DeoOmnisGloria.com

Ahh, Catholic are not supposed to give Mary "adoration" as that is reserved to God alone.

Ken

Good point Ken. I will say this, as a protestant I agree with Jay on some points. Who cares whether you immerse or pour. That would be legalism. Christ is not about legalism. As for instrumental music, the Bible shows that instrumental music is great for worship. There is absolutely nothing wrong with praying, but is a rosary, the beads, necessary? Prayer I believe is necessary, but beads aren't.
Ok I am done.
God Bless

Good point, Nelson. Beads aren't necessary. Neither is the Rosary. Best of all, the Church doesn't teach that they are! Instead, the Church offers these little dallops of grace to her flock as tools, or entrance points if you will, towards entering into deeper communication with and meditation upon the Lord. But, they are certainly not required.

In Christ,
Dave

I have read your posts Jay, and you seem to change your reasoning often.
For example I can copy and paste you saying that there was no other word to differentiate between brothers and cousins. But this was pointed out to be wrong in a post. Of course this relates to the brothers of Jesus. So, if there was clearly a word for brothers(aldephos) and cousins(anepsios), explain this.

Mt 12:47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."12:48 He(Jesus) replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"12:49 Pointing to HIS DISCIPLES, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister and mother."

See your argument that brothers meant spiritual brothers is weak because it based on the assumption that it is hard to distinguish spiritual brothers from earthly brothers. Its obvious Jesus was referring to Mary and his earthly brothers.

Mt13:55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us?
Knowing that there is a difference between cousin and brothers, whose children were these?
I think that it goes with out saying that Husbands and Wives have children. So these were clearly Mary's children.

Glory be to God
Tony

I would disagree with you Tony. Prove that the Greek word "aldephos" refers strictly to "earthly" brothers. Jay's argument that it would not make sense that Jesus had any "earthly" brothers due to fact that Jesus gave Mary to John, the Beloved, at the foot of the cross is a strong argument. Secondly, how does Mary not having any other children contradict Scripture in any way? The Early Church Fathers all believed Mary to be the "Ever-virgin" so where did Protestants miss the boat? Do your homework friend, read the Early Church Fathers.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,
I agree that adelphos means brothers, but the text in Mt 12:47 clearly distinguishes between earthly brothers and spiritual brothers. Are you reading Mt 12? Is it not obvious?

Amen
Tony

I cannot believe that you really believe the catholic church is the church. How do you explain annulment, buying your way into heaven, all the Catholic teachings about Mary that were made up by man? Her assumption is a good example. Thing is, we Protestants follow scripture, not church tradition. Thankfully, God doesn't make mistakes but man with his traditions do. And thank goodness for the man named Luther who made it possible for all people to read the Bible. You should see the movie, "Luther". It explains a lot and makes me thankful for this man named Luther.

Ann,
Did you read the article? How do you explain all of the Bible that I just cited that protestants ignore? The movie Luther was far from a historically accurate portrayal of the situation! Please read history rather than going to the movies to learn it (movies are rarely historically accurate).

By the way, Luther probably condemned many of the practices you adhere to as "Scriptural" today. For example, Luther demanded that the anabaptists (which became Baptists) be killed since they did not believe in infant baptism.

I challenge you, Ann, to read some of the Early Church Father's writings as well as to really read the Scripture presented above. The Bible is clear: the Catholic Church was founded by Christ.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
Answer Tony's post. Did Jesus make a clear distinction between earthly brothers and spiritual brothers in Mt12:47? Yes or no?

God Bless

Please address the question of annulment. For the life of me I can't see how a person married 10-20+years with children can be granted an annulment in order to remarry. Divorce is wrong, to be sure, but annulment is more wrong in my opinion and certainly not found in the scriptures.

Speaking of Luther I have read as well and the movie follow his life very closely but it doesn't make the Catholic church look too good.

Back to Mary. What about the assumption and other Catholic beliefs that are relatively new? Have you read The Gospel According to Rome? I know you won't like it but surely it would give you something to think about.

Sorry. I know I sound rude but when you study the scriptures all this Catholic stuff just doesn't fit. And the church fathers were men. God ordained what is in the Bible.

Ann,

Thank you for posting. I'm so glad you brought up the topic of annulments. I believe it may be one of the most commonly misunderstood practices of the Catholic Church but certainly a needed and moral practice that is completely in accordance with God's law. I will begin by quoting the following:

Annulment
There are obstacles which can prevent two people seeking to enter into the marital union from contracting a valid marriage. Generally speaking, these obstacles can arise from situations such as a lack of full, free, and voluntary consent, or an impediment such as a prior marriage, or it could be a deficiency in the form (two Catholics married by a judge). In such circumstances, the Church, after careful investigation by an ecclesiastical court, may issue a declaration of nullity. This is a declaration that no true marriage existed from the beginning.
Strictly speaking, therefore, the term annulment is incorrect since the Church cannot make a valid marriage null and void, but can only, after careful investigation, confirm that what was thought to be a valid marriage in fact never was because of some impediment which was not discovered at the time the couple first sought to enter into the marital state.
- A Basic Course of Moral Theology: Our Moral Life in Christ, by Aurelio Fernandez and James Socias, Scepter Publishers, Inc.

I now would like to move on to Mary. There are no teachings or doctrines of the Catholic Church on Mary that are new. They may have been recently defined like the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception, but they are in no way new. Both of these dogmas were accepted and believed by the Early Church Fathers and can be found in several of their letters. Secondly, the most obvious reason why we don't find the Assumption discussed in Sacred Scripture would be due the fact that most of Sacred Scripture was written before the Mary was assumed into heaven. So how do any of the Church's teachings on Mary contradict Sacred Scripture, omission is not the same as contradiction.

Tell me, in reference to the Gospel According to Rome...was that written by a man? You seem quick to disregard the Early Church Fathers because they were men, so I just wanted to point out the irony in your reference to a book that was more than likely written within the past 20 years. Speaking of men, the Apostles were men, the Prophets of the Old Testament were men, as were Abraham, Noah, Moses, David and so forth. So if God could use all of these "men" to speak His truth, why must it end with the Apostles? I think one of the fundamental mistakes Protestants and other non-Catholic denominations and cults make is they ultimately limit the power of God and reduce His relationship with humanity. God actively communicated with the leaders and prophets of the Old Covenant, the chosen people so why would this change in the New Covenant, the Church. In truth, He has continued to communicate to the world and He does so through His Church, because that is the channel of His choosing. Please realize that the Bible that you have today was compiled by the Catholic Church in approximately 392 A.D. So what your comment "God ordained what is in the Bible" indicates that you accept the fact that God obviously infallibly guided the Catholic Church at one point in history, but then stopped once the Bible was compiled. See the inconsistency.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,
Did Mt 12:47-50 show that Jesus made a clear distinction between earthly brothers from spiritual brothers?? Yes or No?

I am curious, how come nobody has answered the question about Mt 12:47-50?

SandT,

No it didn't, but that being the case how does that support your position that Jesus actually had brothers and sisters? Throughout the New Testament whenever Scripture refers to Mary she is always with the "spiritual" brothers and sisters of the Lord. Mary was a believer as were those that are seen throughout the New Testament with her. I still challenge you to prove from a historical prespective that anyone believed that Mary actually had other children. Throughout the Early Church Fathers Mary is always believed Mary to be the Ever-Virgin.

