The RC proposes that Mary had to be pure (i.e sinless) for Jesus Christ to be born sinless. We know that the scripture says that no one is sinless except Jesus Christ. So is this doctrine scripturally true?

Therein lies the dichotomy. If you believe ALL of the word of God then Mary must have been born of Sin, and into sin. God however used her because she was favored of God. IE she had a repentive heart, or a heart for God. Just like God used David and so many others that, although sinners were also repentive and chose to follow God. Sound familiar? How can anyone who claims to believe in the complete word of God not understand that Mary had one and one only virgin birth. All of her other births were created the normal way. In other words Mary and Joseph had Sex and she conceived! EGADS that is a horrifying thought.

inhisservice
I do believe that Mary was an immaculate conception.
That is that she was born without sin.
I also believe that the bible says that all normally born people were born with sin.
Mary was not normally born.
Now I KNOW that is hard for a Protestant to swallow.
It was one of the major sticking points for me before I became a Catholic.
In fact I still have some trouble with the ever virgin teaching, although not much trouble.
I really don't care whether Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, but I can see the other points of view that they were cousins or children of Joseph from a former marriage.
Yes it DOES make sense to me that Mary had to be pure sinless for Jesus to be born the pure lamb of God to be sacrificed under the NEW COVENANT, the Christian Passover.
If it does not make sense to you I can also understand that, for I was once there also.
When I came to believe that The Church was ans is the foundation and pillar of The Truth and that The Church is what we today know as the Catholic Church it was then that I was willing to accept that as God's truth on this planet.
Peaceand kindness,
Fred.

The bible tells us that there was a young virgin named Mary. The
angle of the Lord came to Mary and said,"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and overshadow you". He went on to tell her that a child would be formed in her, and she would give birth to the Massiah. This is the way God entered into humanity to bring a second Adam. God the Son
enfleshed Himself, the Holy Spirit bring about conception, the virgin beging, without the intervention of normal reproductive cycle of man.
That is why Jesus is called the Son of God. He was not the son of Joseph
or any human father . He was by the Holy Spirit . God brought about
virtually a second creation, a second man Without the Original Sin of a
male line from Adam. This links Jesus into the family tree of Mary
that makes Him a descendant of David and Abraham, which fulfilled
the various promises that God had made to them. It was from His
mother Mary, that the Lord receivied His human nature.
We are all born as sinners our fathers being from Adam, so yes
Mary was a sinner, we all are, because our fathers are of man, but she had no sexual contact with a male which made her a virgin and this was necessary.

Maggie 3

Thank you, arcura, for a gentle reply. I am curious how you came to the view that Mary was immaculately conceived? I am Protestant myself, and basing my theology on Scripture and reason, I don't see why Mary's immaculate conception is necessary. No biblical text mentions it, and I don't see why Jesus couldn't have had a sinful mother, provided that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. If a sinless person must have a sinless mother, then shouldn't Mary's mother also have had an immaculate conception, and her mother, and her mother? I'm sure that a great deal has been written on this point, so I'm showing my ignorance of Catholic theologians; but if there is a line of reasoning you found particularly compelling, I am interested.

amccune,
I came to the belief that Mary was/is the immaculate conception because the foundation and pillar of the truth teaches that and it is based on holy scripture.
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia...
Genesis 3:15

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.
Luke 1:28

The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.
Other texts

From the texts Proverbs 8 and Ecclesiasticus 24 (which exalt the Wisdom of God and which in the liturgy are applied to Mary, the most beautiful work of God's Wisdom), or from the Canticle of Canticles (4:7, "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee"), no theological conclusion can be drawn. These passages, applied to the Mother of God, may be readily understood by those who know the privilege of Mary, but do not avail to prove the doctrine dogmatically, and are therefore omitted from the Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus". For the theologian it is a matter of conscience not to take an extreme position by applying to a creature texts which might imply the prerogatives of God.

I only have one thing to say... ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Now the last time I looked up the word ALL it meant... ALL. She was favored of God... she was special but she was a sinner.

It isn't because I'm "protestant" that I can't swallow she was sinless" it IS because the word of God says we were ALL born into sin after the fall of Adam.


Therefore to answer the question... did she have to be sinless to be the Lord Jesus mother... according to the Bible the answer is... NO WAY!

inhisservice
I do believe that Mary was an immaculate conception.
That is that she was born without sin.
I also believe that the bible says that all normally born people were born with sin.
Mary was not normally born.
Now I KNOW that is hard for a Protestant to swallow.
It was one of the major sticking points for me before I became a Catholic.
In fact I still have some trouble with the ever virgin teaching, although not much trouble.
I really don't care whether Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, but I can see the other points of view that they were cousins or children of Joseph from a former marriage.
Yes it DOES make sense to me that Mary had to be pure sinless for Jesus to be born the pure lamb of God to be sacrificed under the NEW COVENANT, the Christian Passover.
If it does not make sense to you I can also understand that, for I was once there also.
When I came to believe that The Church was ans is the foundation and pillar of The Truth and that The Church is what we today know as the Catholic Church it was then that I was willing to accept that as God's truth on this planet.
Peaceand kindness,
Fred.

Fred, How in God name can you make such blasphemous statements with a straight face?
The Bible is emphatic that there was only ONE born of a virgin and HIS name was Jesus.
But I understand you are still blinded to the truth by the false teachings of your religion. As I have mentioned several times before, maybe you need to learn to read the BIBLE and not some false interpretation from your religious organization that is being written to align itself with the teachings of your religion.

The RC proposes that Mary had to be pure (i.e sinless) for Jesus Christ to be born sinless. We know that the scripture says that no one is sinless except Jesus Christ. So is this doctrine scripturally true?
For the Catholic the question has been settled by a pronouncement:


"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854

As a matter of faith, Catholics hold that Mary was born Immaculate. She cannot be perceived as a 'mere' woman. The OP has several of misconceptions both regarding Mary as insignificant and regarding what the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church's declaration of the Immaculate Conception. The most obvious is the misconception is that process by which a sinless Christ HAD to be borne by a sinless woman. It isn't that Christ HAD to be borne of a sinless woman but that he WAS borne of a sinless woman. This was foretold by prophesy. God preserves Mary from original sin so that His Justice will prevail. “I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.” (Gen 3:15). In His infinite mercy God overthrows the infernal serpent through the Blessed Virgin. Those who eviscerate the Blessed Virgin Mary would stain and subjugate Mary to Satan would do well to look to the Catholic faith hold Blessed Virgin singularly preserved exempt from ALL stain of sin original sin or private sin through God's grace.

Paul tells us why this is; “For as by the disobedience of one man [the original sin of Adam], many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19), consequently any man born has this original sin. Christ being man and God was the perfect sacrifice. "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), the Paschal Lamb, the perfect sacrifice. These are two seeming diametrically opposed absolutes; one that all men are born with original sin, the stain of sin, the other that Christ was perfect without sin. But Christ is both man and God perfect on both accounts. As a result, there can only be solution to this apparent dichotomy, Christ was born of a women whose original sin had been removed. Furthermore, He would be born of a woman that hadn't known sin because of His residence within her. St. Jerome ventures still further;


…that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Whether Joseph was virgin is really immaterial here. However what is material is the verse, Jeremiah 31:22 “How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? For the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN” we see God's mystical solution, rightly we conclude that Mary was Immaculate, protected from knowing the sins of Adam, protected from knowing the sins of men. But, how does one COMPASS Christ the man without ENCOMPASSING the God that is Christ? At the moment Christ was conceived God was infused; at that moment Mary's Womb would have been spiritually clean; as clean as the ritual cleansing of the Tabernacle of Moses. It's important that this be perceived as infusion not a junction or a injection of God into man. Thus the Blessed Virgin Mary's womb became the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant. This Ark would remain pure as did the Virgin Mary in her life celibacy. Being literally full of grace, full of God, would we, (could we), expect less. Would the Jewish Nation accept a Paschal Lamb any less than spotless, less flawless?

It seemed the heretic Nestorius developed a theological view similar to many Protestants who hold Mary 'merely a woman'; “if He whom she [Mary] bore was not man, but God the Word, then she was not the mother of Him who was born, for how could she be the mother of Him who is of a different nature from herself?” This was in 429 A.D. an age when the Protestants claim Christians didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception. If you don't understand, I'll try to explain if you don't already see the grievous error here. Nestorius believed that that God incarnate with man was a "junction", rather than enosis, that is a "unification." He referred to it as two Christs or two Sons or a unity of the prosopon. He was denounced by St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria as well as his own clergy. St. Cyril had sent his five books "Contra Nestorium" to Rome reproving Nestorius.

Nevertheless, we can go much further than St. Jerome or early Christian faith. The gospels tells us that the Messiah was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This birth has God literally encompassed by the womb of Mary, much the same way the Ark of the Covenant encompassed the Law in the Holy of Holies. The Tabernacle contained an outer court and inner court. See Ex 25-31 and Ex 39-40. Moses “commissioned” Beseleel, called by God to be the architect of the tabernacle and its furnishings; he was the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur along with Ooliab to build the tabernacle. In viewing the Tabernacle we move from outside inward we to a structure surrounded by a wall. Only one gate faces the east, a narrow gate; prefiguring Christ's warning, “narrow is the gate of righteousness.” The gate opens into the outer court in which we find the sacrificial altar and the bronze laver. On this altar is where the perfect Lamb is sacrificed.

The inner court has a antechamber containing the Menorah, the Altar of Incense, the Table of Shewbread (otherwise known as The Proposition Loaves), behind the veil was the Holy of Holies. In this most Holy place was the Ark of the Covenant

God was resident in a place made holy by his commands. Therefore, Moses was ordered to keep the Tabernacle spiritually and ritually clean. The Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.) was the Incarnate Word of God; all of which resided in the womb of Mary in the Person of Jesus. Judaism or Catholicism certainly wouldn't suggest that God reside in an unholy place.

The Tabernacle was the birthplace of the Jewish religion. Mary was a living Tabernacle and the birthplace of our Catholic faith as well. Christ said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He came to live, with perfection, the consummate the Old Covenant and to establish the New Covenant. But Matthew doesn't stop quoting Christ with simply “filling”, “For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.” And too, we shouldn't forget that with Christ's birth, another wondrous birth occurs; the birth of God's Kingdom on earth.

Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary. (Cf. Luke 1, Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1) God was infused into man to become Christ. At the very moment of conception, within the womb of Mary, Christ, became man and. Christ was one person with two natures, one of God, the other of man. Thus after the proper time, Christ was born of Mary as according as foretold by the angel; “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-33) Eventually, He passes through the veil; it's not rent, but passes like light passes through a window. Christ now becomes the Menorah (light) of the world, whose Word fell on the Altar of Incense to rise pleasingly to God, whose light fell on the loaves of proposition (The Twelve). These loaves were consumed by the high Priests who were said to receive Divine knowledge. As you probably know, a Divine Hope is born out of knowledge giving the expectation of obtaining the Vision of the Divine.

And just as the Jewish Kingdom of faith was born in the Ark of the Covenant, so was the Church of Jesus Christ infused in a human Ark, an ark like Noah's carrying the future of man across the waters of death, i.e. sin, within the womb of Mary. The Blessed Virgin Mary carries the spotless sacrificial lamb across the waters of death in sin to landfall - our salvation. And when He hung on the Cross, he gave up the ghost with a loud cry; and it was then “the veil of the temple was rent in two, from the top to the bottom.” His death was the beginning; it was then that the veil was rent with the birth of the newly commissioned Church, built on Peter commissioned to minister to salvation. Christ is truly present in any sense you want to consider; being a continuation of sacrifice of both the Old Testament and the New, body, soul and Divinity contained within Holy Eucharist. The Holy Spirit conceived the Church of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 16 we see sacrificial exposure of the bread (Apostles) to the Face of God.

Therefore we can only conclude that Mary is Ever Virgin and immaculate. Any less immaculate and Christ could not be considered a spotless, sinless, the Paschal Lamb. As in the time of Moses, whenever the Tabernacle was moved, the site became Holy remaining clean. As when Christ was born, so too was Mary. Mary being literally full of Grace, we hold that this Tabernacle could never be desecrated.

Mary had to be sinless for the Messiah to be born of her. More important still, failing to recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as immaculate, as Ever Virgin, as the Mother of God wounds the Creed in which we profess One God, with three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Mary was born with sin means that the 'Perfect Sacrificial Lamb' resided in filth and thus having contact with sin couldn't be 'perfect' preventing every Jew of the day from seeing Christ as God. To dismiss Mary's virginity is to say that God came from the seed of man – and in order to be God would require 'creation'. How can the uncreated be created? To dismiss that Mary was Ever Virgin is to say that one can be in physical contact with Grace Personified and still turn away – once again making God back into man. Either way, renouncing Mary's immaculate nature places the 'un-created' God on the same plane as the 'created', man, a contradiction most Catholics are unwilling to make.


JoeT

450donn,
It is YOUR judgment that what I said is blasphemous.
I'm happy that God is the judge and NOT you.
It was NOT blasphemous!!
Joe just did an excellent job of presenting the Catholic understanding of Mary's sinlessness.
Either TRY to understand or don't and keep you mind closed to other views on theology.
I'm sorry if this might seem to be hostile but I'm getting tired of your hate and hostility.
Let's stop with false knee jerk accusations and TRY to understand one another.
Anger gets us nowhere positive and into the quick sand of negativity.
I prefer Peace and kindness,
Fred

See Fred, I have no issues with any religion as long as it teaches the whole and complete word of God directly from the Bible. What I take issues with is any brand of religion that forces it's members to disregard the Bible in favor of the writings of some obscure person or persons throughout history that has taken the word of God and translated/transformed it into something that is NOT taught in the scriptures. People in the old testament were under the law. 650 or so of them to be exact. Jesus came to fulfill the laws and to replace them with grace.
I have in the past asked you honest questions which you have skirted or let someone else to answer for you. On occasion you have come back with NO scriptural references to back up your claims. Why is that? All anybody wants is a honest discussion with scripture to back up your claims, not some obscure quote from someone only a catholic might have heard of. Why is that so difficult? People will continue to hammer you until you start answering questions with an honest scriptural base.

As for Joe's comments, all I need to do to refute his entire line of baloney is to quote Luke 2 starting in vs4 and continuing. So Joseph also went up from Nazareth to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her FIRSTBORN, a son.
See Luke the physician makes specific reference to her FIRSTBORN. Being a physician and learned how difficult is it to understand that he chose his words with great care? No where does he make any sort of mention that she never had any more children. It is really interesting that the RCC has ignored this scripture don't you think? If as you try to claim she had never had any more children do you suppose Luke would have used the word, First born? I think not!
And since the scriptures are very clear on the subject that Jesus was the first and only ever born of a virgin it is unconscionable that your claims hold anything but hot air. Sorry if that disturbs your fragile ego, but that IS the truth.

450donn,
It is YOUR judgment that what I said is blasphemous.
I'm happy that God is the judge and NOT you.
It was NOT blasphemous!!!
Joe just did an excellent job of presenting the Catholic understanding of Mary's sinlessness.
Either TRY to understand or don't and keep you mind closed to other views on theology.
I'm sorry if this might seem to be hostile but I'm getting tired of your hate and hostility.
Let's stop with false knee jerk accusations and TRY to understand one another.
Anger gets us nowhere positive and into the quick sand of negativity.
I prefer Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred not everyone who opposes your point of view is filled with hate and hostility. We see that Joe and yourself are people of faith in the pronouncements of your Church and that you become quite angry when those pronouncements are challenged. However there is no kind way of telling you that we disagree with your point of view on certain subjects for in order to say so we must refute what you believe and have been told.

As for Joe's comments, all I need to do to refute his entire line of baloney is to quote Luke 2 starting in vs4 and continuing. So Joseph also went up from Nazareth to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her FIRSTBORN, a son.
See Luke the physician makes specific reference to her FIRSTBORN. Being a physician and learned how difficult is it to understand that he chose his words with great care? No where does he make any sort of mention that she never had any more children. It is really interesting that the RCC has ignored this scripture don't you think? If as you try to claim she had never had any more children do you suppose Luke would have used the word, First born? I think not!
And since the scriptures are very clear on the subject that Jesus was the first and only ever born of a virgin it is unconscionable that your claims hold anything but hot air. Sorry if that disturbs your fragile ego, but that IS the truth.

Uhmm, let’s look at this; I have 6 children, and Junior was my firstborn.
I have 4 children, and Junior was my firstborn
I have 1 child whose name is Junior. Now who was my firstborn? See if you can figure it out, I know it’s hard.

Ta da! If you guessed Junior, you’re right!

Exodus 13:2: Sanctify unto me every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, as well of men as of beasts: for they are all mine.

So, the Jew didn’t sanctify his only son?

Numbers 3:13: For every firstborn is mine: since I struck the firstborn in the land of Egypt: I have sanctified to myself whatsoever is firstborn in Israel both of man and beast, they are mine: I am the Lord.

So, if it’s the only son, then he doesn’t belong to God?

Numbers 3:42: Moses reckoned up, as the Lord had commanded, thefirstborn of the children of Israel: 43 And the males by their names, from one month and upward, were twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three.

So, is the first born reckoned by Moses not include those from fledgling families with only one child, or from women who only happened to have one child ?

The argument of firstborn is nonsense. If you have a child, whether you go on to have more children, the first to be born is T-H-E “Firstborn”. In the order of the count 1 comes before 2; you do remember that don’t you? Consequently, if you only have one, guess who is in the 1st in the order of the count – you guessed it ‘the firstborn’. Secondly, there was a great store placed in Judah’s ‘firstborn’ because they knew what God had intended, that is to “make him my firstborn, high above the kings of the earth.” (Psalms 88:28).

Added:

Zacharias 12:10
And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace, and of prayers: and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn.


JoeT

Joe and Fred,

If you can ever show me in the inspired, word of God that I am incorrect concerning Mary, than you have my full attention. For I am a work in progress and I don't claim or pretend to know it all. BUT... it MUST be in the 66 books.

I have NO other authority...

But lets not fight about it because I'm certainly not upset that you are wrong on the subject.

Wondergirl, gosh I almost fainted that you agreed with me. :) And the world thinks miracles don't continue to happen... this is living proof! :)

Joe and Fred,

If you can ever show me in the inspired, word of God that I am incorrect concerning Mary, than you have my full attention. For I am a work in progress and I don't claim or pretend to know it all. BUT...it MUST be in the 66 books.

I have NO other authority......

But lets not fight about it because I'm certainly not upset that you are wrong on the subject.

Wondergirl, gosh I almost fainted that you agreed with me. :) And the world thinks miracles don't continue to happen...this is living proof! :)

Then you didn't read this:https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/did-mary-have-sinless-jesus-born-sinless-457993.html#post2276813

JoeT

and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn.
The writer is talking about two kinds of grieving: an inconsolable mourning for an only son and grief for a firstborn. The mourning for an only son is incredibly deeper than for a firstborn. The death of an only son means there are no other children to carry on for; the family name/heritage/traditions stop with the father. The death of a firstborn says there are other children to live for and to carry on the family name/heritage/traditions.

The RC proposes that Mary had to be pure (i.e sinless) for Jesus Christ to be born sinless. We know that the scripture says that no one is sinless except Jesus Christ. So is this doctrine scripturally true?

I agree completely with certain other answers. That there is no reason why Mary had to be sinless in order to give birth to Jesus. It seems to me that there are certain religions that try to hold up Mary at a higher statute because she did give birth to Jesus. I will even make even another statement about Jesus that might be controversial. People think that because Jesus was sinless that there was no way he would be with any one or even have children himself? Why not? I would not think the importance of Jesus would change. So Mary being held up as the Mother of God, and that she had to be sinless, not true.

Junior is not your firstborn since there is no second child. Junior is your only born, your only child. If I had one child, I would not call him my firstborn. I don't think you would either.

I won’t belabor the point, but please feel free to read the following link: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First-Born (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06081a.htm)

It may give a singular insight, as to first, second, third, fourth, etc.
When Christ is referred to as the firstborn it can be taken both literally and in the metaphorical sense.

JoeT

I won’t belabor the point, but please feel free to read the following link: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First-Born (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06081a.htm)

It may give a singular insight, as to first, second, third, fourth, etc.
When Christ is referred to as the firstborn it can be taken both literally and in the metaphorical sense.

JoeT

Please post a secular source in favor of your argument. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a bit prejudiced. That would be like my posting my proof from Luther's Works. I suspect you wouldn't buy into it.

classyT,
Thanks, we are all a work in progress most positive a few negative.
In the case of Mary's sinlessness at the birth of Jesus it is a situation of deductive reasoning.
The bible tells us several times that Jesus was pure.
That He was and is the Lamb of God of the Passover is there also as you already know.
For Jesus to be born without the stain of sin it is reasonable to conclude that Mary was without the stain of sin.
The Catholic Church and many others so conclude.
Several posts here have shown why those denominations so believe and teach.
Those posts are for others to understand why.
If you and others do not want to understand that it is your choice.
I like to try to understand others points of view and I am NOT hostile that others think differently, unlike a few here who are.
I am saddened much that we Christians who are all under attack from a hostile world of people whose religion hates Christianity and others who are purely secular can not stand together regardless of our few differences to face the war against us.
After all, most all denominations have far more similarities than differences.
Yet those few differences SEEM to keep us apart and in some cases aggressively so.
That is very sad.
450donn,
When Joe answers before I do (as often happens), I do not feel it necessary to do it all over again so I do not. I hope that is OK with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

inhisservice
PLEASE read what I wrote for calssyT.
I believe that at the time of Jesus Birth Mary was sinless and have said why.
That does not mean that she became a sinner later, though I do not think so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I am saddened much that we Christians who are all under attack from a hostile world of people whose religion hates Christianity and others who are purely secular can not stand together regardless of our few differences to face the war against us.
Please give up the notions that Mary was sinless, was ever virgin, and was taken bodily to heaven, and we will stand with you to face the hostile world of people who hate Christianity.

Please post a secular source in favor of your argument. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a bit prejudiced. That would be like my posting my proof from Luther's Works. I suspect you wouldn't buy into it.

Search Results (http://www.jewfaq.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?Keywords=firstborn)

Redemption of the Firstborn - ReligionFacts (http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/cycle/redemption.htm)

Jewish Treats: Pidyon Ha'ben - Redeeming the Firstborn (http://www.jewishtreats.org/2009/06/pidyon-haben-redeeming-firstborn.html)

The Importance of Being the Firstborn (http://www.2001translation.com/Firstborn.htm)

Wondergirl,
Sorry but I cannot give up that belief because it makes very good sense to me.
Why should that belief keep us apart.
Your belief on that is different than mine BUT it does not keep us apart as co-Christians in my point of view.
I do not demand or ask that you change to what I believe.
I merely ask that you try to understand why I believe as I do.
The war for Christianity to survive and flourish is like those allies who fought WWII and won regardless of the fact that those allies had different customs and beliefs from each other.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Joe, do you have any children? If so, how many?

Search Results (http://www.jewfaq.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?Keywords=firstborn)

Redemption of the Firstborn - ReligionFacts (http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/cycle/redemption.htm)

Jewish Treats: Pidyon Ha'ben - Redeeming the Firstborn (http://www.jewishtreats.org/2009/06/pidyon-haben-redeeming-firstborn.html)

The Importance of Being the Firstborn (http://www.2001translation.com/Firstborn.htm)
These do not prove your point that firstborn = only son. If anything, they prove mine.

The online Merriam-Webster dictionary says --

Main Entry: first·born
Pronunciation: \ˈfərs(t)-ˈbȯrn\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century

: first brought forth : eldest

Main Entry: on·ly
Pronunciation: \ˈōn-lē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English ānlīc, from ān one — more at one
Date: before 12th century

1 : unquestionably the best : peerless
to a : alone in a class or category : sole <the only one left> <the only known species> b : having no brother or sister <an only child>
3 : few <one of the only areas not yet explored>

Wondergirl,
I had a first barn son named Shem.
He was my ONLY son and he died of Reyes' Syndrome at the age of 12.
Mary had one first born son who die at the age of 33.
He was her Only son like mine was.
Both died many years ago and I still mourn them both
Mine for the loss of him and for Mary's son I mourn what all the agony He had to go through to save our souls.
Could God have done it a different way?
Perhaps, but in His infinite and perfect wisdom and understanding God did it His way.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Therein lies your problem Fred. You did not have a firstborn because you did not have any other children. You had ONLY ONE child.
But for a man to have a child is a miracle!
Again I have to rely on the doctor Luke. Being a very learnerd man he would make such a glaring error in his choice of words In my opinion. So Mary, no matter how you try to spin it had other children. How many times have you had sex with your wife? DO you actually expect Joseph to no have sexual relations with Mary after her time of purifucation after the birth of Jesus? Was Joseph a homosexual then in your way of thinking?

Fred,

I appreciate your post and explaining why you believe Mary was sinless before the Lord was born. But herein lies the problem, even IF she had never had so much as an impure thought... she was still doomed because of the fall of Adam.

Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If you are going by deduction, logic or what you feel or THINK is true concerning her... it makes sense that she was indeed a sinner... before Christ was born. She was a VIRGIN for sure but nevertheless a sinner. Because she was born in a fallen world with a sinful nature, the natural man/woman cannot HELP but sin because he is spirtually dead to the things of God. The Bible says we were ENEMIES. I'm not suggesting she was a horrible, vile, wicked sinner but even if it was as small as disobeying a parent or thinking something she shouldn't have.
I DO believe she was highly favored and had an awesome, unbelievable privilege to give birth to GOD as a man. I mean come on... pretty cool.

Also, if you are going by LOGIC I agree with Don, Joseph married her and he was a man... what makes MOST sense deducting naturally is he had sex with her AFTER the birth of the Lord Jesus.

Having said all the above, I don't go by feelings, deductions, what seems more right or natural. For ME, I only go by the Bible and what it has to say. And I believe it is clear on the topic of Mary. She was a sinner, she too needed a savior. Also she had sons after the Lord was born... James and Jude are recorded. I know that is hard for Catholics to swallow... :)

I already understand I'm not changing anyone's mind on this topic. Just wanted to express why I believe what I do.

On a personal note... I am so sorry about your son. I cannot imagine what losing a child is like and I don't want to. I adore my boys... what heartache you had to endure. I'm sure the Lord has taught you much concerning his love. There is always a purpose for everything that happens to us. Hopefully we can agree on at least that much. :)

one last thing... I agree with you on the following... True believers in the Lord Jesus should unite despite their differences. What an awesome thing that would be for the unbelieving world to see. The POWER the church COULD have is amazing. I believe it is the reason Satan keeps such arguments going. ( and we know he is behind division) That is my take.

Jesushelper,

Ha ha... good! I love it when christians see it MY way... the RIGHT way... ;)

Kidding everyone!

Then you didn't read this:https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/did-mary-have-sinless-jesus-born-sinless-457993.html#post2276813

JoeT

Grumpy Joe T,

sighing... ok... here we go... I"m going to give you a verse out of the Bible ( the 66 books I always refer to) and then YOU give me verse proving me wrong. ( must be out of the same book )

For ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. Romans 3:

AND just for grins... Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

All means All!

Do your best work grumpy JoeT... :)

Grumpy Joe T,

sighing....ok....here we go...I"m gonna give you a verse out of the Bible ( the 66 books i always refer to) and then YOU give me verse proving me wrong. ( must be out of the exact same book )

For ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. Romans 3:

AND just for grins....Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

All means All!

Do your best work grumpy JoeT....:)

Does All means All? Except, of course we are talking about verse 14. Then all isn't all?

What do we make of the seeming contradiction made in verse 14 of Romans 5?

“But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.” Who are those that "have not sinned"?

In all fairness there is really no contradiction, vers. 12 speaks to original sin and vers 14 speaks to personal sin.

Neither speak to the singular grace given to Mary, the shielding or removing the stain of original sin.

JoeT

Neither speak to the singular grace given to Mary, the shielding or removing the stain of original sin.
That's RCC doctrine, not Biblical. If it were true, something that significant would have been clearly mentioned in the Bible by the Gospel writers as well as by St. Paul in his epistles.

That's RCC doctrine, not Biblical. If it were true, something that significant would have been clearly mentioned in the Bible by the Gospel writers as well as by St. Paul in his epistles.

That's easy enough to say, how so is it not biblical?

JoeT

That's easy enough to say, how so is it not biblical?
How about this? -- there's no mention in the Bible about it.

These do not prove your point that firstborn = only son. If anything, they prove mine.

The online Merriam-Webster dictionary says --

Main Entry: first·born
Pronunciation: \ˈfərs(t)-ˈbȯrn\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century

: first brought forth : eldest

Main Entry: on·ly
Pronunciation: \ˈōn-lē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English ānlīc, from ān one — more at one
Date: before 12th century

1 : unquestionably the best : peerless
2 a : alone in a class or category : sole <the only one left> <the only known species> b : having no brother or sister <an only child>
3 : few <one of the only areas not yet explored>

Oh good grief, Charlie Brown. I wasn’t trying to prove ‘firstborn = only son.’ I was trying to show that the firstborn held a ‘special’ place next to the patriarch in the family. More so in biblical times then today, the male head of the family ruled over the family, which usually included several generations. It was the responsibility of the firstborn of the patriarch to take over or stand in when he was gone. Also, there is, as it were, a ‘position’ in the family and a special relationship between God and the firstborn of Israel. As I tried to explain earlier, the position of ‘firstborn’ could also be the ‘only born’.

JoeT

450donn, It is obvious that you do not understand that my son was my first born.
I could have had others or not. It make no difference...
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I wasn’t trying to prove ‘firstborn = only son.’ I was trying to show that the firstborn held a ‘special’ place next to the patriarch in the family.
Oh, silly, silly me! How could I have misunderstood? I'll have to really stretch my imagination next time.

What about Joseph? Did Mary disrespect him and her marriage so much that she wandered around with her son and wasn't at home to care for her hard-working husband like a dutiful Jewish wife was supposed to do? Who made Joseph's meals and washed his clothing? Who baked treats for him and plumped his pillow before he went to bed at night? And the poor guy didn't get any sex either?

Remember, this was a man's world and very strict as to marital obligations. It's easy for us in 2010 to think Mary was free to follow Jesus, but had she done so, she would have been castigated by Gospel writers. Even the beloved Mary and Martha were homebodies. Jesus visited them, not that they hung out with Jesus and the disciples. Who was the groupie? Mary Magdalene -- and a few other women. What was their role? We don't know exactly. Some have suggested prostitutes, and even that Mary M. was Jesus' mistress or wife.

Fred,
In post #28 you stated the fact.
"Wondergirl,
I had a first barn son named Shem.
He was my ONLY son and he died of Reyes' Syndrome at the age of 12."
So were you lying in that post, or did you have only ONE child?
Yes, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. And therein lies the problem of having any discussions with you. You simply refuse to accept the definitions that the rest of us accept. And In my opinion it is because you have been indwelled by the teachings of Catholic Church. I am glad that you are so staunch about your teachings. However I am also saddened at the same time that you refuse to listen to logic and common sense and instead keep to the teachings of man and not the teachings of God!

Wondergirl,
We really don't know how much time Mary spent with Jesus.
We doubt even know what happened to Joseph or when.
All that is speculation.
But we do know that Mary did spend some time with Jesus and was with Him at times.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The issue with common sense is that it also says that a person can not die and come back from the dead,

Common sense tells you that you can not walk on water, heal the sick by touching them and more.

So when dealing with the power of God common sense is not what you need, but faith , faith of a innocent child who does not "know" better, but one that can accept that God does things his way, not the way man wants him to

Mary ... was with Him at times.
Yes, I agree. The NT reports some of these times. I don't believe Mary was fully aware of who Jesus was. She had been told things and knew of the prophecies, but all the permutations, the enormity of who Jesus was and what He had ahead of Him had to overwhelm and even confuse her.

I doubt ( really I really feel) that no one really knew fully who Jesus was till after he came back.

They were still confusing the earthly king and their current political problems with that of heaven and the world to come.

We see that all of the followers ( that did not run away) were in hiding after Jesus Death, they were in fact still hiding 3 days latter ( when Jesus returned) they were behind "locked" doors.

And although Thomas gets the blame, I bet that all of the followers had doubts but Thomas actually spoke out. You don't real that Peter yelled Jesus and ran to him, they were all amazed, in fear and did not believe it was really him.

Does All means All? Except, of course we are talking about verse 14. Then all isn't all?

What do we make of the seeming contradiction made in verse 14 of Romans 5?

“But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.” Who are those that "have not sinned"?

In all fairness there is really no contradiction, vers. 12 speaks to original sin and vers 14 speaks to personal sin.

Neither speak to the singular grace given to Mary, the shielding or removing the stain of original sin.

JoeT
We are all born into this sin nature. My babies sure didn't sin. But as they grew they surely did because they had a sin nature. There are babies born daily... they have not sinned.

God is no respecter of persons... Mary needed a savior too.

What about Joseph? Did Mary disrespect him and her marriage so much that she wandered around with her son and wasn't at home to care for her hard-working husband like a dutiful Jewish wife was supposed to do?? Who made Joseph's meals and washed his clothing? Who baked treats for him and plumped his pillow before he went to bed at night?
Remember, this was a man's world and very strict as to marital obligations. It's easy for us in 2010 to think Mary was free to follow Jesus, but had she done so, she would have been castigated by Gospel writers. Even the beloved Mary and Martha were homebodies. Jesus visited them, not that they hung out with Jesus and the disciples. Who was the groupie? Mary Magdalene -- and a few other women. What was their role? We don't know exactly. Some have suggested prostitutes, and even that Mary M. was Jesus' mistress or wife.

It took a few minutes to figure out where this question came from. We hadn't talked on this thread whether Jesus was followed by Mary during his ministry. I did find on another thread where I asked just how we could know that Mary did or didn't follow Christ around Palestine. We don't know, and will likely never know, whether she did or didn't. I contend that it was likely that she did, at least at a distance, and it's even more likely in the last few month of His ministry than at the start. The reason being is that we see her at Calvary and at most of the gatherings with the Apostles; presumably with John.

It's true; it's a man's world. And it was even more of a man's world in Christ's time. Women would be assigned roles much like the older girls in the household of the 1950's. (Notice I didn't say 'of today'). They were expected to mind, keep house, cook, and work in the fields, etc. I'm afraid that most women today couldn't muster up to the rigors of daily life. (In the same breath let me say that the differences are, in most ways, an improvement.) All of which is to say that society in year 1 was much different than today.

I do contend that it is more likely that Mary lived an ascetic life, or at least started living a life of chastity. But, here too, we have little evidence. Asceticism isn't a New Testament invention of Catholic monks. Various Jewish communities practiced different degrees of asceticism, as do the Religious of today's Church. Some Jews and some Christians would exercise body, mind and spiritual along with fasts for the purpose of strengthening virtue. The practice dates as far back as the Prophets. The Essenes or Healers were the most notable in Christ's time. Some came from the Jewish sect of Pharisees; a good analogy might be to say they were the Puritans of the Old Testament Law. There are those who believe Paul might have lived an ascetic life because he described himself as a 'Pharisee, the son Pharisees.' Life in these communities sometimes included both men and women. It was a unique lifestyle marked by poverty, chastity, labor, solitude, and prayer. Many believe that Mary may have lived in one of these communities and had set out to live a life of Holy chastity. That being the case, she wouldn't have been bound by the Jewish ordinance to marry and have children. There are a few hints in scripture such as, 'Joseph was a just man' was no simple tribute made by his divine visitor. It implied that Joseph had lived a Holy life, a righteous life, “an ordinary sort of man on whom God relied to do great things,” (St. Josemaria Escriva). “Saint Joseph was a just man, a tireless worker, the upright guardian of those entrusted to his care. May he always guard, protect and enlighten families.” Pope John Paul II.

Evidence exists in early Christian writings of an early tradition which included the concept of an Immaculate Mary. While we can't rely on all these writing like we can the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John they tell of the nature of early Christian worship and society. Some are pseudepigraphic in nature, one such writing is The Gospel of James sometimes, called Protoevangelium of James. The problem is that while this work can be dated to 150 A.D. the authorship is questionable. The Gospel of James claims to have been written by James, presumably James the Just, however most scholars are of the opinion that it is pseudography. What's important to us here is that the Gospel of James provides us a look into early Church Tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity and a veneration of Mary and at least proposes at least one idea of why Mary chose an ascetic life. And too,it shows that the Immaculate Conception wasn't a recent construct.

Nevertheless, all of the above is speculation, but, more likely than your suggestion that she was a homebody or a concubine. Whatever gave you that idea anyway; how do you know Martha and Mary were 'homebodies'? I do have a great deal of trouble with even thinking that “Mary M. was Jesus' mistress or wife.” Don't tell me, after hounding me for 'Scriptural proof,' time and time again, that you put more credence in Dan Brown than a 2,000 year old Christian tradition of an Immaculate Mary?

JoeT

I stopped reading when I came to this. Her adopted patriarch??

God is no respecter of persons....Mary needed a savior too.

Classy I think that is the most profound refuting of the argument that Mary had to be free of original sin to be the mother of Jesus. It is so obvious and yet none of us has said it. The RCC dogma in fact means that Mary didn't need a saviour and all need a saviour. If Mary was free from original sin then Mary wasn't human, and therefore Jesus wasn't human and his sacrifice could not have accomplished our redemption.

I doubt ( really I really feel) that no one really knew fully who Jesus was till after he came back.

