDT by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sigzero
"So all those poor schucks arguing that the RC church should allow its priests to marry..."

Neither all of those poor "schucks" or the painfully ignorant anti-Catholics who troll these threads define Church dogma and doctrine.

Within the Catholic Church celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. For Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians. Within some rites married men can become priests, but single priests cannot marry.

For about the last 1,000 years the rule of the Latin-Rite (Roman) Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy. This is to ensure that the attention and priorities of the clergy are not divided between a personal family and the needs of his flock. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism. Please.

48 posted on 06/13/2011 5:00:33 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
No. If anyone would have touched her, the Ark of the New Covenant, they would have died just like the people who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant died.

Scripture that states this?

Hoss

49 posted on 06/13/2011 5:01:35 PM PDT by HossB86 ( NOBODY admits to being a Calvinist unless they are one. I AM ONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
No. If anyone would have touched her, the Ark of the New Covenant, they would have died just like the people who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant died.

Scripture that states this?

Hoss

50 posted on 06/13/2011 5:01:45 PM PDT by HossB86 ( NOBODY admits to being a Calvinist unless they are one. I AM ONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,001-1,026 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson