Did Mary Have Other Children?

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry ^ | Unknown | Matt Slick

[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.)

• Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
• Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
• Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
• John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
• Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
• 1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
• Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."

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.

• Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

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.

[boatbums]

They proclaimed that it was of the faith and that those who denied it could NOT be saved.

I think that may be misunderstood.

Then please help me understand how that is NOT the truth. When a Pope makes ex-cathedra proclamations and pronounces anathemas against those who do not accept these dogmas, how is that different than what I said? How have I misunderstood?

[D-fendr]

We are told that the VERY WORD OF GOD is insufficient

It must be - you have to go outside it to get Sola Scriptura, 1500+ years afterward.

Protestants eschew the "doctrines of men" using doctrines of men.

[MarkBsnr]

The Trinitarian Formula and the Nicene Creed was first defined at Nicea. Since they were not in existence prior, does that negate them?

Well - - - they are traditions of men.

Since I place trust in the authority as outlined in Scripture which is given to the Church, I really don't see it as an issue. And if folks want to completely copy the Apostolic model, taking it as the only example to follow and repudiate Church teachings, well then, what about copying it completely, instead of picking and choosing.

Acts 5: 32 6 The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. 34 There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, 35 and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. 36 Thus Joseph, also named by the apostles Barnabas (which is translated "son of encouragement"), a Levite, a Cypriot by birth, 37 sold a piece of property that he owned, then brought the money and put it at the feet of the apostles.

Sounds like a commune of sorts, with the Apostles as heads of a benevolent theocracy. I doubt that that would go over well with most Westerners. So we have the point where the Church, in Scripture was given authority and we can accept that, or else we have the individual picking not only the Scripture that he wants, but then puts his own interpretation on it.

There are some with an orthodox Christian background who have doubts or are troubled by some of the extra-Scriptural dogma's of Christianity and who admit it. There are others, and I do not include you, who I believe go through the motions while not believing a word they say.

Appreciate the compliment. I agree with you. I think that there are many political leaders, rather publically, who only care about the social or public aspects and ensure that their pious actions are well known. There are many private individuals who do the same, so I shouldn't really isolate them.

Then there are the ones who do pious things for the right reasons, and very quietly - so as not to let their left hand know what their right hand is doing. They go into their quiet rooms and pray. The Orthodox are usually better than the Latins on this, I believe.

As for doubt, everyone has their moments. I wandered far afield, myself, for a time. However, thanks to many here on FR, my faith is noticeably strengthened. You have been a part of the conversation as well and my thanks for that.

[MarkBsnr]

When was the Protoevangelium of James written? Hint: not hundreds of years later. The first prayer that we have a parchment of is the Sub Tuum Praesidium from 250 AD Opinions regarding: Protoevangelium of James:

Aquinas: "apocryphal ravings" (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 9, Reply to Objection 3)(source) Jan Wakelin, Director of Radio for Catholic Answers, in response to the question "How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?": "We don't."

[Pseudo?]-Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496, lists it among "The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:" - Gelasian Decree, Chapter 5

We have Origen, ca. 240 calling the Protoevangelium trustworthy by the Church. Aquinas lived a thousand years later. The Gelasian Decree calls Maccabees Scripture - do you accept Maccabees?

Do you also accept the primacy of St. Peter based on:

1. After all these [writings of] the prophets and the evangelical and apostolic scriptures which we discussed above, on which the catholic church is founded by the grace of God, we also have thought necessary to say what, although the universal catholic church diffused throughout the world is the single bride of Christ, however the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision, but from the voice of the Lord our saviour in the gospel obtained primacy: 'You are Peter,' he said, 'and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind upon Earth shall be bound also in heaven and whatever you release upon Earth shall also be released in heaven'.

2. In addition there is also the presence of the blessed apostle Paul, 'the chosen vessel', who not in opposition, as the heresies jabber, but on the same date and the same day was crowned in glorious death with Peter in the city of Rome suffering under Nero Caesar; and equally they made the above-mentioned holy Roman church special in Christ the Lord and gave preference in their presence and veneration-worthy triumph before all other cities in the whole world.

3. Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter 'having no spot or wrinkle or any other [defect]'.

The truth is that the Protoevangelium was circulated and read widely amongst Christians and formed much of the traditions that developed before NT Scripture was compiled.

Why would Roman Catholic authors use apocryphal ravings whose credibility they cannot confirm and which works have been condemned (apparently) by a pope of their church? There are two obvious explanations:

(1) many Roman Catholic apologists have only a passing knowledge of history and the fathers, and

(2) some Roman Catholic apologists simply don't care: if it seems to support Rome's position, it is used. (3)In some cases, there is a third reason, which is that it is heretical works like the Protoevangelium of James from which, as an historical matter, were the true sources of the Roman Catholic doctrines and beliefs.