They were still confusing the earthly king and thier current political problems with that of heaven and the world to come.

We see that all of the followers ( that did not run away) were in hiding after Jesus Death, they were in fact still hiding 3 days latter ( when Jesus returned) they were behind "locked" doors.

And although Thomas gets the blame, I bet that all of the followers had doubts but Thomas actually spoke out. You don't real that Peter yelled Jesus and ran to him, they were all amazed, in fear and did not beleive it was really him.

I actually agree with you... no one had a clue and their actions more than their words speak volumes. When the Lord asked the disciples who did they say he is... Peter spoke right up and announced He was the Christ the son of the living God. The Lord said flesh and blood hadn't revealed that to Peter but the Holy Spirit had. We can conclude they didn't know by their actions. Mary was no different. She KNEW how he was conceived but she hadn't a clue of what he was going to do and who he REALLY WAS. Not until after the resurrection... and EVEN then they didn't understand everything.

JoeT, John was her patriarch?? Do you know what that means?

JoeT, John was her patriarch???? Do you know what that means?

I explained somewhere what a patriarch was. It's a 'father' like figure in charge of the family.

JoeT

We are all born into this sin nature. My babies sure didn't sin. But as they grew they surely did because they had a sin nature. There are babies born daily ...they have not sinned.

God is no respecter of persons....Mary needed a savior too.

And she got one. Catholics believe that when Mary was conceived she received sanctifying grace at that very instant in time her soul was infused. Thus, she was exempted from the stain of original sin. In essence she received the same sanctifying graces one receives at Baptism, the removal and the effects of original sin except for the temporal punishment of death given Adam. You might say she received her sanctifying graces in advance of her Holy life. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

JoeT

I fully agree with Fr_Chuck and Joe.
I know that some others were like me years ago who had trouble with some beliefs about Mary.
But when I finally came to realize the Church is and was indeed the pilar and foundation of the truth and the early fathers indicated the immaculate conception, I came to accept it.
I now see no reason to change that belief.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I explained somewhere what a patriarch was. It's a 'father' like figure in charge of the family.
"Woman, behold thy son."

John was to replace Jesus as Mary's son -- a foster son, as it were.

"Woman, behold thy son."

John was to replace Jesus as Mary's son -- a foster son, as it were.

Nevertheless, he took care of her – relationships work 2 ways

So, call me 'Uncle Backwards'.

nevertheless, he took care of her
We don't know to what extent, if any. Joseph may still have been alive too.

Joe,
Will Do.
LOL
Fred

Wondergirl,
That is true.
Unfortunately we know very little about Saint Joseph.
We do believe that he was an excellent care giver to Jesus and Mary while he was alive because God chose him to be such.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And she got one. Catholics believe that when Mary was conceived she received sanctifying grace at that very instant in time her soul was infused. Thus, she was exempted from the stain of original sin. In essence she received the same sanctifying graces one receives at Baptism, the removal and the effects of original sin except for the temporal punishment of death given Adam. You might say she received her sanctifying graces in advance of her Holy life. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

JoeT

My understanding, Joe, is that without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ it is not possible to receive the sancification that baptism confers. Certainly those baptised by John were not sanctified in this manner, and what you are saying is, in effect, Mary would have been unable to exercise her free will and refuse to carry the Christ child because her path had already been determined for her. So if Mary were set aside, and had not free will, she is something other than human and therefore Jesus was not human, 100% man. Jesus is the only sinless being ever born because his father the Holy Spirit did not carry the sin of Adam.

It can be seen why it took the Pope speaking infalliably to proclaim this doctrine, there is such great difficulty with it.

paraclete,
In case you did not know, "With God all things are possible"!!
Peace abd kindness,
Fred

paraclete,
In case you did not know, "With God all things are possible"!!!
Peace abd kindness,
Fred
Yup. That's how God was able to have a sinful woman give birth to His perfect Son.

paraclete,
In case you did not know, "With God all things are possible"!!!
Peace abd kindness,
Fred

Fred, Joe,

So TRUE! With God ALL things ARE possible. But we can't just make stuff up to fit our beliefs. If something as big as Mary never sinned, or suddenly became UNABLE to sin was in the Bible then I would accept it. But it isn't there... I believe we are told NOT to add to it. Making Mary more than she was... is not fair to her. I believe if she were here today, she'd be appalled.( oh YES I DID just say that.. ) She was a woman, born into sin through no fault of her own just like you and me. According to the Bible she found favor in God's eyes and became pregnant with God himself by the power of the Holy Spirit. Why add more than what the Bible records about her? Her role is AWESOME and miracle enough.

I still believe that Mary was completely sin free when Jesus was born. I see it as necessary.
Otherwise it is like trying to drink clean water from a dirty class.
The water become tainted.
Jesus was NOT tainted.
Fred

I still believe that Mary was completely sin free when Jesus was born. I see it as necessary.
Otherwise it is like trying to drink clean water from a dirty class.
The water become tainted.
Jesus was NOT tainted.
Fred
Your church can have a sinless Mary come from a sinful Anne, but not a sinless Jesus come from a sinful Mary?

Wondergirl,
Please at least try to understand why the Catholics and others believe that Mary was sinless.
It is all based on Holy Scripture as has been posted here.
I am not trying to get you to chnge your mind, just to understand.
We Christians need to get along and not fight one another.
We are at war with the world.
Peace and kindness, Fred.

Wondergirl,
Please at least try to understand why the Catholics and others believe that Mary was sinless.
It is all based on Holy Scripture as has been posted here.
I am not trying to get you to chnge your mind, just to understand.
We Christians need to get along and not fight one another.
We are at war with the world.
Peace and kindness, Fred.
I love you to pieces, Fred, and am not fighting with you. Please answer my question. I am trying to understand.

Wondergirl,
Please at least try to understand why the Catholics and others believe that Mary was sinless.
It is all based on Holy Scripture as has been posted here.
I am not trying to get you to chnge your mind, just to understand.
We Christians need to get along and not fight one another.
We are at war with the world.
Peace and kindness, Fred.


Sorry Fred, I must have missed the post where you posted the actual scripture where it states that Mary was conceived and born of a virgin. So could you please repost it for us?
But just in case you don't have one, could you also please explain all these virgin births going back 20 or 30 generations leading up to Mary being totally sinless.

I still believe that Mary was completely sin free when Jesus was born. I see it as necessary.
Otherwise it is like trying to drink clean water from a dirty class.
The water become tainted.
Jesus was NOT tainted.
Fred

Well to quote the Bible and something you recently posted... With GOD ALL things are possible. ;) He was fully God, fully man and the Bible never records that Mary was sinless... only the Lord Jesus. I will shut up now because I'm saying the same thing over and over... I reckon you know where I stand and why. :)

Wondergirl,
As I mentioned, it is a matter of deductive reasoning that Mary had to be sinless to give birth to a pure Jesus.
He was full of grace and most blessed of all women from God and therefore without sin via an emaculate conception from her mother.
Luke 1:28  And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Luke 1:42  And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Luke 1:45  And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.
Oeace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
As I mentioned, it is a matter of deductive reasoning that Mary had to be sinless to give birth to a pure Jesus.


Sorry Fred but God does not follow man's logic because nothing about the way in which we are redeemed is logical from man's perspective and there is no reason given by God why he should have followed your deductive reasoning in relation to the birth of Jesus. 2+2 does not equal five

paraclete,
I USE the Holy Bible for that and God DOES allow me to think.
Thank You,
Fred

Wondergirl,
As I mentioned, it is a matter of deductive reasoning that Mary had to be sinless to give birth to a pure Jesus
Yes, Fred. I got that part. Now, answer my question: Why wasn't Anne sinless too?

Wondergirl,
There was no need for Ann to be sinless because God made her conception of Mary to be immaculate.
I thought that you understood that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
There was no need for Ann to be sinless because God made her conception of Mary to be immaculate.
I thought that you understood that.

Therefore, there was no need for Mary to be sinless because God made the conception of Jesus to be immaculate.

Wondergirl,
That is one way to look at it but I do not.
I think Jesus needed to come from a pure vessel.
It's like drinking pure water from a clean glass.
I hope that you can understand my thinking on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Therefore, there was no need for Mary to be sinless because God made the conception of Jesus to be immaculate.

Look at what you wrote. I know what you mean, but without a virgin Mary when explaining, what you will always end up with is... "God made Jesus"; or something just like that. If Jesus is God, HOW CAN HE BE MADE? God is not created, therefore God cannot make God.

JoeT

JoeT7,
Excellent point well made.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Look at what you wrote. I know what you mean, but without a virgin Mary when explaining, what you will always end up with is ... "God made Jesus"; or something just like that. If Jesus is God, HOW CAN HE BE MADE? God is not created, therefore God cannot make God.

JoeT
Yes, Joe, look VERY CAREFULLY at what I wrote. I said very clearly, "God made the CONCEPTION of Jesus to be sinless."

Wondergirl,
That is one way to look at it but I do not.
I think Jesus needed to come from a pure vessel.

Thus, a sinless Mary needed to come from a pure vessel.

Yes, Joe, look VERY CAREFULLY at what I wrote. I said very clearly, "God made the CONCEPTION of Jesus to be sinless."

Then He's not begotten, but made, whether it's through conception or very carefully through conception.

JoeT

Thus, a sinless Mary needed to come from a pure vessel.

Mary isn't Divine, she was made pure. Just like washing a jug.

Mary isn't Divine, she was made pure. Just like washing a jug.
Okay. A pure Mary, therefore, would need to come from a pure mother.

Why did arcura say this? --


Originally Posted by arcura
Wondergirl,
As I mentioned, it is a matter of deductive reasoning that Mary had to be sinless to give birth to a pure Jesus.

Does the RCC say Mary was sinless or not?

Okay. A pure Mary, therefore, would need to come from a pure mother. Does a freshly cleaned jug come from a clean sink full of dirty dishes? No, it's washed

Why did arcura say this? -

So that Christ can be born in a spiritually clean Tabernacle.


Does the RCC say Mary was sinless or not?

Catholics believe that when Mary was conceived she received sanctifying grace at that very instant in time her soul was infused. Thus, she was exempted from the stain of original sin. In essence she received the same sanctifying graces one receives at Baptism, the removal and the effects of original sin except for the temporal punishment of death given Adam. You might say she received her sanctifying graces in advance of her Holy life. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception

Wondergirl ,
Perhaps God COULD have done it that way but I think not.
The reasonj is because of the bible verses I [posted.
They indicate they imaculate conception of Mary as I and God's holy Church see it.
I'm hoping that you can understand that is why I bellieve as I do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT,
Yes, The Church IS the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever seen here.

You people strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Mary this or Mary that. Does anyone really care? It's minutiae of the worst sort.

So the Catholics believe one thing, and the Protestants believe something else. So what? What else is new? Trying to "prove" one side or the other is absurd.

Slinging Bible verses back and forth is hardly edifying. "Give the Scripture" reference/proof, one side says. The other side responds with a Scripture. But that's not the original Greek/Aramaic, whatever. Good Lord!

It goes on and on, ad infinitum.

The gnat of Mary's conception and the camel of Jesus' resurrection.

Better you all go out and feed the starving, visit the sick, and do what Jesus told you to do. Anything would be better than spending your life on a silly Internet board arguing over inconsequentials.

This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever seen here.
I'm so sorry you missed seeing the challenge and even the wonder and joy in this thread.

I'm so sorry you missed seeing the challenge and even the wonder and joy in this thread.

Wonder and joy?

You got to be kidding.

Wonder and joy?

You got to be kidding.
I am finally beginning to understand (not agree with, mind you) some of the RCC's teaching about Mary, thanks to JoeT's and arcura's patient postings.

I am finally beginning to understand (not agree with, mind you) some of the RCC's teaching about Mary, thanks to JoeT's and arcura's patient postings.

It would have been a lot easier, and much more accurate, to simply have read about Catholic teaching on one of the many Internet sites that do just that.

I have nothing against Joe or Arcura but they would be the first to tell you that they are not official spokesmen for the Catholic Church.

Are we really going to ridicule members for engaging in discussion here?

I agree with this...

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1866819-post37.html

Athos,

I think it does matter if Mary was sinless, it changes everything. In my opinion it means that the Lord didn't need to die for her sins and it brings up a hosts of issues. I do agree that I am not going to change someone's mind if it made up already.

Incidentally, I did feed the hungry, yesterday... I do visit the sick and encourage them. I serve people all the time and I still have a few min. to discuss christianity on AMHD.