In Christ,
Joe

Did you guys miss my previous point under the article on the Passion? If so, I decided to copy it here.

I would like to put my two cents in on the “discussion” of whether Mary, the Mother of God, did remain a perpetual virgin throughout her lifetime, and in relation to this whether Jesus had siblings. Siblings meaning at most half bothers and sisters as Dave pointed out, since Jesus alone is the Son of God. Here it is! “Mary remained a perpetual virgin throughout her life.” (John 22, 1)..... Pardon the Pun. No seriously, don’t we all wish it were that easy! Here is what the Catholic Church and the Bible teach: “Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom he indeed came to save: “The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formulation she cooperates with a mother’s love.” paragraph 501 of the Second Edition Catechism of the Catholic Church. “Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.” (Rev. 12,17)

I often try to understand why some Protestants and believers think Mary did not remain a virgin. The Catholic Church because of what is written in Sacred Scripture and other traditional writings of the early Church Fathers in regards to Mary, has a purpose for believing Mary remained a virgin. “Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith “unadulterated by any doubt,” and her undivided gift of herself to God’s will. It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: “Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ. paragraph 506 of the Second Edition Catechism of the Catholic Church. “An unmarried or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman (not the same as a married woman that has taken a vow of virginity) on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” (1 Cor. 7, 34-35) At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: “the Church indeed…. By receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse.” paragraph 507 Second Edition Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You might be thinking how can someone be married if they do not even consummate the marriage covenant? Since Mary was a Jew, did the Jewish nation consider a vow of virginity in marriage valid? The Answer to this question can be found way back in the beginning of the Bible, all the way back to Numbers. “When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the Lord, or binds herself to a pledge, if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. But if on the day he learns of it her father expresses to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made becomes null and void; and the Lord releases her from it, since her father has expressed to her his disapproval. If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid. But if on the day he learns of it her husband expresses to her his disapproval, he thereby annuls the vow she had made or the rash pledge to which she had bound herself, and the Lord releases her from it.” (Numbers 30, 4-10) Wow, that means even at the time of Moses vows of virginity in marriage were accepted. Maybe that’s why the New Testament does not blatantly say Mary remained a virgin her entire life in black and white, since the writers knew that virginity in marriage was commonly known by the Jews, since their ancestors were taught about it in the desert by Moses. Also, we all know that Joseph never once disapproves Mary’s vow, in fact some scripture scholars believe that it is possible that both Mary and Joseph were consecrated virgins.

But for a moment lets imagine that Jesus did have siblings (see note above) and Mary had not remained a virgin. Oh, those poor brothers and sisters of Jesus! I wonder who the favorite child was in the family’s meek home at Nazareth? Can you picture how many times Jesus’ brothers and sisters must have heard their parents praise their son Jesus and say to His siblings, “Why can’t you be more like your brother, Jesus? No wonder they became unbelievers of Jesus as you said. Probably saying, “Its not fair! Why does Jesus get to be the Son of God?” And if they did not recognize Jesus as the Son of God, well that means they thought their parents, Joseph and Mary, and their older Messianic brother Jesus were, as Andy Rooney so affectionately puts it, “Wackos!” “Mary would have tried an explain what happened with the Angel Gabriel, etc. etc, and their father would agree with Mary because he, himself, came to see God’s design by an angel coming to him in his sleep. But this would not cut it for their so called non-divine children.

Does this not seem all too bizarre? Well it is because it is unbelievable that God, who had a designed plan from the Beginning, would not make His Mother, the very vessel that would contain Him, and Our spiritual Mother the most perfect human symbol of purity.

I ask you and any others what purposes have you for questioning your Spiritual Mother’s virginity and faith? The Church has a purpose and logical reasons for that purpose.

I think I’ll go with the Catholic Church.

In Jesus and Mary,
Joachim

Tony,

How does Matt 12:47 support that these were actually earthly brothers of Jesus? You cannot prove that Mary had other children....so read the Scripture and Early Fathers. Try reading Matt12:50, Jesus pointing to His disciples says

"There are my mother and my brothers."

The same Greek word is used and, please note, these weren't Jesus' "earthly" mother or brothers.
Again, how does Mary's perpetual virginity contradict Sacred Scripture? It is completely believable and logical. Read Joachim's comment above, he makes a sound argument for Mary's perpetual virginity.....no wait try reading the Early Church Fathers (they lived within the first 100 to 500 years after Christ, and they had no problem with it).

Your aldelphos in Christ,
Joe

Joe,
Let us look at Matthew 12:46-50.

12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

Lets pause and analyze this Joe. Jesus is teaching the crowd and lo and behold comes his "mother and brothers(adelphos)" They want to speak to him.

12:47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brother are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

Your stance Joe is that these could have been Jesus's spiritual brothers and mother.

12:48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother and who are my brothers?"

Jesus asked this question because He is about to unveil another teaching.

12:49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "HERE are my mother and my brothers.

Jesus is obvious making a clear distinction between earthly mother and brothers and spiritual mother and brothers. Jesus is showing that while in the natural world He has a mother and brothers, SPIRITUALLY Christ shows us who He considers a mother and brother. This lesson would be fruitless if the mother and brother standing outside were spiritual mother and brother. Jesus pointed to his disciples to emphasize the following.

12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.

If the brothers outside were spiritual brothers than why would Jesus say HERE? Not HERE and there, but HERE...pointing to His disciples? Its obvious if you open your eyes Joe and look without loyalty to tradition of men. Even deep down I believe you realize that Christ was distinguishing between earthly brothers and spiritual brothers. The answer to your question as to why Jesus gave Mary to John is simple. Jesus considered John a brother. For we know that Jesus's earthly brothers at first did not believe in Him.
The last scripture I will point out to you that clearly shows that Jesus did have earthly brothers is John 7:3-5

Jesus' BROTHERS said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." For even his own BROTHERS did not BELIEVE IN HIM.

These brothers COULD NOT BE spiritual brothers in Christ, could they Joe? Of course not. Why? Because they did not believe in Christ. These were earthly brothers.
Scripture once again shows the truth. Jesus DID in fact have earthly brothers. Joe your defense of Mary's perpetual virignity have been the following
1. Jesus had no brothers
2. Brothers could have meant cousins.
After you were shown that there indeed was a word for cousins your argument changed to...
3. Those referred to as brothers of Jesus were earthly brothers.
But that is now disproven according to Scriptures. So Joe, after reviewing these Scriptures...did Jesus have earthly brothers? Yes or no?

SandT,

Without a doubt in my mind the answer to your question is "no". I think it is critical for you to understand why.

First and foremost, because the Church teaches Mary's perpetual virginity, period. It has been believed and taught since the earliest century of Christianity. Even Martin Luther accepted it. The Church, not Scripture, has the divinely given authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. It ultimately does fall back on how we can be certain of the truth. I know because the Church, founded by Jesus Christ, has always taught the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I will not insult you by saying that your argument on Matt 12:46-50 doesn't seem logical, but at the same time I will say that it is in no way conclusive nor that the use of the word "brothers" here couldn't mean other relatives of the Lord as well. Whenever we, as Catholics, have any uncertainty about any matter of faith we have the comfort and confidence in the fact that what the Church teaches is what is true.

2) You are correct about one of our initial arguments being that there was only one word in the Greek for brothers or cousins. I was mistaken but the Church isn't, for what the Church actually points to is the Hebrew, not the Greek. The following is taken from a book called Radio Replies, which is a collection of answers provided by two priests who hosted a radio show. The format is that the Protestant objection was stated and then answered.

