Replies

“That’s the problem with you Prods and you Liberals”

This is a trolling thread.

The way I look at it is quite straightforward ~ and maybe even the correct way ~ the fundamental argument for "eternal virginity" is simply that Mary and Joseph were simply very, very, very serious people who were made moreso through Heavenly machination.

On the other hand, I take it they weren't as serious as some make them out to be, and had as much free will as any of us.

Presumably God could turn them into eternal virgins after they passed on to the great bye and bye!

Why is some perv so concerned about Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Anyone care to articulate why I must believe Mary was forever virginal in order to believe in Jesus Christ? Why would Mary’s perpetual virginity or lack thereof have any bearing on whether someone is saved? Seriously, if it turns out Mary had a couple kids, would that actually shake your faith in Jesus Christ?

There was an article in the WSJ, yesterday about another Catholic hospital closing and the influence of Sister Keehan. This one was in Phoenix, AZ. Why don’t you do some posting on that?

I’ve been wondering if Sister Keehan is part of the Catholic liberation theology movement?

The following is from the Gospel of Matthew, an Apostle who knew Jesus and His family background intimately, even without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: “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? (Matt 13:55, 56) These comments were made by people who knew Joseph and Mary and their family, for the Scripture tells us in the preceding verse: “And when he (Jesus) was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? (Matt 13:54) It bears repeating that these comments were made by people who most certainly knew the difference between blood brothers and sisters and mere cousins or kinfolk. We find a second report of this incident in the Gospel of Mark.

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” (Mark 6:3) As additional assurance that those who were making these comments were very well acquainted with our Lord’s earthly family, we read: “But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but inhis own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.” (Mark 6:4, 5)

In Greek, the language of the New Testament, the word for brother/ brethren is adelphos {ad-el-fos'}; for sisters, it’s adelphe {ad-el-fay'}. The word for cousin/kinfolk is suggenes {soong-ghen-ace'}. To think or believe that the inspired writers of Scripture were unfamiliar with these terms and therefore subject to misusing them, is to question the very integrity of the Holy Spirit who directed their efforts. And that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church does in the following entry from the 1994 Catechism.

Against this doctrine (Mary’s lifetime virginity) the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. (500, Page 126, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994)

What the Roman Catholic Church has “always understood,” and what the Scriptures clearly say are as far apart in this case as Rome is from the South Pole. When the word adelphos is used in the Gospels in reference to a specific name or names, it always means blood brother(s). There are no exceptions. That is how we know that Simon Peter was Andrew’s brother; (Matt 4:18) that John was the brother of James; (Matt 4:21) that Herod had a brother, Philip; (Matt 14:3) that Judas (not Iscariot) was the brother of another James; (Luke 6:16) that Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha; (John 11:2) that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3) For the Vatican to suggest that two of Christ’s named brothers were the sons of another Mary without accounting for the other two named sons is absurd. To imply that the Holy Spirit didn’t “get it right” is blasphemy, and Jesus had some choice words regarding those who blaspheme His Holy Spirit. (Cf. Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10)

The Word of God could not have made it any clearer that Mary had four sons besides Jesus, and that Jesus had both brothers and sisters. Following is a list of New Testament verses that simply cannot be misconstrued no matter how loudly the Roman Catholic apologists protest.

Matthew 12:46-49; Matthew 13:55; Mark 3:31-34; Mark 6:3 Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; 1Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19; Jude 1:1 (probable).

In the Galatians reference cited above, Paul identifies James as the Lord’s adelphos, (brother) not as His suggenes, (cousin or kinfolk). It is out of the question to think or believe that Paul didn’t know the difference between a brother and a cousin. Moreover, the great historians of the patristic age – Josephus of Judaism, and Eusebius of Christianity – made reference to brothers of the Lord in their respective histories.

In his Antiquities XX, 200, Josephus reported that, “James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ” had been put to death. And Eusebius, in his Book 2, Chapter 1:3, refers to “James the Lord’s brother.” Then, in Book 3, Chapter 20:1, this appears: “Jude…the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.” His meaning could not be clearer. The Jude he refers to was a blood brother of Jesus, not a brother by faith.

But the doctrine of Mary’s lifetime virginity, the denial that she and Joseph enjoyed a normal marriage as commanded by God in 1st Corinthians 7:4, 5, actually was obviated about 800 years before the births of Mary, Joseph or Jesus. In Psalm 69 is contained the following clearly Messianic prophecy: “I am become a stranger unto

my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” (Psa 69:8, 9)

How do we know that these verses are a Messianic prophecy? Because we read in the Gospel of John: “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” (John 2:15-17)

And in Romans, we read: “For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.” (Romans 15:3)

The Roman Catholic doctrine stating that Mary the mother of Jesus retained her virginity after Christ’s birth and for the rest of her life is just plain heresy. Worse, it is a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, author of the Scriptures, because it in effect accuses the Word of God of lying to us.

Mary is set aside by God for himself. She’s a holy object.

Things that were set aside for God in the Temple were never used for anything else. King Belshazzar profaned the sacred vessels from the Temple and was condemned.

How much more is the Mother of the Lord, she who carried him under her heart than all the vessels in the Temple?