Having trouble counting? Nowhere does it say that the Protoevangelium is heretical. Nowhere. It simply says that Roman Catholics are to avoid them. Nonetheless, they were not dismissed by all of the East, and anyhow, were part of the formation of the early doctrine. Picking and choosing individual Church Fathers is ignoring the Consensus Patrum, which is the true decision making working of the Church. Individual Church Fathers may be in error on this or that. Even Augustine got a bunch of things wrong.

[MarkBsnr]

Subordinationist writings completely dominate Scripture in the NT and Trinitarian prose is largely absent. Look at the Synoptic Gospels and Paul's writings, especially.

Do we laugh or cry at these statements? So, the scriptures only lead us to being Arian or some other error???

Save the outrage. It is unbecoming. I will supply some examples since you apparently cannot find any:

John 20: 17 Jesus said to her, "Stop holding on to me, 10 for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" ...

21 14 (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." 22 15 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.

Just as the Apostles are subordinate to Jesus, these verses say that He is subordinate to His God, right? And the Holy Spirit is simply His messenger?

John 14: 28 13 You heard me tell you, 'I am going away and I will come back to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe. 30 I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world 14 is coming. He has no power over me, 31 but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me. Get up, let us go.

The Father commands Jesus, who obeys. Subordinationist? How else do you explain it?

Another typical attack on scripture by Roman defenders.

If you guys would only pay attention to what the Bible actually says instead of making it all up as you go...

We are told that the VERY WORD OF GOD is insufficient and we must believe apocryphal fables, forgeries, and lies starting with the Author who was certainly NOT James. Writings condemned by a Pope, now contain the real truth!!!

Dude, show me proof who wrote the four Gospels. Show me proof who wrote Jude. Show me who the various Johns were. Prove to me Peter wrote both of his epistles. And while you are at it, prove that Paul actually wrote more than half of the books attributed to him.

[MarkBsnr]

The "Roman church" whatever it is invented nothing about Mary. It appears to have developed or at least been in common use in the Egyptian area and spread to the other areas. During the fourth century,

300 years of silence, then apochryphal forgeries = Marian dogma. Yup, sign me up!

Origen writes as if it is quite popular. Hardly silence.

[MarkBsnr]

Once again you are displaying a magnificent grasp of history. Christian churches traditionally faced East.

There was no church, traditionally...

Interesting. So Paul and Peter were lying in their Epistles?

You can disagree with me all you want but you are disagreeing with God as well...

Speaking for God again? I oughta put you in touch with ol' Jed. He writes fiction as well as you do.

[MarkBsnr]

Once again you are displaying a magnificent grasp of history. Christian churches traditionally faced East.

There was no church, traditionally...

Interesting. So Paul and Peter were lying in their Epistles?

You can disagree with me all you want but you are disagreeing with God as well...

Speaking for God again? I oughta put you in touch with ol' Jed. He writes fiction as well as you do.

[MarkBsnr]

Oh Oh...Where's your kingdom that flesh and blood can't inherit??? Your and my flesh are corrupt...We can't inherit the Kingdom of God...

So you guys got convinced that the corrupt flesh sittin' on the throne in the vatican is the leader of the Kingdom of God on Earth??? Bible says it can't be...

Tell me again what your explanation of the keys are, and what binding and loosing on earth and heaven mean? I happened to be watching CNN at lunch at work today and there was no laugh track.

Search the scriptures...The scriptures are in condemnation of your religion...

So Jesus is gonna pop up from behind a wall one of these days and say "Just fooling"?

There is no Kingdom of God on Earth right now...Your religion is not the Kingdom of God...The Kingdom is Spiritual, within you and me...

You're admitting me? Does that mean I get to sit in the LaZBoy Throne in the Hall of Sunday Sports Theology at least once?

[MarkBsnr]

There wasn't any actual church tradition as your religion defines it before the apostles gave us the scriptures...

Which Apostles gave us the Scripture and when?

The apostles were starting the church...And God made changes along the way to counter the changing conditions on the ground...

Sure, at Councils such as Nicea, Constantinople and Hippo.

You ought to 'chuck' everything you learned from your religion and open the word of God and start anew...

I don't have a religion. I follow the Faith handed down to us from the Apostles who got it from Jesus. That is outlined in the NT Scripture. Try it some time; you might like it.

[MarkBsnr]

Christological definitions have been around for 1700 years. If you wish to revisit heretical beliefs with gusto, St. Irenaeus wrote a book that might apply very well.

You don't believe in the Christian God as decreed in Nicea, you don't approve of the Theotokos, you don't believe in the Eucharist. If you don't mind me asking, just what makes you Christian?