Objection 763. Luke 1:36, confutes the story that there was no word in the Greek to describe James, Joseph, Jude, adn Simon as cousins.
Answer: I have never heard it said that there was no word in Greek for cousin. It is certain that there was no word in Hebrew for cousin. The Hebrew word for brother, ah and in the Aramaic, aha, was used to describe brothers, half-brothers, nephews and nieces, cousins, and relatives in general. It is certain that any cousins of Jesus would have to be described in Aramaic as brethren. And, in translating the expression literally by the Greek word brethren, the Evangelists merely followed the example already given in the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament.
- Radio Replies Vol. III, pg. 180-181

In the end, it all comes down to authority... Does the Catholic Church have the authority to declare something as true? I say yes. You say no. I can support the Church's authority from Sacred Scripture (Matt 16:19, 1 Timothy 3:15, and Ephesians 3:8-11), but equally important is the fact that I can support it historically. I can prove to you what the Early Church Fathers believed because they wrote about it. You have yet to provide one verse that simply states: The Bible is the sole source of authority on matters of truth. Until you do, we're just running around in circles here, because you have no proof that I am in error by accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church.

By the way, what denomination do you belong to? Have you always belonged to that denomination?

In Christ,
Joe

SandT,
One point: Matthew's Gospel was written in Aramaic, a language like Hebrew that does not have a differing word for "brothers" from "cousins." We have no idea who translated Matthew's Gospel from Aramaic to Greek or the understanding that person had of the two languages. You're basically revolting from God's Church over an issue of translation/linguistics!

Note that only Jesus is called "the son of Mary" in the Bible and no one agreed with you that Mary had other children until this line was invented in the late 1,500's. It's very interesting to me how you are so willing to distrust the Chuch Jesus created in favor of theories that were not developed for 1,500 years!

God bless,
Jay

Joe and Jay,
To Jay, Mark's native language was Greek. He writes the same account that Matthew wrote. So it doesn't matter whether Matthew wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew, because Mark definitely wrote in Greek. Mark did follow Jesus. He saw Jesus, heard Jesus up close and was taught by Jesus.
Mark provides another testimony to what Matthew wrote in Mt 12:47-50.
Mark 3:31

Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother, sister and mother"

Jay, Greeks definitely had a word for brother and one for cousins. So with the Gospel of Mark, there is no issue of translating from Hebrew, because Mark was written in Greek. This Scripture supports the Scripture in Mt 12:47-50. Jesus did indeed have "earthly brothers."

Joe, you keep insisting on 1 Tim 3:15 to support your beliefs in the authority of the church. But if you read 1 Tim 3:14 you would find that Paul said he WROTE those instructions so that the CHURCH may know how to conduct itself. That scripture shows that the writings of Paul(which are scripture) dictates what the church does. This STATEMENT clearly shows that the church is to follow written instructions. Yet you insist on denying this fact and instead ignore 1 Tim 3:14 and just focus on 1 Tim 3:15. The church does not dictate what is truth, the scriptures do. Jesus did have earthly brothers, a fact that the scriptures supports.

Amen

If it was always believed that Mary was an eternal virgin, why does Matthew say

"And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." (Mat 1:24-25)

The English usage here is plain enough, and there would be no need to qualify how long Mary was a virgin if she was an eternal virgin.

The Catholic story of Mary (see e.g. this) seems to be gradually built up through many narratives that were written long after the Apostles. There is nothing wrong in one's believing those visions, but each added tradition weakens the Catholic Church's claim to be a universal church.

As for "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven," in Mat 16:19 and 18:18, I find the alternative translation given here far more sensible.

"Whatsoever you may bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you may loose shall have been loosed in heaven"

SandT,

You still have not responded to my assertion that Jesus could not have had any "adelphos" in the literal sense of the word since His Father was God. Thus, even from your perspective the most he could have had was half-brothers. And yet the word "adelphos" is used, which means full brother. So you begin your attack with a foundation of sand since you must admit that the word used is not used in its full literal sense.

Second, you have completely failed to respond to the possibility that Joseph had another wife. While many Catholics would reject this idea, certainly a Protestant should have no problem with it. Isn't it at least possible? And if he had children by such a woman, would not the children be referred to as Jesus' adelphos?

Third, while were on the subject of polygamy, do you think it is wrong? Be honest. Do view 19th Century Mormon practices as reviling? If so, why? The Bible NEVER condemns these practices. In fact, most of the patriarchs had more than one wife/concubine (Abraham, Jacob, David, and many others). The Mosaic law never forbids the practice. Christ never forbade it. Paul tacitly admits that it is practiced by requiring that bishops, for their part, be limited to only one wife. So why do Protestants oppose polygamy? I'll give you a little hint: Catholic Tradition!!

Fourth, you may understand the literal Y2K translation of "adelphos" and "anepsios", but I seriously doubt that you have any understanding of familial relations in the Hebrew culture at the advent of the first century. (Incidentally, I voluntarily posted an article on this subject correcting Joe's misunderstanding before you ever chimed in, so don't be so self-righteous about have "caught" Joe; we all admit having imperfect knowledge. That's why Christ gave us His Church.) Consider that blood relatives, to a Hebrew, would have all been like brothers and sisters. To a Jew, the word anepsios may not have captured the right sentiment. If you had all the books of the Bible, you would be able to read Tobit where we see Tobit hiring a traveling companion for his son Tobias. He hired him based exclusively on which family he came from. Family (which was never merely limited to a nuclear concept for Jews) meant everything. It defined who you were and what you could become. This type of closeness was not found among the Greeks and Romans. The Jews may very well have used the Greek language differently (in certain circumstances) to more closely approximate a Hewbrew view of the world. My point is, not having been there and not being a world-renowned linguistic scholar, it is ridiculous to suggest that you can boldly proclaim the ultimate truth on this matter.

I find it truly amazing that you, living 2000 years after the death of our Lord and over 1900 years after the Gospels were written down, have such keen awareness of linguistic practice at the time of those events that you can pontificate (pardon the irony) about what exactly the word "adelphos" signifies. I myself will profess my own grand ignorance of such linguistic matters. That is why I rely on men who received the Word, were uniquely endowed with apostolic power, lived only 50-200 years after the Gospel was written, and were martyred for their faith! Where do you get your interpretation? And please don't claim the Holy Spirit--the Almighty is One in thought and purpose. He does not speak hundreds of contradictory things to hundreds of different denominations.

Let me ask you this: do you know what "due process" means? If you think that you do, you are a fool. Dozens of persons have ascended to the highest position of judicial authority in this country, the U.S. Supreme Court, all with a different idea of what these words mean. As you may or may not know, these words appear in the U.S. Constitution, a document drafted about 215 years ago. Yet within 30 years the meaning of the words in that document were already being hotly debated. Today, a little over 200 years removed from the Constitutional Convention, the words in that document are now utilized to permit abortion, homosexuality, profanity, obscenity, and a wide variety of evils that would have been unconscionable to the very drafters of that same document. And the persons developing these interpretations are admittedly some of the brightest minds in the country. I doubt seriously that any one of them has had an IQ of less than 130. The point is this: if our Constitution can be so radically misinterpreted by such intelligent persons within 200 years, how is it that you who are more than 1900 years removed, regardless your skills and expertise (are you a linguistic scholar in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew?), have the insight to bring out the "true" meaning of the words in the most sacred document that humanity has ever known?

