Did Mary Have Other Children?

Thems just the facts, my ignorant friend. I hope I've enlightened you a little.

Enlightened me??? With what??? More fables...

Actually, history tells us that when young Jewish girls took vows of chastity it was FOR LIFE.

I don't believe you...Post some credible Jewish documents...

You see, my friend, if Mary had intentions of breaking her vows one day and "knowing" a man, she would have had no need whatsoever to ask that question in the first place: "But how shall that be"? She'd have known perfectly well "how that would be".

That whole line of thought is ridiculous...Mary planned on being a virgin until she was married...That's why she ask 'how shall that be'...

And no, the Scripture do not tell us that Mary had other children. Some verses refer to "Jesus' brothers and sisters', meaning his followers, disciples and brothers and sisters in the spirit who followed his every word. The ENTIRE Bible is rife with the term "brothers", clearly referrng many times to like-minded followers, or close friends.

That's what I've been saying in numerous posts...You got it, but you still don't get it...

Brother/brethren indicates someone with a common bond; whether it be a brother by blood, a brother in Christ, a brother in arms, a brother in race, etc...

But notice that the New Testament NEVER calls anyone "Mary's sons or daughters", NEVER. That's why the Protestant argument agaisnt the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity crumbles like a moth's wing when you touch it.

But you notice that no one ever calls Mary's dog LuLu...So what??? Does that mean she didn't have a dog??? You guys sure come up with some feeble reasoning...

When you have said you are a UNitarian, I have always thought you meant NOT that you were a member of this or that group but that you were NOT in the Nicene strand.

You are essentially correct. I am not a member of any Church but my philosophy is very Unitarian.

I am not ready to nail some statement to the mast, but I think of the Bible as a book (or books) in a context. So I guess that would suggest that it is not "sufficient" because it does not -- in this line of thought -- stand alone.

But, as I say, I'm just mulling this thing over.

and ask ME why Dominicans claim a special relationship of patronage with the Magdalene who is, as we say,"the apostle to the apostles".

OK, consider yourself asked. :-) I am very interested in the subject and may well be in agreement with the Dominicans on this subject.

How about "Dominican Flavored Unitarian" as a tag line?

sketchy

Thank you. I found this site earlier today and was "put off" by the following:

"...In the 13th century, the Church set great store by the conversion of prostitutes, the most devout of whom where incorporated into communities of penitents by the bishops. These communities, which were given a Dominican constitution, took St. Mary Magdalene as their patron, as the saint herself was believed to have belonged to their ranks."

For many years the Catholic Church taught, (whether oficially or not is not relevant) in error, that Mary Magdalene was a reformed prostitute. Even the linking of Mary Magdalene to prostitution is disturbing to me.

scroll down for more sketchiness.

Thanks again. I particularly appreciated the Dominican/Mary Nagdalene reference.

If I find anything more discursive and complete I will let you know.

(Fr.Bruno Shah whose posts there are is a great guy. He did a summer at our Parish and is now on the staff at Easter Province (St. Joseph) headquarters at St. Vincent Ferrer's Church on, I think 63rd and Lex in Manhattan. It's a beautiful Gothic revival church, AND in one of the chancel windows you will see Aristotle ... with a HALO! Cracks me up.)

Back in 2003 my Surge Protector took a direct hit from a lightning bolt. The Surge Protector, the computer, and my backup disk attached to the "protector" were all fried. My "library" of information on Mary Magdalene was lost. In spite of my good intentions I have not built my data up again.

I did find a 2003 post which touched on the subject.

"To: XXXXXXXXXXX
A question: mrs. xxxx and I have been having a similar conversation and we both were wondering why Jesus chose Mary of Magdala to appear to first after his resurrection. Got any comments on that?"

(OLD REGGIE) Before my computer was done in by lightning I had done some research on Mary Magdalene. Of course it all went up in smoke. It seemed to me she had a very powerful relationship with Jesus and I wondered if we were getting the full, true story. I had intended to spring that story into our discussions when the time was appropriate.

I will have to go back over that ground and build up my "Mary Magdalene" database one more time. Suffice it to say, I believe she was much more important in the early Church than we can glean from Scripture or Church History.

In the meanwhile a Google search on "Mary Magdalene" "Apostle To The Apostles" will yield much information.

60,692 posted on 07/22/2003 3:44 PM EDT by OLD REGGIE
((I am a cult of one! UNITARJEWMIAN))

Obviously, at the time I had sympathies with the Unitarians, the Jews, and the Ariminians. (I still do, but Unitarian is easier to say.) :-)

I hope you will share as you remember/rediscover.

Whatebver the truth of the Magdalene's life was, I think that as prosperity increased and economic inequity persisted, there must have been a lot of young women who were prostitutes. So whether the hagiography was on the beam or not, I think it was a good thing that it was possible for them to have a place where they could be fed and housed and spend their time in better ways than fornication for hire.

The first "house" that Dominic established was for "second order" (women, contemplatives, cloistered) sisters who were, the story goes, recovered fro Albigensiansism.

I think we forget that in the times, the "religious life" was likely to be a lot healthier, pleasant, and more moral than what was possible otherwise for unmarried women of modest means.

I think the point for Dominicans is, first, preaching in general, and second, in being prepared to hear the good news from unexpected quarters. I'm guessing more of us will be more superficial than you are when it comes to MM.

Anyway the legend gives us a key to the iconography since MM was thought to have red hair ....

Thank you. However, in neither case was the timeline defended that I was able to tell. Simple statements do not necessarily prove anything. Also, what in the world are you doing on the CARM site? They'd sterilize the site with bleach for a week if they found out that a UU was wandering through it. :)
The "Unafilliated" have a great advantage over the "Organized" in that we feel free to use any source generally available. :-)

(Secret: I will even use Athiest sites for research purposes.)

I think that it's a rather open secret!!! :)

True! There is no defensible timeline for any book, after much debate and arm twisting, accepted into our current "perfect" Bible. I presented two differing versons as an illustration the Gospels were written and accepted long before any "Fathers" invented an exalted role for Mary.

Well, the belief of the Church kinda differs from your sources.

At any rate, the belief is that the Gospel writer Luke wrote the first icon - of Mary. That was certainly pre-Gospel, and possibly before any of the rest of what would become Scripture was written. Certainly before it was widely circulated.

I must admit I chuckle when I see a presentation of fact justified by such terms as "the belief is", "Legend has it..", or "(Holy) Tradition is...".

That, my son, is not allowed as evidence in my court.

Since I don't believe that you run the Heavenly Judiciary, my concern would be more on the personal level, as in rational (!) adults conversing and debating. :)

Evidence is not of the first rate involving the exact timeline and happenings of first century events; much of it wanders the road from fact to belief.

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.