JoeT777,

I have decided to start calling someone else grumpy... ha ha and you Uncle Backwards... your thinking is screwed up anyway. :D

Wondergirl,
As I mentioned, it is a matter of deductive reasoning that Mary had to be sinless to give birth to a pure Jesus.
He was full of grace and most blessed of all women from God and therefore without sin via an emaculate conception from her mother.
Luke 1:28  And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.So here again you are quoting something and not completing the context of the passage. The term you are trying to use here is the same term as used in Ephesians 1:6 where is is translated "bestowed". This portrays Mary as a recipient NOT a dispenser, of devinew grace
Luke 1:42  And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And your point is? All this says is that Elizabeth knew that Mary was carrying her savior.
Luke 1:45  And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. Again so what? There is no dispute that Mary was the mother of Jesus. The discussion has always been whether Mary was also born a from a virgin. Which is impossible
Oeace and kindness,
Fred
Better luck next time. None of these scriptures you have quoted say anything about Mary being anything other than what she was. A young woman betrothed to be married to Joseph Whom God showed favor on by allowing her to be a vessel to carry my Lord into this world.

This is from an improper use of the rating system in post #28
elscarta disagrees : Read Luke 2:21-23. Jesus is preesented as Mary's firstborn. Mary at that time had an only child!

Elscarta, this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Do I have to post it in it's entirety for you to actually read? Vs 23 Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. There is no argument to that statement.
What is being discussed here is the use of the word "firstborn" In all circles and especially from the hand of Luke, a very learned man for the day, and a Doctor to boot firstborn indicates that Mary also bore other children. This is NOT a slip of the tongue. It is accurate. Mary had other children fathered by Joseph. Why is that so difficult for certain people to comprehend?

This is from an improper use of the rating system in post #28
elscarta disagrees : Read Luke 2:21-23. Jesus is preesented as Mary's firstborn. Mary at that time had an only child!

Elscarta, this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Do I have to post it in it's entirety for you to actually read? vs 23 Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. There is no argument to that statement.
What is being discussed here is the use of the word "firstborn" In all circles and especially from the hand of Luke, a very learned man for the day, and a Doctor to boot firstborn indicates that Mary also bore other children. This is NOT a slip of the tongue. It is accurate. Mary had other children fathered by Joseph. Why is that so difficult for certain people to comprehend?
Yup! You and I don't deserve the reddie (I got the same thing you did, same words). Luke wrote about the birth years later. He knew Mary had had more children after Jesus. You are exactly right, donn.

There IS NO POOF that Mary had any children after she had Jesus.
The Church that is the pillar an foundation of the truth says that she did not have any.
I think that it knows what it is talking about.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

OK Fred, since you refuse to read the word of God in it's entirety and instead listen to the teachings of the RCC, there is no reason for further discussion on this subject. Your answer says it all!

Fred,

NO PROOF that the Lord Jesus had brothers? The bible records it!. because you want to explain it away because it doesn't FIT your theology is your right I guess but check it out...

NKJV) reads, “When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, 'Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter's Son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?' So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.' Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.”

Then again in Mathew:

“While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, 'Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.' But He answered and said to the one who told Him, 'Who is My mother and who are My brothers?' And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, 'Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.'”

Plus there are other places the Bible speaks of his siblings. I'm not sure what you do with all those scriptures. You all must have a big black marker to mark it out or maybe some white out. Lol because it is THERE. As far as proof goes... The Bible records it... I have no other authority.

Actually the question was raised in this post as to whether Mary had any other children. One of the arguments presented to support this is that the term "firstborn" cannot be used for an only child. This argument is presented in the form of a syllogism:

Major Premise: An only child cannot be called "firstborn"
Minor Premise: Jesus was called "firstborn"
Conclusion: Therefore Jesus is not an only child.

While the structure of the argument is valid (logical) the argument is only sound (true) if both of the premises are true.

The Minor Premise is true (Luke 2:23) but the Major Premise is not.

To prove that the Major Premise is not true I will use the method of "Proof by Contradiction", that is I will assume that the Major Premise is true and show how this leads logically to a contradiction, and I will do it based entirely on Scripture to satisfy those who will not accept the authority of anything else.

Firstly let us examine Luke 3:22-23
22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord")

Clearly Jesus was Mary's "firstborn" according to the Law of the Lord ;

Exodus 13:2
Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

In Numbers 3:40
Then the LORD said to Moses: “Number all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and above, and take the number of their names."

From this we see that the consecration of the "

From this we see that the consecration of the " were to be males as young as one month old. Now at one month of age, a baby has no other siblings (unless from a multiple birth e.g. twins) and thus is an only child. But assuming that the Major Premise is true, an only child cannot be " were to be males as young as one month old. Now at one month of age, a baby has no other siblings (unless from a multiple birth eg twins) and thus is an only child. But assuming that the Major Premise is true, an only child cannot be " so only baby males from multiple births (twins etc) need to be concencrated according to the Law of the Lord.

But Jesus was presented in the temple according to the Law of Lord, (Luke 2:22-23) yet he wasn't a twin. This is a contradiction and therefore the Major Premise is false.

An only child can be called " so only baby males from multiple births (twins etc) need to be concencrated according to the Law of the Lord.

But Jesus was presented in the temple according to the Law of Lord, (Luke 2:22-23) yet he wasn't a twin. This is a contradiction and therefore the Major Premise is false.

An only child can be called ".

This does not mean that I have shown that Jesus has no other siblings, just that the argument presented regarding ".

This does not mean that I have shown that Jesus has no other siblings, just that the argument presented regarding "is not a sound argument.

Actually the question was raised in this post as to whether Mary had any other children.
Luke wrote his Gospels years after Jesus had left the Earth and thus knew that Jesus had had other siblings, thus his use of "firstborn."

Luke wrote his Gospels years after Jesus had left the Earth and thus knew that Jesus had had other siblings, thus his use of "firstborn."

You missed the point of my posting. You cannot use the fact that Luke called Jesus Mary's firstborn to support your argument that Jesus had other siblings as I have shown that an only child is still a "firstborn".

There are two possibilities:

Jesus had other siblings. Jesus would thus be "firstborn"

Jesus had no other siblings. Jesus would still be called "firstborn" as I have shown in my previous posting.

Thus that fact that Luke called Jesus "firstborn" sheds no light on whether Jesus had any other siblings!

If you still think that an only child cannot be called "firstborn" then please point out the error in my argument in my previous post, otherwise stop insisting that Luke called Jesus "firstborn" because Jesus had other siblings. Luke would still have called Jesus "firstborn" even if he had no other siblings!

And finally there actually is a third possibility. Joseph may have had children from a previous marriage and may have been a widower when he married Mary.

This means that even if Jesus had other siblings, Mary could still be "Ever Virgin".

You may prove either side with scripture, it depends on how you wish to define s various usage of greek words and their translations.

450donn,
Please do NOT accuse me of not reading the bible, all of it because I do and have for a long time.
Fred.

This means that even if Jesus had other siblings, Mary could still be "Ever Virgin".
Joseph's having other children and Mary never producing any children other than Jesus has nothing to do with Mary's being a virgin or not.

Wondergirl,
THAT is and interesting observation.
Thanks,
Fred

Joseph's having other children and Mary never producing any children other than Jesus has nothing to do with Mary's being a virgin or not.

What seems to be lost in this argument is the fact that once Mary had borne Jesus she was no longer a virgin since by definition a virgin is a female who has not had sexual relatiosn but also has not had a child, you cannot say a woman who has had a child is a virgin. To have have a child is not something unrighteous even Scripture says a woman a woman who has had a child can be saved

What seems to be lost in this argument is the fact that once Mary had borne Jesus she was no longer a virgin since by definition a virgin is a female who has not had sexual relatiosn but also has not had a child
I disagree. A virgin can have a child and still be a virgin if she has never had intercourse. The penetration, not the childbirth, is what takes away the virginity.

Fred, I am truly sorry that you feel that way. But you leave me no choice but to come to that conclusion. Many many people have given you scripture references that prove Mary had other children by Joseph, but dogmatic refusal to accept the bible on this subject left me with no other conclusions. While the RCC does not hold the exclusive rights to ignoring scripture because it does not fit their teachings, it appears from your posts to be very bad in this area. Throughout the history of the church age this has happened many times, there is still no excuse for not reading and believing the entire bible. Except to control people. You have many times claim to have converted to the RCC from a protestant religion. That is merely saying that you were not catholic or Jewish prior to your conversion. I am sorry that you went from a dead religion to one that forces it's members to swear allegiance to the mother church instead of God, To force it's members to swear to raise their children in the "church" instead of bringing up your children according to the scriptures.
If you want to not become offended again, choose your words carefully and read the scriptures for what they actually say, not what your priest tells you it says and we will get along just fine.

you may prove either side with scripture, it depends on how you wish to define s various usage of greek words and thier translations.

While I agree that sometimes this is true it is not in this case.

You cannot just use any definition that you want for words found in Scripture. The meanings of words must be supported by their use in Scripture.

Wondergirl and 420donn both agree that the definition of "firstborn" excludes an "only child", yet they have not once posted any reference in Scripture to support their definition.

The reason for this is that there is no support in Scripture for their definition in fact as I have shown in my post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/did-mary-have-sinless-jesus-born-sinless-457993-3.html#post2281391 this definition leads to a contradiction.

Scripture supports only a definition of "firstborn" that includes an only child!

Wondergirl and 420donn, if you can find fault with my argument presented in my post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/did-mary-have-sinless-jesus-born-sinless-457993-3.html#post2281391 please be so kind as to point it out otherwise do you accept that your definition of "firstborn" is incorrect?

Why should I post a false pretense?
Scripture is very clear on this subject. Several times the reference is made to Jesus siblings as has been quoted already. Please go back and reread these posts.
Or start in MK 3:31, MK 3:35, and again in JN 7:5.
ALL are references to Jesus brothers and sisters.


If your religion does not support the fact that Mary had more than one child, I am truly sorry for you. Your leaders are doing a great disservice to you by not using the entire bible, and instead are picking and choosing to suit their whims, or the whims of your religious leaders. Sound like the Pharisees of 1st century Jerusalem ?

Why should I post a false pretense?
Scripture is very clear on this subject. Several times the reference is made to Jesus siblings as has been quoted already. Please go back and reread these posts.
Or start in MK 3:31, MK 3:35, and again in JN 7:5.
ALL are references to Jesus brothers and sisters.


If your religion does not support the fact that Mary had more than one child, I am truly sorry for you. Your leaders are doing a great disservice to you by not using the entire bible, and instead are picking and choosing to suit their whims, or the whims of your religious leaders. Sound like the Pharisees of 1st century Jerusalem ?

I agree with all your posts on this thread. About the conclusions that were made by Fred, but the thing is Fred thinks he talks for the church. Honestly though not all Catholics are in the same blind state as Fred is about the church.

The meanings of words must be supported by their use in Scripture.

Wondergirl and 420donn both agree that the definition of "firstborn" excludes an "only child", yet they have not once posted any reference in Scripture to support their definition.
The meanings for words come from a dictionary.

Yes, "firstborn" may turn out to be an only child, but when someone declares a child is "firstborn," he assumes the child is the first of several, that the child will have siblings ("secondborn" and "thirdborn" and maybe even "fourthborn"). "First" by definition means there are more to follow. Luke (or the author of the book of Luke) knew that Jesus was the firstborn or first child with more following. Otherwise, he would have said, "And Mary brought forth her only Child...."

Only in China would the term "firstborn" mean "only born."

Wondergirl, when I read the start of your post
Yes, "firstborn" may turn out to be an only child
I thought "finally she understands", but then as I continued reading I realised that you still don't get it.

There are many problems with your post and I am hestitant in pointing them all out as I fear that you will do as you have done in the past and focus on only one of the points I make when all of them are important.

1. You contradict yourself


Yes, "firstborn" may turn out to be an only child
This means that there may be no more children following the "firstborn", but then you say

"First" by definition means there are more to follow

2. You make assumptions about what people are assuming and present them as absolutes.


when someone declares a child is "firstborn," he assumes the child is the first of several, that the child will have siblings
Do you speak for all people who declare a child "firstborn"? The least you should have said was "he usually assumes".

3. You make up words to support your position.

"secondborn" and "thirdborn" and maybe even "fourthborn"
I cannot find these words in any dictionary!

4.You present a definition of a word as if there are no other possible definitions or usage of that word
"First" by definition means there are more to follow.
I prefer: "First" by definition means that more may follow, but necessarily so.
I am not the only one who uses this definition. In the following link
United Arab Emirates at the Olympics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates_at_the_Olympics) "first" is used when there is only one.
Also try Googling "first and only" you get 146,000,000 hits!