And before you move too quickly to discredit the early Church fathers with what I have just written, consider that their testimony (unlike the Supreme Court or the hundreds of Protestant denominations) was uniform concerning these matters. As the Church teaches, her bishops are collectively empowered with the Holy Spirit so that when they speak together on matters of faith and morals, they speak without error. Consider that the word "catholic" first appeared in the early second century (look at the Apostle's Creed). And while it means "universal", it also means "of the whole". Many heresies arose in the first and second centuries, always claiming authenticity through some apostle or book of Scripture (see Marcion and the Gnostic heresies). The response of the Church was to designate herself "catholic". In other words, her testimony was that deposited "by the whole" of the apostles, not the interpretation of some individual. That, my dear SandT, is the one and only picture of the unified Church that Christ prayed for. You won't find it in the heretics of the early Church. You won't find it in any Protestant denomination. This "catholic" faith, deposited by the apostles to the bishops and handed down for 2000 years now is what Jay is referring to when he says we rely on the Church. We cling to the Church "of the whole" testimony of the apostles. She is the guardian of God's Truth. We find rest and solace, knowledge and Truth, in her, because that is where her betrothed, Christ, has placed it! We recognize our limitations and submit ourselves into the unity of the Body. That is Scriptural.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

Adelphos means to come from the same womb. It also means brother, near or remote. So you can come from the same womb and have different fathers. The word was not misused there. Nevertheless, I never claim to be a linguistic scholar. You can however check for yourself if I am misconstruing the meaning of adelphos. Second, while there is the possibility that Joseph may have been a widow with kids, the Bible never mentions anything to hint that he may have been a widow. There was never any mention of kids when Jesus was a babe.
Joseph was described as a righteous man, but never as a widow.
Either way, I will break down the Mary's in the Bible later on, again, so that you can see that Mary did in fact have a son named James.
God Bless

David was described as a righteous man; never as a widow. He had children by different mothers. They were called brothers. Why couldn't this have been the case with Joseph? Considering that the Bible never comes right out and says that Mary had other children (every argument you make is circumstantial rather than direct evidence), it hardly seems consistent for you to claim that Joseph didn't have another wife simply because the Bible didn't say so. The Bible doesn't give us all the names of David's wives; does that mean they didn't have names?

You keep going back to the widow thing; I am referring to the possibility that Joseph was a polygamist. Is there any problem with this theory? I would still be very interested to know if you believe polygamy is wrong. Please humor me.

Finally, I again ask you to consider the propriety of having sexual contact with the "handmaid of the Lord." Mary was touched by the Holy Spirit in a way that can only be described as "marital"; this contact produced human offspring. Do you honestly think a righteous man like Joseph would then have boldly approached (for sexual union) the vessel into which God Himself deposited His very being?! It simply doesn't make sense. This should be repugnant if you really think about it.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
The perpetual virgin theory would be acceptable if somewhere in the Bible it says that Mary would remain a virgin forever. It might have been believeable if she never married. But the facts are this was not the case. Scriptures show that Mary did have other children and that Jesus did have brothers.
What you are doing is the following, inventing a scenario which was not shown in scripture. Yes, David and Solomon had many wives. The Bible shows that clearly. However the proposed situation of Joseph being a polygamist is not mentioned. Joseph's children were not mentioned before Jesus. In order to support that these brothers of Jesus were not Mary's children, guess what you are doing? You are going outside of Scripture and inventing.
But lets look at scriptures quickly. There are six Mary's in the Bible. 2 of which had children named James and Joses. However there are 2 more James.
There is James the son Zebedee and Salome, then you have James son of Alpheus, this James is also James the lesser son of the other Mary and brother of Joses. Then you James the father of Judas(not Iscariot), and finally there is James the brother of Jesus. Just read Mark 6:3, you will see reference to a family being made. In the argument you made which is from the Catholic American Bible in the note on Mark 6:3, the Catholic church even admits if it were not for the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity the question of what the meaning of these brothers meant would not have risen.
Regardless, the whole discussion has shown that scripture does not support Mary remaining a virgin forever. By proposing that Joseph may have had other children from a prior marriage or may have been a polygamist is nothing more than assuming and inventing. Dave you have shown that you have to go outside of what is the Bible to support doctrines in the RCC. Besides, have you ever seen Jesus instruct anyone to pray to Mary? No. Did the disciples ever preach on Mary or prayer to Mary? No. The disciples are the true early church fathers. They followed scripture, they submitted to scripture, they wrote scripture. If Mary was so important as the RCC finds her to be, why didn't they mention her in that light? I find it funny that from the Scripture where Christ gives Mary to the care of John the beloved you believe that this is proof for prayer to Mary. However when you are shown 1 Tim3:14 where it says that writings from Paul are instructions on how the church behaves, you deny that the Bible says that Scripture is authoritative in what the church does.
Did Jesus have brothers yes or no? Initially you said no, now it seems you are saying yes but they were half brothers. So which is Dave, Joe, and Jay? Does scripture show that Jesus had brothers?

First off, please do not misrepresent the facts. I never said "Jesus did not have brothers." Nor did I ever say he had half brothers. I would appreciate it if you would correct this misstatement. What I am proposing is that he may have had step-brothers.

Second, the faux syllogism you present does not hold water. You attempt to illustrate that I go outside of Scripture while you stick to it. This is patently false. My example was that David's wives had names. Their names never appear in Scripture. If we accept your somewhat amusing suggestion that anything not in Scripture is an invention, than the suggestion that these women had names would be an invention. This is really very poor logic.

To be more to the point, consider the genealogy of Christ in Matthew Chapter 1. We see a long list of sons and fathers, but no mothers are listed. According to your flawed view of Scripture, this means that these individuals did not have mothers since it does not state that they had mothers anywhere. Thus, to say they had mothers would be an invention.

Third, you yourself go outside of Scripture. You admit that no where in the Bible does it say that Mary had other children. No child is identified as a child of Mary other than Christ. Yet you insist that James is the son of Mary simply because he is identified as the brother of Jesus. Again, you go outside of Scripture, because no where does Scripture identify the mother of James. You present the possibility that Mary was James' mother, and I have presented the possibility that some other wife of Joseph was his mother. Both interpretations would explain the term "brother", and you have no Biblical ground to claim that your interpretation is correct since James' mother is never identified. So in spite of all your rhetoric, you have proved nothing and have demonstrated that you go outside of Scripture just as much as I (and all to prove a point that really has no meaning or purpose for a Protestant other than to rebel against Church tradition).

Fourth, it is you who have changed your position as you now tacitly admit that Christ could not have had any true "adelphos" since God was His Father.

Finally, why have you consistently failed to answer my questions? Namely, you totally avoided stating your position on polygamy. I will assume it is because you accept the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue, a teaching that appears nowhere in Scripture. You have also failed to address the propriety of a man having sexual union with the same vessel that the Holy Spirit had a pseudo marital union. I would really encourage you and others reading this to think about the completely inappropriate, irreverant, and dare I say adulterous nature of such an encounter. Lastly, you have not responded to the cultural changes and evolution that occur with 2000 years of etymological evolution. Why is it so hard to imagine Jews (all of the Bible writers were Jewish, whether Hellenists or Saducaic) would use "adelphos" in certain cases to more closely reflect their cultural understanding of kinship? And why would authors writing a mere 100 years after the Gospels conclude that Mary did not have other children? Wouldn't they have a better understanding than you about the meaning of the language used in Scripture? Please, SandT, respond to these issues.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

"You have also failed to address the propriety of a man having sexual union with the same vessel that the Holy Spirit had a pseudo marital union. I would really encourage you and others reading this to think about the completely inappropriate, irreverant, and dare I say adulterous nature of such an encounter. "

What is inappropriate about Joseph, or any man, marrying a unmarried women who is with child? Is that not an act of love? What is irreverent about Joseph responding to "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." (Mat 1:20)? And are you saying that the Holy Spirit is adulterous? Because Joseph could not have been adulterous since he had not been divorced nor was he sleeping with a woman who was not his wife. (That last one was a rhetorical question.)