[MarkBsnr]

"It appears to have developed in the Egyptian area"... yep, that certainly explains the point Lera was making about the false gods like Osiris and Isis being transferred from the pagan religions into Christianity. Isis, Venus, Athena - all false goddesses whose legends and powers were taken and infused into a Christian faith under the guise of Mary which was taken over by false leaders who did not believe what they believed.

Alexandria was a great base for the early Church. Remember that Augustine was from Hippo, in the area. Irenaeus was from Alexandria, as well as Athenasius and Cyril. The Septuagint was written in Alexandria, by the way.

The Church was founded there by St. Mark the Evangelist and until the Second Ecumenical Council, was second in primacy in the Church.

[D-fendr]

E-gip-shuns!

(Don’t get them started on the Syrians.)

[boatbums]

Just as the Apostles are subordinate to Jesus, these verses say that He is subordinate to His God, right? And the Holy Spirit is simply His messenger?

The Father commands Jesus, who obeys. Subordinationist? How else do you explain it?

If you guys would only pay attention to what the Bible actually says instead of making it all up as you go...

Dude, show me proof who wrote the four Gospels. Show me proof who wrote Jude. Show me who the various Johns were. Prove to me Peter wrote both of his epistles. And while you are at it, prove that Paul actually wrote more than half of the books attributed to him.

Dude! I am very surprised to see you hawking these same doubts and unscriptural beliefs. How many times have we gone over this now???

The council that "defined" the trinity only put in formal writing what was already written throughout the Bible and believed by the church. Jesus had a subordinational role only so far as his humanity and his mission determined. You cannot deny that both the OT and the NT including the Gospels and the epistles teach over and over that Jesus IS God in the flesh. Since we do not worship multiple gods - because there only is one true God -- then if Jesus is God then he is equal to God Almighty. It didn't take a council hundreds of years to "decide" that God was a triune God. It was in Scripture all along.

If Jesus is subordinate to God then follow the example given that the woman submits to her husband as her husband submits to Christ as Christ submits to God. Scripture says there is no male or female in Christ but that we are all equal. So Christ is also equal to God. Any subordination was as it concerned position and purpose. It does not mean that Jesus was not God.

Finally, how much longer will you cling to the distrust of Holy Scripture? You have been reading the wrong books or websites if you presume we can have no confidence in the authorship of the Scriptures. Read this and get back to me.

[boatbums]

You guys also tell us Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit/God...That makes Mary the Mother of God and the wife of God... Yet, Mary's also a child of God...That makes her Jesus brother as well... That's quite a deity you got going there...

Good point. Mary is the wife of God, but the mother of God, a child of God but also a sister of God?

[Mad Dawg]

I think that what has grown in OUR thinking, once we got over the sulks about the Reformation 'n stuff, was that we understood (and it appears in the catechism and NO I'm not going to look it up) that, even though they are mistaken in our view, people with a perfectly good will and grown up and "formed" in a pluralistic environment may disagree with us about such things.

Now if a CATHOLIC were to disagree with the definitions, that's a big problem. at the very least he needs to quit being a Catholic if he's going to hold and teach an opinion at variance with which is defined.

But you are aware of no obligation of obedience to the Magisterium. So, painting it in the worst and most confrontative way (forgive me, I'm doing it to clarify the thought, not to be snarky) your ignorance is technically "invincible." So it is not culpable. A Catholic who put himself forth as a teacher, at the BEST construction, would be culpably (vincibly) ignorant because he ought to know that he should study the Church's teaching.

In any event, MY OWN PERSONAL view is, unlike yours, that if we could learn to get along in one 'visible' Church we would all have the riches which fervent and learned (and aesthetically graced) Protestants and other non-Catholics have, while you all would share what I, at least, think are the wonders of the Catholic Church. SO, we acknowledge and accept that their are non-Catholics who have a lively and saving relationship with Christ, while they disagree with us on matters we hold to be of critical importance. And also SO if you do not want to accept our Marian Dogmata, you really shouldn't join the Catholic Church. (That may seem obvious, but there seem to be a great many Catholics who don't get it, most of them in politics, evidently.) AND we think that by not agreeing and by staying out you miss out on lots of good stuff.

BUT that doesn't mean we think your passport will necessarily rejected at the Pearly Gates Immigration Department.

[boatbums]

Now if a CATHOLIC were to disagree with the definitions, that's a big problem. at the very least he needs to quit being a Catholic if he's going to hold and teach an opinion at variance with which is defined. But you are aware of no obligation of obedience to the Magisterium. So, painting it in the worst and most confrontative way (forgive me, I'm doing it to clarify the thought, not to be snarky) your ignorance is technically "invincible." So it is not culpable. A Catholic who put himself forth as a teacher, at the BEST construction, would be culpably (vincibly) ignorant because he ought to know that he should study the Church's teaching.