5.Again you make an assumption and present it as an absolute.
Otherwise, he would have said, "And Mary brought forth her only Child...."
Do you really know Luke (or the author of the book of Luke) so well that you can state for certain what he would have said?
Also you seem to miss the point that "Firstborn" in Jewish tradition is not just a ranking of the child in the order of birth but also "a title", "a position of honor and responsibility", with "special priviledges of inheritance and authority" as well as being "dedicated to God" and "receiver of a special blessing".
I doubt that Luke (or the author of the book of Luke) would have chosed the word "only" in place of "firstborn" as this would appear to deny Jesus all of what is listed above!

6.You state a falsehood and present it as truth.

Only in China would the term "firstborn" mean "only born."
"Firstborn" would not mean "only born" even in China! There are many families in China that have more than one child, even though China has a one child policy!

7.You have reversed the order of the "firstborn" and "only born(only child)" and so are not even discussing the same thing that I am discussing!
Only in China would the term "firstborn" mean "only born".

This discussion is about whether "an only child" is "firstborn" not whether a "firstborn" child is an "only child". The order is important!
As an analogy I am trying to establish that a square can be considered a rectangle while you are arguing that a rectangle is not a square.

Please take the above criticisms in the light in which they were given; as positive critcism. While I am interested in discussions like this one, I do find it frustrating when people do not present their arguments in a logical manner and insist that they are right even when it has been shown that their beliefs are inconsistent and contradictory.

I started posting on this thread because I disagreed with the statement being made that 'Luke's use of the word "firstborn" proves that Jesus had siblings because "firstborn" cannot be used for an only child'.

As I have shown in my post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/did-mary-have-sinless-jesus-born-sinless-457993-3.html#post2281391 it is illogical and contradictory to exclude an "only child" from being called "firstborn".

Furthermore, I have shown in point 5 above that even if Jesus was an only child Luke would have had good reason to use the title "firstborn" when relating to Jesus.

So where does this leave us? Hopefully at the same point:

'That Luke's use of the word "firstborn" neither proves nor disproves that Jesus had siblings.'

Please do not read more into this statement than was intended. I am not saying that Jesus did not have siblings, nor am I saying that he did. All I am saying is that the proof/disproof of Jesus' siblings is not found in Luke 2:22-23.

Again, for the record, all your claims are worthless in light of
MK 3:31, MK 3:35, and again in JN 7:5.
ALL are references to Jesus brothers and sisters.
Why is it so hard to understand the word of God?

Bottom line:

Catholics don't believe the Bible.

I don't believe the RCC.

Bottom line:

Catholics don't believe the Bible.

I don't believe the RCC.

Galveston,

To the point and right on! They do NOT believe the Bible. It is frustrating to say the least.

I am a catholic and I do believe in the bible. Although I do also believe many people Catholics are misled. Catholics are not encouraged to pick up a bible and study for themselves. There are no bibles in catholic churches that I have been too. They teach what they want to teach, there are lots of traditions , etc... that are not biblical based which is very misleading.

I have been to many different denominations and churches growing up and still visiting other churches and will say that there are other denominations out there that clearly teach straight from the bible and encourage study of the bible, unlike the Catholic church.

Jesushelper,

You are right. AND in fairness it isn't just the Catholic church that doesn't encourage reading of the Bible either. I have visited other churches and sat in amazement at what they taught. It wasn't even out of the Bible. And I really detest someone who gets behind the pulpit with a political agenda... So didn't mean to pick on Catholics.

I am a catholic and I do believe in the bible. Although I do also believe many people Catholics are misled. Catholics are not encouraged to pick up a bible and study for themselves. There are no bibles in catholic churches that I have been too. They teach what they want to teach, there are lots of traditions and etc... that are not biblical based which is very misleading.

I have been to many different denominations and churches growing up and still visiting other churches and will say that there are other denominations out there that clearly teach straight from the bible and encourage study of the bible, unlike the Catholic church.

Now you puzzle me.

Why do you remain a Catholic?

Well what I tell people...

Now that I have you puzzled. I am born and raised Catholic. There are many denominations that I seen and taken part in. It does not matter what denomination I have been in, I do not think everyone or any church or denomination has it 100 percent right.

So I still go to church, catholic, Anglican, baptist, pentecostal , etc.. But my I do not believe in any one denomination being completely right because all of them are man led.

So for me, My personal relationship with God is most important.. Jesus is what leads me. The bible, the blue print of our lives is what I do my best to live by.

That is what defines me. Not what church I go to, or what denomination I go to. It is about me having a relationship with God, not the church per say.

Puzzled anymore, or does that almost explain where I am with churches in general.

AND in fairness it isn't just the Catholic church that doesn't encourage reading of the Bible either. I have visited other churches and sat in amazement at what they taught.
Christian Science: The First Reader reads passages from Mary Baker Eddy (their founder). The Second Reader reads coordinating passages from the Bible.

Again, for the record, all your claims are worthless in light of
MK 3:31, MK 3:35, and again in JN 7:5.
ALL are references to Jesus brothers and sisters.
Why is it so hard to understand the word of God?

450donn, would you be so kind as to name all of the "biological" children of Mary? Please provide scriptural references that show the "biological" connection of those children with Mary.

As a teacher I have come across many different families in which the children call themselves brothers and sisters these include:

Biological siblings
Step brothers and sisters
Half brothers and sisters (on the father's side)
Half brothers and sisters (on the mother's side)
Step brothers and sisters (living with their step-parent and the step parent's new spouse)

And most of the combinations of the above!

So I still go to church, catholic, Anglican, baptist, pentecostal , etc.
I think that would be a great thing for all of us to do, especially as we are raising families. We were very secluded in our German Lutheran community (Yes, the whole town of 500 was German Lutheran!), and it would have done us good to look beyond our own noses. I applaud you, my friend!


per say
As your cyber auntie, I will feel free to correct you and everyone else who doesn't know: the correct spelling is per se. It's Latin and literally means "by/in itself" -- and is added when one wants to say "so to speak."

I don't get all the hoopla about Firstborn... it means... the first child born.

Take a look at the 10th plague in Egypt: And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

The only way to escape death was to put the blood of a lamb on the doorposts of your house. The death angel would PASSOVER where he saw the blood. So Why did Moses bother doing it? If firstborn meant ONLY child lets think about it... MOSES had two sons.. he had a brother and a sister ( aaron and Miriam) and his wife was one of Jethro's seven daughters so SHE wasn't a only child. So?? Why was his family in danger? Because firstborn means just that... it doesn't mean only child.

Because firstborn means just that...it doesn't mean only child.
Right -- once you know there are other children. But if there is only one child and no others, do you continue to call that child "firstborn"?

I don't get all the hoopla about Firstborn... it means... the first child born.


Because firstborn means just that... it doesn't mean only child.

Please do not jump into a discussion at the end without reading ALL of the posts regarding it. If you bothered to read all my posts regarding this you would realise that you also have done what Wondergirl did, that is reversed the order of the words and then start debating the wrong topic!

An only child is still the firstborn in a family of one! No one has ever tried to prove that the firstborn in a family must be an only child! That is just ridiculous!

Or do you think that in the time of Moses, families with only one child said to Moses "We don't care if God will kill all the firstborn, we have an only child, NOT a firstborn, so this doesn't concern us!"?

I am a catholic and I do believe in the bible. Although I do also believe many people Catholics are misled. Catholics are not encouraged to pick up a bible and study for themselves. There are no bibles in catholic churches that I have been too. They teach what they want to teach, there are lots of traditions and etc... that are not biblical based which is very misleading.

I have been to many different denominations and churches growing up and still visiting other churches and will say that there are other denominations out there that clearly teach straight from the bible and encourage study of the bible, unlike the Catholic church.

Jh there is a great deal of difference between believing in the Bible and believing the Bible. The Bible says that religious people nullify the word of God with their traditions. You say you have visited other denominations and can see the difference. What then are you? One who hopes to reform his church?

There is great inconsistency in saying you are a catholic and saying they are misleading in the base of their teaching. The Church will not save you, but Jesus Christ might.

The greatest inconsistency is saying that they have a mandate because of some supposed association with Peter. They keep making the point they are the successors to Peter and yet we don't hear them make the same claims about Paul. All I can say is I think Peter would be appalled by what the Church has become and so would Paul

Or do you think that in the time of Moses, families with only one child said to Moses "We don't care if God will kill all the firstborn, we have an only child, NOT a firstborn, so this doesn't concern us!"?
People during the time of Moses talked about a firstborn because it was the first child born, and they expected more children or more children had already been born. Couples in those times did not plan to have only one child. That was unheard of, a tragedy. They expected to have a big family.

When all firstborns died, that just happened to include onlyborns.

450donn, would you be so kind as to name all of the "biological" children of Mary? Please provide scriptural references that show the "biological" connection of those children with Mary.

As a teacher I have come across many different families in which the children call themselves brothers and sisters these include:

biological siblings
step brothers and sisters
half brothers and sisters (on the father's side)
half brothers and sisters (on the mother's side)
step brothers and sisters (living with their step-parent and the step parent's new spouse)

and most of the combinations of the above!

Bibleinfo.com®
PO Box 2525
Newbury Park, CA 91319
United States of America

Four men—James, Joses, Simon, and Judas—are mentioned as the brothers of Jesus. (See Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3.) There has been much discussion through the centuries as to the exact relationship of these men to Jesus. Three principal views have been advanced: (1) that they were Jesus' actual brothers, that is, half brothers, sons of Joseph and Mary (and therefore younger than Jesus); (2) that they were His stepbrothers, that is, children of Joseph by a previous marriage (and thus all older than He and not His blood relatives at all); (3) that they were the cousins of Jesus on the mother's side, according to some, or on Joseph's side, according to others. Those who hold the first view argue that this is the most natural way to understand the various references to these brothers; also that this is the most obvious intent of Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7. Those who hold the second view argue that Oriental family ethics would not permit younger brothers to taunt or otherwise meddle with an older brother as Jesus' brothers taunted Him (see Mark 3:31; John 7:3-4). They point out further that the fact that Jesus left His mother in the care of the apostle John (John 19:26-27) rather than with one of His brothers strongly implies that Mary had no other children. The view that these brothers were the cousins of Jesus on Joseph's side is based on pure conjecture. That they were cousins on Mary's side is based on the unproved identity of "Mary, the wife of Cleophus" with the sister of Mary (John 19:25; Mark 15:40), and on the unproved identity of "Clopas" with Alphaeus (Mark 3:18). Jesus' brothers are mentioned as accompanying Jesus and his mother to Capernaum after the marriage at Cana (John 2:12). Later Mary and these brothers are recorded as seeking an audience with Jesus (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). Toward the end of Jesus' ministry, His brethren are mentioned as urging Jesus to prove His Messiahship, which they themselves doubted (John 7:3-5). That they were later converted is clear, for they are described in Acts as uniting with the disciples and others in "prayer and supplication" prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14). Paul implies that they were all married (1 Corinthians 9:5). Many commentators hold that the author of the epistle of Jude, who identifies himself as the "brother of James," was one of these brothers (Jude 1). It is also generally believed that the leader of the church at Jerusalem was James, the Lord's brother (see Acts 12:17; 15:13). This seems to be confirmed by Paul's reference to his visit to Jerusalem, in which he states that he saw only Peter, and "James, the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:18-19).

Four men—James, Joses, Simon, and Judas—are mentioned as the brothers of Jesus. (See Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3.) There has been much discussion through the centuries as to the exact relationship of these men to Jesus. Three principal views have been advanced: (1) that they were Jesus' actual brothers, that is, half brothers, sons of Joseph and Mary (and therefore younger than Jesus); (2) that they were His stepbrothers, that is, children of Joseph by a previous marriage (and thus all older than He and not His blood relatives at all); (3) that they were the cousins of Jesus on the mother's side, according to some, or on Joseph's side, according to others. Those who hold the first view argue that this is the most natural way to understand the various references to these brothers; also that this is the most obvious intent of Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7. Those who hold the second view argue that Oriental family ethics would not permit younger brothers to taunt or otherwise meddle with an older brother as Jesus' brothers taunted Him (see Mark 3:31; John 7:3-4). They point out further that the fact that Jesus left His mother in the care of the apostle John (John 19:26-27) rather than with one of His brothers strongly implies that Mary had no other children. The view that these brothers were the cousins of Jesus on Joseph's side is based on pure conjecture. That they were cousins on Mary's side is based on the unproved identity of "Mary, the wife of Cleophus" with the sister of Mary (John 19:25; Mark 15:40), and on the unproved identity of "Clopas" with Alphaeus (Mark 3:18). Jesus' brothers are mentioned as accompanying Jesus and his mother to Capernaum after the marriage at Cana (John 2:12). Later Mary and these brothers are recorded as seeking an audience with Jesus (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). Toward the end of Jesus' ministry, His brethren are mentioned as urging Jesus to prove His Messiahship, which they themselves doubted (John 7:3-5). That they were later converted is clear, for they are described in Acts as uniting with the disciples and others in "prayer and supplication" prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14). Paul implies that they were all married (1 Corinthians 9:5). Many commentators hold that the author of the epistle of Jude, who identifies himself as the "brother of James," was one of these brothers (Jude 1). It is also generally believed that the leader of the church at Jerusalem was James, the Lord's brother (see Acts 12:17; 15:13). This seems to be confirmed by Paul's reference to his visit to Jerusalem, in which he states that he saw only Peter, and "James, the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:18-19).