Jon,

Consider two things. First, Joseph and Mary are always referred to in Scripture as "betrothed" or "pledged", even though they traveled together. If you read the book of Tobit, you will see how Jews of that time used those words to refer to married persons who had not consummated the marital union, thus meaning they were not married in the truest sense (Tobit explicitly makes this point regarding the wife of Tobias). So, Joseph, though he may have been the spouse/guardian of Mary, is never referenced as a true husband. It is undeniable that the Holy Spirit planted His seed in Mary. This was not an act of illegitimacy, which is what it would be had Mary not been wedded to the Holy Spirit. Instead, Mary was pledged to God from birth (hence the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception). That is why the angel Gabriel addresses her as "Full of Grace", an attribute of the Divine Gift that had been granted her so that she might acheive her destiny.

So, the real question is how do you explain the relationship between the Holy Spirit and Mary? Clearly this was a relationship such as has never existed in the annals of history. For God's Spirit to have such union with a human being as to conceive a child (with resulting human and divine natures), which is the typification of the greatest union between any man and woman, demonstrates without question that Mary was and is the spouse of the Holy Spirit more than any woman was the spouse of any man in history. It was most certainly not wrong for Joseph to "marry" this woman as a guardian. Which, of course, is why Joseph is so highly revered and honored in the Church. But you are suggesting that there was some sexual union between the spouse of the Holy Spirit and Joseph, something totally unnecessary to Joseph's act of love. In point of fact, a lack of sexual intimacy demonstrates Joseph's higher love because he was willing to accept the responsibilities of a husband without receiving the traditional rights of a husband. Nonetheless, for a woman to be sexually intimate with more than one man (both of whom are living) is and always has been immoral. (Keep in mind that I am NOT saying Mary was "sexually" intimate with God! Only that their intimacy was higher than sexuality and attained that pinnacle of unity that sexuality is designed to bring to the marriage.)

Second, consider that Mary, in addition to being the spouse of the Holy Spirit, was also the bearer of Christ (the Greek word is "Theotokos", or God-bearer). This is the exact same designation that would be applied to the Ark of the Covenant of ancient Israel. Is Mary any less of an Ark? Is she not the Ark of the New and Everlasting Covenant? In fact, her carrying of God was even more real than that of the Ark, since she was actually united with the God-child in her womb. Considering what happened to Uzzah when he touched the Ark (struck down on the spot), why would you think anything different should be the case for Joseph should he have sexual contact with Mary?

There are numerous other anecdotal evidences that Jesus did not have brothers. For example, why were no brothers or other siblings present when Jesus went to the Temple at 12 years old (keeping in mind that according to SandT's interpretive mode, the fact that Scripture does not mention them means they do not exist)? Why would Jesus' brothers show up saying He was "mad" and asking Him to come home if they were over 12 years his junior (meaning only 18 years old or younger!!)? This would have been extraordinarily inappropriate in Jewish culture (remember what happened to Joseph simply because he told his brothers about a dream!) And why would Christ leave his mother with the apostle John when His believing "brother" James was alive and well? Another thing that is totally inappropriate in Jewsish culture. Furthermore, Scripture refers to Salome as being the "sister" of Mary, and yet we know that Salome was in fact Mary's cousin. So Scripture does use the adelphos word even in reference to cousins. There are a host of other problems with the arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity, but this must suffice for now.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
Your example about whether David's wives had names is quite silly. That of course is obvious. The reason that it is silly is simple. Everyone has a name. Not everyone has multiple wives or is divorced.
You admit to going outside scripture, I on the other hand admit to adhering to Scripture. It may not be what you want to hear, but it is according to Scripture.
First off I believe that God is not the author of confusion. I also believe that God inspired the writers of the Bible to write what they wrote. Since God inspired them, I am going to assume that God would also inspire pertinent facts to be written.
If it was important to God that we pray to Mary why did he not instruct us to?
If it was important to God that we know Mary would forever remain a virgin, why did not God inspire the authors to write about the it?
If it was important that God wanted us to know that Joseph had kids before Mary, why did God not tell us?
Even Paul and Peter really don't mention Mary at all. They never taught about Mary. Are they not the early church fathers?
It is known that in the Bible, husband and wife have children. It was important for the male in that time to pass on his lineage. You can't deny this. Joseph and Mary were married. There was no mention of a prior marriage by Joseph. There is no mention at all that Mary would remain a virgin. Jesus is clearly shown to have brothers. Same mother, different fathers. Is that so hard to understand? All the scriptual evidence points to Mary having other children. All the evidence actually contradicts any support to the perpetual virginity.

Now as for polygamy, why are you straying from the topic? You really think that the RCC deemed polygamy wrong? You need to read your Bible some more Dave. How did GOD intend it to be from the beginning?
There are a lot of things MEN have done that was not originally in God's plan. Each one having a downside. Solomon had many wives and was led astray.
Divorce certificates were done, yet this is not how God intended it to be. Christ even points this out in Mt 19:8. God always intended for one man and one woman to be married. Polygamy, that is a man made thing. God wanted monogamy from the beginning! So anyone who does otherwise, does wrong. In short, GOD and definitely not the RCC determined that polygamy was wrong.
Either way, why you bring this up when we are discussing Mary and her children is beyond me.
Lastly how does scripture show that Mary was Salomes cousin? I challenge you to prove it scriptually.

SandT,

The polygamy point is perfect. You say "If God wanted us to pray to Mary, why did he not instruct it?" So, SandT, if God wanted marriage to be between one man and one woman, why did he not instruct it. Your doubletalk is getting tiresome. We have presented you with numerous Scriptural indications of both the fact and the reason for Mary's perpetual virginity. I am at least grown up enough to admit that Scripture does not flatly state that she remained a virgin. You however, play the consumate politician pretending like Scripture clearly establishes the fact that Mary had other children. This is false and you know it. No matter how many circumstantial evidences you offer for your position (and again I am honest enough to acknowledge that they exist), these circumstances fall well short of establishing beyond doubt the argument that Mary had other children. Joe, Jay, and I have also established numerous circumstantial evidences that Mary did not have other children, and again I am honest enought to admit that they fall short of clearly establishing Mary's perpetual virginity.

