Posted on 06/13/2011 3:57:07 PM PDT by HarleyD
Yes, Mary had other children. Mary was the earthly mother of the Christ child, but she was no mother to you nor me.
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... 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.
The usual errors from the same suspect for the same superstitious, tyrannical reasons.
” .. . 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.
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.
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.
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?
A most excellent point! I had forgotten the wording of that passage.
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?
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.
Scripture that states this?
Hoss
Scripture that states this?
Hoss
If the author had read the New Testament in the original Greek, he would see that his interpretations/translations are clearly incorrect.
“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.”
So let me get this straight. The Roman Catholic Church, which, incidentally, was the sole custodian of both Biblical Testaments for 1500 years, and made no changes in those testaments in the following 500+ years, deliberately established and purveyed a “tradition” which contradicted those texts? I don’t think so.
And, btw, the RC Church has never taught that Mary, honored and exalted as her position is, is a co-redemptrix.
Behold thy Mother. We are all her children.
Nice of you to critique your post for us to save us the time.
Thanks. Good to hear from you.
I don't know much about Catholicism but I doubt that Catholics "worship" anybody but the Lord. To worship anybody but the Lord clearly goes against the first and second commandments, which I believe are the same for Catholics as for every other Christian.
The Church Christ established on earth was sustained years and years (through Sacred Tradition) before any Gospels or NT matter were written.
I think part of this is the political fallout that would occur if Mary wasn't a virgin forever. If Mary is thought of as the spouse of the Holy Spirit she would be committing adultery if she had carnal relations with Joseph. Of course the idea of Mary being a spouse of God is greco-roman paganism. The desire to have a "suitable background story" is just the desire of a body of believers trying to "mainstream" Christianity.
We see Mary identified in Scripture by Jesus Christ as woman. Paul called her woman. In the early Christian Church she was called "suitable vessel" by Ignatius. Then the heresy started creeping in when Justin Martyr called her "new Eve" followed by Irenaeus calling her "advocate" and then "Mother of God" by Origen. All in the span of 200 years.
Really. I see no mention of bishop, priest, pastor, abbot cleric, etc., etc. But I’m supposing you’re telling me that these words are *understood* when “preacher” or “apostle” or “teacher” is used. Guess you’re telling me, too, that maybe “brother” means something other than full sibling because the Bible tends to use words figuratively, loosely, indeterminately.
Celebrate Passover Seder each year. The plain reading of that statement would mean:
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
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.