Did you write this? Do you know what plagiarism is? Besides this explanation is more wishful thinking and supposition than an explanation that uses both scripture and Tradition.

SEE: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Brethren of the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm) CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. James the Less (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm)

JoeT

It's from Did Jesus have any brothers and/or sisters? | Bibleinfo.com (http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/content/did-jesus-have-any-brothers-andor-sisters).

Bibleinfo.com®
PO Box 2525
Newbury Park, CA 91319
United States of America

Paraclete,

What am I? Who am I? Where or who do I belong? I belong to God. That simple. We are to gather as Gods people and come together as one. Not be separated as so many denominations today like to separate people in groups of different denominations.

I BELONG TO GOD. NOT A CHURCH, NOT A DENOMINATION. Although I still consider myself born and raised Catholic. That is where my roots started my only loyalty is to GOD and my Family.

There is nothing wrong with me enjoying services from other denominations etc...

It seems to me Paraclete you like to pick at everything and anything.

I do not need to explain myself to you. I know the bible. I know God, have a personal relationship to God. Honestly that is all that is important.

Living my life, God guiding me. Serving God in this world for the better of the world.

Where it's from is beside the point. The point is that it is presented as original work, and it's not.
If this was an original then the author can explain why:

• In the New Testament there is no mention of siblings of Jesus, that is "sons" (or "daughters") of Mary of Joseph?

• Each year at Passover Joseph and Mary took Christ to the Temple as was the custom, on retuning they discovered Jesus was not with them. If Mary had other children they would have been younger than Christ, why weren't they mentioned? What did she do with the other children when she returned for Jesus? Luke 2:41 seqq.

• If James is his brother then why didn't he state so quite proudly when he wrote his epistle?

JoeT

Where it's from is beside the point. The point is that it is presented as original work, and it's not.
You wondered where it was from, so I Googled and found out.

• In the New Testament there is no mention of siblings of Jesus, that is "sons" (or "daughters") of Mary of Joseph?
I don't understand this.

• Each year at Passover Joseph and Mary took Christ to the Temple as was the custom, on retuning they discovered Jesus was not with them. If Mary had other children they would have been younger than Christ, why weren't they mentioned? What did she do with the other children when she returned for Jesus? Luke 2:41 seqq.
You'll notice the Gospel writers were concise and didn't mention much besides what was important about Jesus. There was no "Joseph tied up the donkey and gave him some hay" or "Mary didn't have enough cloths for diapers, so she bought a stack of them from the innkeeper's wife." Younger children weren't part of the 12-year-old-Jesus-in-the-temple story, and undoubtedly were in the care of a neighbor or relative.

• If James is his brother then why didn't he state so quite proudly when he wrote his epistle?
Because it was well known, so why beat a dead horse?

Did you write this? Do you know what plagiarism is? Besides this explanation is more wishful thinking and supposition than an explanation that uses both scripture and Tradition.



JoeT

Your right I copied it from the source listed above. I have corrected the mistake in my post.
Sorry.

Is the same wishful thinking you are quoting your source as?

Where it’s from is beside the point. The point is that it is presented as original work, and it’s not.
If this was an original then the author can explain why:

• In the New Testament there is no mention of siblings of Jesus, that is "sons" (or "daughters") of Mary of Joseph?

• Each year at Passover Joseph and Mary took Christ to the Temple as was the custom, on retuning they discovered Jesus was not with them. If Mary had other children they would have been younger than Christ, why weren’t they mentioned? What did she do with the other children when she returned for Jesus? Luke 2:41 seqq.

• If James is his brother then why didn’t he state so quite proudly when he wrote his epistle?

JoeT

JoeT,

Because the Bible doesn't mention his siblings in the passage in Luke 2:41 means NOTHING. The story wasn't about his siblings... it was about HIM. Intersting though that Mary and Joseph could have gone so far without noticing he wasn't there don't you think? Some people speculate that families went together... cousins, Aunts, Uncles and that is why they didn't notice he wasn't there. They assumed he was with extended family. I don't know... but that certainly would explain where the other kids were... either way, it doesn't matter. The scripture doesn't put that info in because it was about the LORD Jesus. I believe the fact that Mary had no clue of why he was back in the temple makes it pretty clear she didn't get WHO he really WAS nor what he was going to do.. this is why she took his words and pondered what he had said... he was about his father's business.

We have given you scripture in the gospels when his siblings are mentioned.. you all explain them away... or use your white out...

AND... Just because James didn't PROUDLY say he was the Lord's brother again means nothing. James understood he had to be saved by him too, maybe he didn't brag about it... maybe everyone KNEW he was the Lord's brother and there was NO REASON to say it... I don't know. BUT I do know had he said it... You would explain THAT away too! The Apostle Paul certainly put it in black and white...

Galatians 1:19
New International Version (©1984)
I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.


I don't know what more you want? Why in the WORLD would Paul say such a thing?

There is no point in going any further on this subject as those that belong to the RCC are firmly entrenched in the doctrine of their religion and choose to not listen to the truth as found in the Bible. It has been pointed out many many times that Jesus had siblings, but their religion forbids this teaching as it does not fit what the Pope choose to tell the masses.

Galatians 1:19
New International Version (©1984)
I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.

Galatians 1:19 (New King James Version)
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

This clearly states that James, the Lord's brother, is one of the Apostles but there are only Twelve Apostles of which two were called James.

Matthew 10:2-4
2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

So Jesus' father must have been either Zebedee or Alphaeus! And all this time I thought that Joseph married Mary and was Jesus' earthly father. How did I ever get that wrong!

I think so many people get side tracked and entrenched into matters that do not really matter.

Who cares if Jesus had brothers or not. Who cares if Mary had other children or not. Which I believe she of course had other children which does not make her a virgin.

Anyway, the only thing that matters really is that We believe in God, Jesus is son and that we will do his will while living this life.

That's it. Plain and simple..

Galatians 1:19 (New King James Version)
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

This clearly states that James, the Lord's brother, is one of the Apostles but there are only Twelve Apostles of which two were called James.

Matthew 10:2-4
2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

So Jesus' father must have been either Zebedee or Alphaeus! And all this time I thought that Joseph married Mary and was Jesus' earthly father. How did I ever get that wrong!

Paul wasn't talking about James the son of Zebedee! He was clear... it was James the Lord's brother. There were other APOSTLE"S... Paul was an apostle... gosh I didn't see him in that list in Mathew. Now how did I ever miss THAT? See what I mean.. it is in BLACK and WHITE and you all still explain it away.

450donn,

You are right.. I said I was done and then I went right back and argued this.. UGH. Will I ever learn?

Apostle:
One of the twelve disciples of Christ, specially chosen as his companions and witnesses, and sent forth to preach the gospel. [1913 Webster]

Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote their gospels years later. They knew how many apostles there were.

If as you try to claim that there were more that 12 apostles do you suppose Matthew(Matthew 10:2), Mark(Mark 3:14) and Luke(Luke 6:13) would have used the number 12? I think not!

Matthew was a tax collector, would he make such a glaring error in his count of the apostles? In my opinion

There were twelve disciples and more than twelve apostles. Paul was one of the apostles.

From the online Merriam-Webster dictionary --

Main Entry: apos·tle
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpä-səl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Old English; Anglo-French apostle & Old English apostol, both from Late Latin apostolus, from Greek apostolos, from apostellein to send away, from apo- + stellein to send
Date: before 12th century

1 : one sent on a mission: as a : one of an authoritative New Testament group sent out to preach the gospel and made up especially of Christ's 12 original disciples and Paul b : the first prominent Christian missionary to a region or group

There were twelve disciples and more than twelve apostles. Paul was one of the apostles.

from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary --

Main Entry: apos·tle
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpä-səl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Old English; Anglo-French apostle & Old English apostol, both from Late Latin apostolus, from Greek apostolos, from apostellein to send away, from apo- + stellein to send
Date: before 12th century

1 : one sent on a mission: as a : one of an authoritative New Testament group sent out to preach the gospel and made up especially of Christ's 12 original disciples and Paul b : the first prominent Christian missionary to a region or group

Wondergirl,

:) excellent. Paul gets the shaft every time... and now apparently James the Lord's bro does too!

Funny Brothers

1. St. Peter, ST. Andrew, St. Simon (called ‘Zelotes’) and St. Philip (4 Apostles):

St. Peter (a.k.a. Simon, or Cephas) and Andrew were siblings, sons of Jona (Johannes). Philip on the other hand came from the same town but not related by his parents; there may have been some distant family relationship. We know that these are not siblings of Jesus.

2. St. James & St. John Zebedee(2 Apostles):

St. James the Greater and St. John — sons of Zebedee and Salome, Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1 St. John knows the high-priest (John 18:16) and is given the care of Mother of Jesus John 19:27.

St. James the Greater was at the Transfiguration Mark 9:1; Matthew 17:1; Luke 9:28, and the Agony in Gethsemani , Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33. Martyred around 44 A.D. Acts 12:1-2.

Their mother was Salome the daughter of the high priest and the pious women who ministered to and ministered Christ (cf. Matthew 27:55, sq.; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 8:2 sq.; 23:55-24:1). It’s Salome that wanted her sons to sit on the right hand of Christ’s throne. (Matthew 20:21).
None of these can be siblings of Jesus. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. James the Greater (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08279b.htm)

3. Matthew , Jude and James The Less (3 Apostles):

Matthew and James, the sons of Alpheus — Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. James the Less is the one referred to as ‘brother of the Lord’ and Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. This can be shown in Gal 1:19 where Paul goes to Jerusalem to see Peter. Peter is not available, he only saw the Bishop of Jerusalem, James the ‘Brother of the Lord’. This James can’t be both the sibling of Jesus and the son of Alpheus now can he?

Matthew, the son of Alpheus; Mark 2:14; Matthew 9:9 a Galilean who collected taxes at Capharnaum for Herod Antipas. These two are not siblings of Jesus.

Jude (a.k.a. Thaddeus ) — Jude 1:1. "Brother of James" called so because his brother James was better known than himself in the primitive Church. Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13. Being the brother of James Jude can’t be the sibling of Jesus.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Matthew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10056b.htm) CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. James the Less (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm)

4. James and Joseph (or Joses):

James, Joseph (or Joses) sons of Cleopas — Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56 the sons of Cleophas or Clopas (John 19:25). "Maria Cleophæ" is generally translated "Mary the wife of Cleophas." Consequently we can conclude that these two were not siblings of Jesus. SJ Prat, in his book Jesus Christ, suggests that this Mary is the second wife of Cleophas CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Brethren of the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm)

5. ST. Bartholomew, St. Thomas (2 Apostles):

St. Bartholomew many think he can be identified as Nathaniel the friend of Philip, John 1:43-51; Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14. St. Thomas we know very little outside the Scriptures. We do know that he is the ‘show me’ Saint. These two Apostles are unrelated to Jesus. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Bartholomew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02313c.htm) CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nathanael (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10711b.htm)

6. Judas Iscariot (1 Apostle):

Finally, we have Judas, the Apostle that betrayed our Lord. He was the only Apostle that wasn’t from Galilee. Being from the town of ‘Kerioth’ Judas can’t be a sibling of Jesus. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Judas Iscariot (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08539a.htm)

So, we have 14 men all of whom are called ‘brothers of the Lord’ i.e. the special way that the twelve were referred to, but none of them are siblings of Jesus. More than a few times the term ‘brethren of the Lord’ was used to describe the Twelve Apostles.

With all these, somewhat complicated, family connections the absence of somebody being called the “son(s) of Mary of Joseph” is now very conspicuous. It takes a long stretch of the imagination to create siblings of Christ – or an ulterior motive.