I raise the issue of polygamy because in order to be opposed to it, you have to completely abandon the interpretive mode you are using regarding Mary's virginity. Nowhere in Scripture does God say, "Marriage is between one man and one woman." Nowhere does God say, "A man shall not have more than one wife." Jesus never said it. Moses never said it. Paul never said it. Peter never said it. And all this in a context where God's most holy servants had married more than one woman. David is a really good example because there is no indication anywhere in Scripture that having more than one wife was a problem for him. In fact, in one instance where he marries a widow (and another woman at the same time), Scripture is clear that this was in fact a righteous and loving act! (I Sam. 25:39-44.) There is, in fact, a fascinating Website on Polygamy from a Biblical perspective that soundly trumps your opposition to polygamy (that is from a "sola scriptura" perspective). Regardless, what is painfully obvious to anyone not stuck in your myopic mindset is that you must go outside of Scripture to be opposed to polygamy, because Scripture most certainly does not say a single word against it. In fact, Scripture never said anything against divorce until Christ came. And, as you have so wonderfully stated, if divorce was pertinent enough for Christ to address (and Paul as well), why not polygamy? According to you, since no prohibition on polygamy is found in Scripture (where all pertinent matters must be contained), then polygamy is not wrong.

SandT, I have been very honest about both the strengths and weaknesses of my arguments. I have also been very honest that the dogma of perpetual virginity cannot be firmly established solely by reviewing Scripture. This is not problematic to me because Scripture itself never states that we should look only to Scripture (and for all of your die-hard attempts to find such an inference, even you must admit that no such admonition exists). Why are you so blinded that you cannot honestly assess the strengths and weaknesses of your position? Why do you persist in fallacies (do you still claim that Scripture teaches against polygamy?) that are so patently incorrect?

What is truly amazing is the manner in which you so casually ignore and brush aside a dogma that for 1300 years (between 200 and 1500 AD) is recorded as an accepted Christian belief that was not even challenged. Basically, you are claiming that for 1300 years the Church was filled with morons who could not even see the most obvious things in the Bible. Included in this group would be men like Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Jerome, Augustine, Benedict, Aquinas, and many, many more of the most influential people in the Christian faith. Men who clung to their Christian faith through torture and martyrdom. Men whose entire existence consisted of a dedication to Christ and His Church. Do you honestly think that these men were such idiots that they could not see something in Scripture that you claim was as plain as the noses on their faces? Are you seriously suggesting that it is you and the reformers like you who after 1600 years finally recaptured the Truth? Before you pretend that Mary's other children are clearly established by Scripture, consider that men whose lives influenced the entirety of Christianity did not agree. At the very least, you should tread more cautiously and with an appreciation that reasonable men such as these did not see what you claim is so obvious.

In Christ,
Dave

P.S. Do not condescend. I have read the Bible through several times from cover to cover, and several more times through daily readings. It is because of the clear Biblical evidence supporting the Church (and the work of the Holy Spirit) that my family and I reconciled ourselves to the Church.

Dave,
Once again your argument is weak. This is proven by scripture.

In Mt 19:5
"for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united to his wife, and the TWO, will become ONE flesh, so they are no longer TWO, but ONE.

Dave that is Jesus quoting scripture by the way. Notice there is no mention the THREE becoming one. Notice that there is no uniting to his WIVES. Christ said WIFE. As in singular. How do you interpret this as not meaning 1 man for 1 woman?
You say that God never said marriage is between one man and woman. These are your words Dave. Yet here Christ is saying that a man shall be united to his wife and the TWO will become ONE. Scripture has proven your point wrong.

As for Paul. In 1 Corinthians 7:1-3
Now for matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, EACH MAN should have HIS OWN WIFE and EACH WOMAN HER OWN HUSBAND.

Clearly Paul is teaching that marriage is one man to one woman. This is a teaching of God, which was taught by Christ and also taught by Paul. Any teaching that is contrary to God, by default is wrong. Because God is always right.
I don't mean to offend you, but once again, Scriptures holds firm and true.

God Bless

Does anyone else out there see what SandT is doing? When Scripture does not clearly establish SandT's beliefs, a verse is quickly located that lends some modicum of support for SandT's position and presto, Scripture is unmistakable! Does SandT go outside of Scripture? Of course not, says SandT; this is merely "interpretation" or "deduction". A verse is used from Christ where He is very clearly speaking against divorce and SandT quickly converts it into a requirement of monogamy, even though Christ never says that polygamy is wrong (or that a man should have only one wife, or any number of other ways of stating this prohibition). The same thing is done with Paul, again who nowhere states that it is wrong to marry more than one woman. (Incidentally, SandT, did you even look at the Website I gave you? At one point in Scripture God tells David that He (God) gave David his wives! Interpret that.)

Then, when SandT sees the Church do the exact same thing (that is using Scripture to support its position), all of a sudden the Church is in apostasy, adding to sacred Scripture. Joe, Jay, and I have used numerous verses to support the dogma of perpetual virginity, but we are constantly criticized for "adding" to the Scriptures simply because these verses do not flatly declare the doctrine for which we argue. SandT argues against polygamy, also cannot find a single verse expressly denouncing it, but supports the doctrine by "interpreting" several verses, and somehow SandT is not "adding" to the Scripture.

The hypocrisy here is palpable. SandT, you can say the sky is green til the day you die, but merely saying it does not make it so. No matter how you revolt at the prospect, Scripture does not say in any place that marrying more than one person is wrong, and you have cited NOTHING to the contrary. I could write essays on the verses that you cite and what they mean. In fact, I would ultimately agree with you (as does the Church) that these verses lend support to the prohibition against polygamy. But none of that will convert these verses into something they are clearly not: a prohibition of polygamy. The writers on this blog will openly acknowledge that the dogmas of the Church continue to be defined (though never changed) throughout the centuries. Such is the case with polygamy, perpetual virginity, and even the Trinity. SandT, our honesty can be contrasted with your myopic inability to acknowledge that not all of your beliefs can be found in Scripture. Stop pretending that Scriptures say something that is clearly not there. What you are doing is self-serving and totally inappropriate.

Finally, please stop feigning fear that you will offend me. I rest in God's Truth. I stand firm on His Word, which I have read since I was a young boy. I pursue my Father. I seek to emulate my Brother, Christ. I am guided and cared for by my Mother, the Church. My lifelong pursuit from the dim foggy memories of my youth has been to know and serve the Lord. Growing up, my dad was a Protestant minister, and my younger brother has followed in his footsteps. I spent four years in heated debate with Catholics, always arguing how wrong they were (to my shame, with such zeal that I insisted they were bound for Hell). However, in this zeal I always remained honest. Wisdom was my guide. Logic and reason, language and rhetoric, always keeping me aware of my own biases and the weaknesses of my own position. If you will simply be honest, you will never offend me. In another string, I am engaged in lively conversation with an atheist. But I respect him for his honesty and concern for reason and logic. Openess and honesty will not always lead you to accept the Truth. Even when I realized the Swiss cheese status of Protestantism, I clung to it because it was all that I had known. Only through the leading and softening of the Holy Spirit was I able to accept the Church. But my point is this: I of all people would be the greatest fool to be offended by Protestant arguments because it was once I who most ardently pursued those arguments and with such zeal that I am now shamed in hindsight.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
This is what I am understanding from you.
1. God allowed polygamy
2. The RCC, and not God, forbade polygamy