Thank you, MD, for your as usual graceful and kindhearted reply. Here's my "problem":

It's fine and good to say that only Catholics "must" agree with and obey the decrees of the magesterium and that you other guys should not sweat it, but what about those who were baptized as Catholics and went the whole nine yards with First Holy Communion and Confirmation or further and then left the church? Not their Christian faith, but the Catholic Church. There are some here who unequivocally say that we're stuck because "born a Catholic, die a Catholic" and all that. Those who have left the Catholic Church are not allotted that same freedom.

One more point, if the belief in Mary as Ever Virgin, Sinless, Assumed into heaven bodily, etc. that has been defined by an "infallible" Magesterium as de fide or of the faith, then how can they make it an optional belief in all the non-Catholic believers? If it is so important to believe or else its a "big problem" and grounds for excommunication from the Catholic faith, then why is it NOT important enough to define a Christian? We would agree that a person who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ could not be a Christian, right? So then why is the perpetual virginity of Mary a required belief but only for Catholics? There are other beliefs of the Catholic faith that are considered "optional" such as Limbo or the fate of unborn babies who die. Whether a person fasts on Fridays from eating meat is a "practice" and not mandatory as well as the oft argued celibacy of priests. So my point was why were these dogmas of Mary considered so important to warrant ex-cathedra decisions and sure eternity in Hell for disbelieving Catholics?

[Mad Dawg]

Tomorrow -- kind of stretched out at this point -- I will try to spekkerlate on your other questions. But here is the nub of the question, as far as I'm concerned.

We would agree that a person who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ could not be a Christian, right?

In my pre-Catholic life I was chaplain at a home for severely handicapped children. Most of them not only had physical handicaps but mental disabilities.

SO they might have been taught to say that IHS is Divine, but they would have had no clue, as you and I understand having a clue, what they meant.

Then I go to the Arian, maybe also not the greatest theological thinker. Somehow I htink of a "she". SO let it be. And she has been badly taught and really doesn't see HOW Jesus could be Divine. But she thinks He's wonderful; she pours out her heart in prayer to him night and day, she places all her trust in Him, not really seeing the theological problem with that.

I am not prepared to say she has no faith. I AM prepared to say that the evidence of her simple love MIGHT place her in "better seats" than mine in the heavenly chorus.

You must know by know that I think doctrine is VERY important. I do not think I am just wasting my time being all philosophical and theological and all.

But a heart full of charity beats a mind full of arguments any day, in my book. I fully expect fully graced dunderheads to be before me on the Last Day. I give what I can, but they give their all from the inexhaustible cruse of the grace of God.

So where is all our theology then?

I really will answer the other tomorrow, but I'm old and tired and I still think of you with affection because of our shared work last summer.

[Mad Dawg]

Tomorrow -- kind of stretched out at this point -- I will try to spekkerlate on your other questions. But here is the nub of the question, as far as I'm concerned.

We would agree that a person who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ could not be a Christian, right?

In my pre-Catholic life I was chaplain at a home for severely handicapped children. Most of them not only had physical handicaps but mental disabilities.

SO they might have been taught to say that IHS is Divine, but they would have had no clue, as you and I understand having a clue, what they meant.

Then I go to the Arian, maybe also not the greatest theological thinker. Somehow I htink of a "she". SO let it be. And she has been badly taught and really doesn't see HOW Jesus could be Divine. But she thinks He's wonderful; she pours out her heart in prayer to him night and day, she places all her trust in Him, not really seeing the theological problem with that.

I am not prepared to say she has no faith. I AM prepared to say that the evidence of her simple love MIGHT place her in "better seats" than mine in the heavenly chorus.

You must know by know that I think doctrine is VERY important. I do not think I am just wasting my time being all philosophical and theological and all.

But a heart full of charity beats a mind full of arguments any day, in my book. I fully expect fully graced dunderheads to be before me on the Last Day. I give what I can, but they give their all from the inexhaustible cruse of the grace of God.

So where is all our theology then?

I really will answer the other tomorrow, but I'm old and tired and I still think of you with affection because of our shared work last summer.

[Joya]

Well put, and you said,

I don’t think it should be any surprise at all that Satan uses ALL titles and ALL glory that belongs to God alone in order to deceive. Jesus Christ IS THE ONLY TRUE Lord of Lords, King of Kings, True God of True God, etc., alone. The point being made is NOT that satanic worship seeks to usurp the majesty and glory that is by all rights God’s alone, it is that the very term “Queen of Heaven” was used by those who worshiped a false god. Nowhere in Scripture is Mary called the Queen of Heaven, however, all throughout Scripture Jesus, who is Almighty God incarnate, IS accorded those titles as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. There is no Scriptural warrant for attributing Mary the title of Queen of Heaven. Why the Roman Catholic Church choose the title and gave it to Mary is what is in question.