“For after all there is no getting away from a fact, and if Jesus had brothers and sisters whose names were known at Nazareth, on what grounds does the Church pay homage to Mary as a virgin?... It will readily be admitted that if anybody in the primitive Church had any chance of passing as the brother of Jesus it was James, called expressly by St. Paul 'the brother of the Lord.' [Galatians i.19.] Now a James heads the list at Nazareth; it is therefore the same James. He is the brother of Joses, and the evangelists know very well who is their mother - a Mary who is certainly not Mary the Mother of Jesus. [Mark xv.40; Matthew xxvii.56.] She was known as 'the mother of James and Joses.' [Joses (Jose) or Joseph, according as it was pronounced.](sic)… If these two are not the children of Mary the Mother of Jesus, then by what right can we ascribe to her Jude and Simon who follow in the list of the brethren of Jesus? Moreover, a very ancient tradition with which we may here supplement the gospels regards Simon, under the form Simeon, as a cousin of Our Lord. [Given by Hegesippus, a historian of the second century, quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxii, 4.] … The whole group simply designates relations [i Corinthians ix.5.], and it is ridiculous to imagine that there were brothers or sisters who remain unknown, if those whom the people of Nazareth mention as the best known were merely cousins.” The Gospel of Jesus Christ. P M-J Lagrange OP. Chapter 3: The Ministry in Galilee. Part VI: Miracles. Encounters with troublesome dispositions. (http://www.katapi.org.uk/GospelJC/Ch3-6.html) Père M.-J. Lagrange, O.P, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, First published by Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd 1938

So, by some accounts on this forum we would have at least James the less, James the little, Joses , Jude and Simon, and Jesus as male siblings along with unnamed sisters; “brothers and sisters all together make too large a number.” (Ibid). The Blessed Mary simply couldn’t have born 14+ children.

Oh yeah, based on this same literal reading of the Epistles, we’d need to add St. Paul as 'the brother of the Lord' along with others referred to in Scripture as ‘brother’ of Jesus. St. Paul must be the poor brother that "always gets the shaft everytime."

JoeT

In light of my continuing desire to further my walk with Jesus I picked up a book the other day titled “the Search for The twelve Apostles” by William Mcbirnie. While rather deep and clearly written by and for academics I did find it quite interesting in light of the recent discussions about Mary. On page 141 and I quote “The early heresy of Docetism attempted to convince Christians that all sexual intercourse was evil. The later elevation of Mary to the status of demigoddess forced some of those who took this view to invent out of whole cloth the notion that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were perhaps the children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Thus James the Lord becomes James the half brother. However at this point a further contradiction inserts itself. How could James the less be the son of Joseph and also the son of Alphaeus? The answer which apparently has satisfied most of the scholars of the oldest branches of Christianity is to make James the less, a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This reduces James the less to a cousin of Jesus rather than a half brother. One cannot but sympathize with the defense of this point of view under the pressure they were under to preserve the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus. But their solution is simply impossible. The purpose of names is to distinguish between children. With the great number of names available to the ancients it would be unlikely that there were tow Marys in the same family. We may be safe, therefore in assuming that James the brother of Jesus was indeed that.”

In light of my continuing desire to further my walk with Jesus I picked up a book the other day titled “the Search for The twelve Apostles” by William Mcbirnie. While rather deep and clearly written by and for academics I did find it quite interesting in light of the recent discussions about Mary. On page 141 and I quote “The early heresy of Docetism attempted to convince Christians that all sexual intercourse was evil. The later elevation of Mary to the status of demigoddess forced some of those who took this view to invent out of whole cloth the notion that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were perhaps the children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Thus James the Lord becomes James the half brother. However at this point a further contradiction inserts itself. How could James the less be the son of Joseph and also the son of Alphaeus? The answer which apparently has satisfied most of the scholars of the oldest branches of Christianity is to make James the less, a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This reduces James the less to a cousin of Jesus rather than a half brother. One cannot but sympathize with the defense of this point of view under the pressure they were under to preserve the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus. But their solution is simply impossible. The purpose of names is to distinguish between children. With the great number of names available to the ancients it would be unlikely that there were tow Marys in the same family. We may be safe, therefore in assuming that James the brother of Jesus was indeed that.”

Don great research but you know you are wasting your time, those tied into the dogma of Mary are not going to believe she had a normal married life with Joseph and bore other children

In light of my continuing desire to further my walk with Jesus I picked up a book the other day titled “The Search for The twelve Apostles” by William Mcbirnie
I don’t usually contradict an author, especially when I can’t locate any copy to see under what context the quote is made. However, in this case, since the quote is sufficiently long to infer the context, I can direct my comments at the specific points made within the body quoted.


On page 141 and I quote “The early heresy of Docetism attempted to convince Christians that all sexual intercourse was evil.

Docetae (Greek Doketai) is a heretical sect that started around the same time as the Apostles were teaching by word given witness through there teachings (you might think of this as laying the foundation of Holy Tradition). In the proper sense of the word “heresy”, Docetism isn’t quite Christian heresy. It seems that the doctrines came from outside the Church and is the forerunner of Gnosticism. In this form of heresy ‘salvation’ is transcending the flesh and becoming pure spirit, as pure as the ‘supreme spirit’. This isn’t God, but a supper or 1st among all spirits. In conforming to Christian parlance they ran into difficulty with “the Word was made flesh”. Therefore Christ is made by Æon (the supreme spirit) and made a second called Æons. Tertullian describes this sect better than I ever could:

To all these, however, there opposed himself an Æon who name is Ialdabaoth. He had been conceived by the permixture of a second Æon with inferior Æons; and afterwards, when he had been desirous of forcing his way into the higher regions, had been disabled by the permixture of the gravity of matter with himself to arrive at the higher regions; had been left in the midst, and had extended himself to his full dimensions, and thus had made the sky. Ialdabaoth, however, had descended lower, and had made him seven sons, and had shut from their view the upper regions by self-distension, in order that, since (these) angels could not know what was above, they might think him the sole God. These inferior Virtues and angels, therefore, had made man; and, because he had been originated by weaker and mediocre powers, he lay crawling, worm-like. That Æon, however, out of which Ialdaboath had proceeded, moved to the heart with envy, had injected into man as he lay a certain spark; excited whereby, he was through prudence to grow wise, and be able to understand the things above. Tertullian, Against All Heresies, 2 CHURCH FATHERS: Against All Heresies (Tertullian) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0319.htm)
All of which is to say that Docetism was not a part of the early orthodoxy of the Catholic Church. Starting with Pope Hyginus (137 A.D.) the Church moved against this heresy, as well as the heresies Docetism fostered. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Docetae (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm)


The later elevation of Mary to the status of demigoddess forced some of those who took this view to invent out of whole cloth the notion that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were perhaps the children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Thus James the Lord becomes James the half brother. However at this point a further contradiction inserts itself. How could James the less be the son of Joseph and also the son of Alphaeus?

While I do agree we have very little to suggest that at least one of the James’s was a step child of Mary. There does exist however pseudographic works that might suggest that Joseph had children by a former wife, but we cannot put any reliance on them. As you’re fond of saying, ‘bible-only’ has the answers. And conspicuously absent from Scripture is the any mention of a previous marriage of any women with Joseph. Further, we do not read anywhere in Scripture the James the son of ‘some woman’ of Joseph. Furthermore, it is more likely, as I’ve discussed in earlier posts, that Joseph lived an ascetic life style prior to the betrothal of Mary to Joseph.

The real point however, is that Mr. William McBirnie is attributing the perverted beliefs of heretics to the orthodoxy of the Church. The Church has always held that Mary was ever Virgin and the Mother of God. The Church has never held the Blessed Virgin Mary as a ‘demigoddess’ or any other type of goddess.


The answer which apparently has satisfied most of the scholars of the oldest branches of Christianity is to make James the less, a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This reduces James the less to a cousin of Jesus rather than a half brother. One cannot but sympathize with the defense of this point of view under the pressure they were under to preserve the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus. But their solution is simply impossible. The purpose of names is to distinguish between children. With the great number of names available to the ancients it would be unlikely that there were tow Marys in the same family. We may be safe, therefore in assuming that James the brother of Jesus was indeed that.”

The James of Mark 15:40 is called James the little (where he is called ò mikros "the little", not the "less). There is no half brothers or sisters of Jesus. And if there were, there would need to be a gaggle of them, which would mean that Joseph was indeed very prolific and probably Mary would have been the fourth or fifth wife (Joseph would have had to go through wives as fast as a jack rabbit. It's funny how far afield you’re fanciful imagination can carry you so that you can deny God's miracles in the immaculate Mary. That seems a bit too farfetched for any rational mind. Furthermore, McBirnie merely pronounces his biased assumption without bringing forth any evidence to that effect. It would be very dangerous to accept James as the ‘brother of Jesus as Mr. William McBirnie would suggest. I would suggest that he start writing Tim LaHay type end of the world fiction, his books might be a bit more factual.


JoeT

Joe, you might want to reread the quote. He clearly states what you took a long time to say. He also says that this "The later elevation of Mary to the status of demigoddess forced some of those who took this view to invent out of whole cloth the notion that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were perhaps the children of Joseph by a previous marriage."
So he is indicating that later religionsthe RCC in an attempt to prove this false teaching are the ones that have twisted the truth into what he says near the end of the quote.Thus James the Lord becomes James the half brother
But there is no point arguing with you as your church does not allow you to accept the truth as found in the bible does it?

Joe, you might want to reread the quote. He clearly states what you took a long time to say. He also says that this "The later elevation of Mary to the status of demigoddess forced some of those who took this view to invent out of whole cloth the notion that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were perhaps the children of Joseph by a previous marriage."
So he is indicating that later religionsthe RCC in an attempt to prove this false teaching are the ones that have twisted the truth into what he says near the end of the quote.Thus James the Lord becomes James the half brother
But there is no point arguing with you as your church does not allow you to accept the truth as found in the bible does it?


There are very few of the early Catholic Fathers that took James's as a half brother. In fact if you take the time to read my earlier post, you'll see that all the James's can be accounted for with none of them left to play the role of 'James the half brother'.

JoeT

The way I see it James the son of Joseph and Mary and half brother
Of Jesus. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirt and James and his
Brothers and sisters were of Joseph seed. As we read James, not only
Was he related to the Living Word, but he was a man greatly given to the written Word. James simply considers himself a servant and known
As a man of tremendous humility.

Blessings, Maggie 3

In light of my continuing desire to further my walk with Jesus I picked up a book the other day titled “the Search for The twelve Apostles” by William Mcbirnie. While rather deep and clearly written by and for academics I did find it quite interesting in light of the recent discussions about Mary. On page 141 and I quote “The early heresy of Docetism attempted to convince Christians that all sexual intercourse was evil. The later elevation of Mary to the status of demigoddess forced some of those who took this view to invent out of whole cloth the notion that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were perhaps the children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Thus James the Lord becomes James the half brother. However at this point a further contradiction inserts itself. How could James the less be the son of Joseph and also the son of Alphaeus? The answer which apparently has satisfied most of the scholars of the oldest branches of Christianity is to make James the less, a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This reduces James the less to a cousin of Jesus rather than a half brother. One cannot but sympathize with the defense of this point of view under the pressure they were under to preserve the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus. But their solution is simply impossible. The purpose of names is to distinguish between children. With the great number of names available to the ancients it would be unlikely that there were tow Marys in the same family. We may be safe, therefore in assuming that James the brother of Jesus was indeed that.”

I never thought otherwise. I think the bible is crystal clear but I guess we humans read what we want to... there are those that twist stuff if it doesn't fit their theology. Personally I don't have a stake in this. If the Lord Jesus was Mary's only child... then so be it. I don't care one way or the other. But that isn't what the Bible records.

All of this about Mary never having other children is unrelated to the OP.

Has the subject been changed because the dogma of the Immaculate Conception cannot be supported by any rational or scriptural process?

All of this about Mary never having other children is unrelated to the OP.

Has the subject been changed because the dogma of the Immaculate Conception cannot be supported by any rational or scriptural process?

Actually it does have everything to do with the op. The subject did not change. It was about Mary being sinless or not. All of it has to do with the op and the questions about Mary.

Actually it does have everything to do with the op. The subject did not change. It was about Mary being sinless or not. All of it has to do with the op and the questions about Mary.

Does that mean you consider marital sex as sinful?

Does that mean you consider marital sex as sinful?

Never said that.

So, then, if Mary did have children by Joseph, that does not diminish her position or respect in the least.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Bible?

Matt 1:25
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)

Do you think the Holy Spirit knows how to express Himself? Why then, did He not stop after the word "NOT"?

Instead we find the Holy Spirit continuing on with "till she had brought forth her firstborn son:"

The meaning of this should be clear to anyone who reads it with an open mind.

Closed, way off track and at least one poster is starting to post untrue catholic info in their catholic hate rants