If we were to believe this, then the RCC, by your deduction, is going against God. Either way both statements are false.
Dave Read Dt 17:17. It says a king is not to take many wives.
What did Solomon do? He took many wives. But more so, in his heart he was disobedient to God. As a consequence of his disobedience to God do you know what happened Dave? His wives led him astray.
As for David. David was given Saul's kingdom by God, was he not? Saul had many wives, many horses and riches. All these were given to David. So yes, God did give Him his wives. If you are a Christian Dave, why are you trying to discredit the Word of God? You are no different from Muslims and atheists who try to discredit the Bible.
Dave let me ask you this, how did God make it to be in Genesis? Was it not one man and one woman?
More importantly, did the sin of polygamy not bring David and Solomon strife? Yes it did.
Dave you are merely attempting to discredit the written word of God so that you support your argument that the RCC is authoritative. Anyone can take a sentence in the Bible and make it out to what it is not. I have taken scripture after scripture in its whole and shown you that God intended marriage to be monogamous. Yet you credit the RCC for that concept. That is just preposterous.
So according to you Jesus didn't really mean that 2 will become 1. According to you Dave, Jesus did not say that 3 cannot become 1, so therefore he did not condemn polygamy?
Dave, what did Jesus mean in Mt 19:5? How do you read that?
I read that as Jesus saying 1 man to 1 woman, 2 will become 1, not 1+1=1 then later add 3,4,5. 1 and 1 to become 1.
Did Jesus not teach 1 man to 1 woman? Yes
Is Jesus God? Yes
Can God be wrong? No
Did Jesus teach against adultery? Yes
Is having more than one wife adultery? Yes
Why do you keep saying that this is not in Scripture?
On a final note, show how scriptures show that Salome was Mary's cousin instead of sister.

God Bless

God allowed polygamy just as He allowed divorce. One who divorced in the Old Testament did not sin, because the action was expressly authorized. But Christ brought a new and higher law. With the prohibition on divorce, the higher law required a completely renewed marriage focus. Paul talked at lenghth about the true nature of marriage. But, as I have pointed out without you coming even close to refuting, neither Paul nor Christ ever spoke out against polygamy. At best, one might infer that they would be against polygamy, but according to your narrow Scriptural interpretive mode, such inferences are impermissible "additions". The Church, however, using the authority given to her by Christ, has declared the will of God with an apostolic voice that polygamy is in fact contrary to God's requirements for us in the present day. That, SandT, is what I am saying.

You admit that God gave David multiple wives--how on earth can you still claim that polygamy was wrong in the Old Testament?! You have hidden this admission in a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but please, let's flush this out! Not to discredit the Bible, but to explore it and understand it. You have locked yourself into a belief system that is contrary to Scripture and then when shown your error you respond by labeling me among Muslims or atheists. Tut tut! I know for a fact that Scripture is holy, inspired, and inerrant. But I also know that my understanding of Scripture is not. You are in the same boat, SandT. Fortunately for me, however, I have resort to the Body and Bride of Christ that is fully inhabited by the Holy Spirit, that has translated and interpreted Scripture for 2000 years, and from which I can reliably obtain correction for my errors. And I encourage my brothers and sisters to give me such correction from the heart of the Church should I fall into error!

As for your reference to Christ's admonition, Christ talked about divorce and how wrong it was because it tore a single flesh asunder. This has nothing to do with joining together more than two fleshes. In fact, Paul expressly acknowledges that even where a married man sleeps with a prostitute, he becomes one with the prostitute in the same way he is one with his wife. So clearly a man can become one flesh with more than one woman.

Let us go back to Genesis, which is where Christ is quoting. If your interpretation were correct, polygamy would have been wrong in the Old Testament. Yet this is clearly not the case. As you admit, God Hiself gave David multiple wives. Surely you are not suggesting that God has sinned?! Moreover, the very man who was writing this verse, Moses, had at least two wives. As further support, consider that the verse you cite in Deut. is a) merely an admonition rather than a requirement, b) exhorts against many, not multiple wives, which by implication means that multiple wives is permissible. Finally, the Old Testament prohibited a man from marrying two sisters or a daughter and her mother, yet said nothing about marrying two women. So again, the inference is that polygamy is actually permissible. And need I yet again refer you to the extraordinarily long list of Old Testament saints who had multiple wives?

It is amusing how your last post again violates your own principle of sola scriptura when you state, "Is having more than one wife adultery? Yes." Scripture does not say that anywhere and I would again politely request that you be honest when you claim to be using "sola scriptura". Your use of the word adultery here is particularly heinous as nowhere does it say that a man who marries more than one woman is an adulterer or anything of the sort.

I will respond to the Salome issue in another post.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
I will make this quick and short. I am saying God gave all of Saul's possessions to David. That included wives. David was now a King, and according to Dt 17:17 a king must not have many wives. You are now saying that Christ was not referring to marriage but rather he was just referring to sex. Dave, there reaches a point of absurdity and it has come to that point.
Your belief according to your posts is the following
1. God never intended for marriage to be only one man and one woman
2. God condoned polygamy
3. Christ did not refer to marriage in Mt 19:5 when he said how man is to become one with a woman.
4. That the RCC was responsible for banning polygamy

This is the point that is beyond reason. So Dave, I will say this, you believe what you choose. Either way, one day we will truly find out the truth.
God Bless

SandT,

I am disappointed, though not surprised, that you have failed to address my points. Confronted with God's granting to David the wives of Saul, you say nothing of how this does not violate the principle against polygamy. You again point to no Scripture condemning polygamy, nor do you argue that the inferences supporting polygamy are other than what they appear. In fact, your last post can be summed up as character assasination--the last resort of the hopeless. SandT, you are obviously caught in a place where your position against polygamy is not justified by Scripture. Thus, you must abandon your position on polygamy (NO!) or abandon your position on sola scriptura (YES!). I hope you understand that abandoning sola scriptura in no way denigrates your position that Scripture is holy, sacred, inspired, inerrant, and the Word of God, and in fact only enhances it by pointing to a source and authority for that position.

While I should be content, my pride prompts me to correct your misrepresentations of my positions:

1. God's concept of marriage is, always has been, and always will be only this: the marriage between Christ and the Church (and perhaps between Christ and the Father, but that is a much more cumbersome topic). All else is but a dim reflection of that reality. The marriage between one man and one woman, without fornication, adultery, masturbation, contraception, so on and so forth, most accurately reflects that reality. Thank you Mother (and Body and Bride) Church!

2. God did not always demand monogamy. In some instances, he used polygamy to bless people as in the case of David. That is not the same as condoning polygamy, but you will say what you will.

3. Christ most certainly did refer to marriage in Matt. 19:5. He referred to keeping that marriage together. He did not refer to polygamy and any third grader could tell you that.

4. God was responsible for banning polygamy and used his Church (as he has always done) to communicate and enforce this rule.

Best wishes to you SandT, and my family will keep you in our evening prayers.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
I agree with SandT, your arguments are just plain ol' silly. He pointed out Scripture which shows how God intended marriage to be, he pointed out the strife that polygamy caused Solomon and David. Yet you say that there is no scriptures that support this? If you believe that Jesus was not referring to marrigae in Mt 19:5, then there is no point in further discussing the matter with you. I know plenty of Catholics who agree that Mt 19:5 is in reference to marriage. You also fail to realized that EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAUL'S WAS GIVEN TO DAVID. Anyway I'll do a math problem with you, if there are 10 women and 10 men, and everyone is to have THEIR OWN mate, which means not sharing, guess what? That gets you one to one relationships. Paul says that every woman and every man shall have their own husband. That means no sharing. Every man shall have their own wife, that means no sharing. Yet you ignore this scripture as well. Polygamy is a man made tradition, and while God allowed, no one was ever blessed because of it.
Dave, it is not failure of character on SandT part for not wanting to argue anymore. It is just at this point, your arguments are far fetched and ridiculous that it isn't even worth it anymore. I'll advise you to read Kings and Solomon again. Then you may have a better understanding of polygamy.
God bless

Nelson,

You don't even make sense. So God gave David everything of Saul's... what on earth is your point?!!! That included wives, as God clearly stated, didn't it? So God gave David multiple wives, didn't he? This is so obvious that I have no idea what you and SandT are even talking about. As for pointing out the "strife", exactly what strife are you referring to from David's polygamy? The bottom line, however, is that at least you are open enough to admit that God permitted polygamy in the Old Testament. I'm satisfied to end the OT discussion there.

Going to the NT, I grow tired of saying in post after post that Jesus was talking about marriage, but only in the context of divorce and not in the context of polygamy. Catholics agree that Christ's words can be applied to polygamy, as do I, but we do not claim that He was actually speaking of polygamy. Nothing you or SandT have said shows anything to the contrary. Let's be clear: Jesus was responding to a question regarding the propriety of divorce. Applying His words to polygamy as a prohibition is to prohibit something that was not prohibited in Scripture (i.e. it is to establish tradition). Moreover, this fact is so patently obvious because Jesus is quoting Genesis, where God could not possibly have established a prohibition on polygamy since polygamy was permitted throughout the Old Testament. As proof positive, Jesus does use this passage to change the rules on divorce, and very explicitly and clearly states that divorce is no longer permitted. Again, absolutely nothing is said about how many women a man can be married to at once. To simplify, Jesus prohibited the breaking apart; you attempt to prohibit the joining together.

Also, the passage you quote from Paul says absolutely nothing about having only one wife. You made that up, Nelson! In fact, if you actually bothered to read the Bible, you will see that Paul is contrasting celibacy with marriage, establishing that celibacy is preferable, but saying that those who cannot remain sexually pure should marry so that they will not burn with lust. This is not a limitation on how many people you can marry. The entire chapter is a treatise on the circumstances under which a wo/man should marry or remain celibate, and the uses of sex in the marriage to prevent lustful activity outside the bounds of the marriage. In the whole chapter Paul does not once countenance marriage to more than one person. The issue never comes up, and I challenge you to show where it does! Contrast this passage in I Cor. with I Tim. 3:2, which commands that an overseer must be the "husband of but one wife." You see, when Paul wants to speak of polygamy, he certainly knows how to do so. What is fascinating about this particular passage is that Paul even feels it necessary to make this point. Throughout the chapter, he is establishing higher standards for the leaders of God's people. If polygamy was forbidden for all, why does Paul need to reference the issue in the context of bishops? And, if polygamy was common enough to require this explicit prohibition for bishops, why does Scripture never establish such a prohibition for the laity?

For all of your blustering, SandT and Nelson, you still have not presented a single passage of Scripture that prohibits polygamy or expressly limits marriage to one man and one woman. For your little equation, Nelson, a) you foolishly assume that Paul was commanding every soul in the world to have a spouse (how very Mormon of you), b) your interpretation prevents celibacy (which Paul lists as the highest calling and which he himself practices), c) you assume that the whole world will be following Paul's advice, d) you assume that there are an equal number of men and women, e) you further assume that Paul is requiring me personally to ensure that there are enough women left to supply each living man with a wife by only taking one for myself, and f) your attempt to apply a discussion on the benefits of marriage or celibacy into a prohibition of polygamy simply defies logic. Before you start tossing the term "silly" around, you better reconsider your math career.

Let me restate my position that polygamy is wrong. This position, while it can be supported with Scripture (much like Mary's perpetual virginity), in no way can be established with Scripture alone. Instead, God spoke through the Church stating that polygamy was not to be practiced. Unlike the prohibition on divorce, which was recorded in Scripture, the prohibition on polygamy was recorded only in the oral tradition of the Church. The fact that this teaching is oral and not written in no way detracts from its authoritative mandate.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
So you are saying that the Bible supports and condones polygamy?

I am saying that Scripture contains no prohibition against polygamy. That is it in a nutshell.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
How did God ORIGINALLY MAKE IT?
Mt 19:5, contrary to what you say, has Christ explaining how it was originally.
Mt19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the BEGINNING the Creator 'made them male and female', and said "For this reason a man will leve his father and mother and be united to his WIFE, and the two will become one flesh"

That is Christ talking. Notice how God made it in the beginning. One man and one woman. Not one man and 3 women, but one on one as SandT pointed out. This is how God made it. Are you denying this Dave?

No, Nelson, I am not denying that. I am denying that Christ said that, and everytime you try to put your words in His mouth, you prove my point. Christ never said "one man and one woman," YOU DID. Christ never said nor implied that a man could not subsequently be united to another wife and the two of them should also become one flesh. The fact is, and I will wear out the keys on this keyboard saying it so many times, Jesus was responding to a question about divorce and His answer is very obviously addressing that issue alone. He never said "only one wife", "but one wife" (as Paul did in I Tim.), "marry only once", "one man and one woman", "no more than one wife", "no polygamy", or any one of a thousand other methods for saying what you so fervently wish He had said. Just like Catholics, you and SandT believe a dotrine that does not appear in Scripture. But unlike Catholics, you try to hide what you are doing by calling it "interpretation".

You call your belief against polygamy whatever you want, but you cannot make Scripture say that polygamy is wrong because it doesn't say that. God said that polygamy was wrong. He said it to the Church. The prohibition was not placed in Scripture. That prohibition exists only in the oral Tradition of the Church and is still the inerrant Word of God.

Regarding whether polygamy was "wrong" from the beginning, the word "wrong" is amorphous. Did polygamy fully represent the sacrament of marriage? No. It was not even the best earthly representation. Monogamy is the best earthly representation. These same things can be said of divorce. Yet God did in fact permit both polygamy and divorce prior to Christ. Thus, neither practice was "sinful" during the Old Testament times. If God says I can do something, it is nonsensical to suggest that doing so is sin. God has now called us to a higher reality, a fuller reflection of the relationship between Father and Son, Christ and the Church. That excludes divorce (as Christ clearly prohibited in Scripture) and polygamy (a prohibition that although not appearing in Scripture was given by Christ to His Church through Her bishops).

I have tried very hard to be patient in explaining all this, but if there is still something that you do not understand, please let me know.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
You say Christ did not say one man and one woman. True, those were not his words exactly. But did he say that 2 will become 1? If you answer yes to this question, how do you get 2?
Its simple math Dave. How do you get 2?

You just said in your post that Christ never said that a man could not reunite with another. So mathematically you are saying that it is OK according to scriptures alone for this to happen.
1+1=1, then later add another 1. So instead of 2 becoming 1, you will have 2 becoming 1, then you have 3 becoming 1, then 4 becoming 1 etc.

Maybe you are into fuzzy math like George W. Bush, but in order to get 2 you need one and one. Jesus said the 2(one man and one woman) will become 1.
He did not instruct otherwise. God never instructed otherwise.
God is merciful Dave, and yes the old patriarchs did sin. But look at the house of a polygamist in the scriptures. They were troubled. Look at Jacob and his wives. Look at how Saul was led astray by his wives.
God had one plan. 2 becoming 1. God never instructed otherwise, did He?
Dave, how do you get 2 to become 1?

Nelson,

Your fuzzy math is disproved by Scripture since Paul explicitly states that a prostitute becomes one with any man that she sleeps with. Thus, she can obviously become one with more than a single man. So, if you are trying to argue that somehow mathematically the man could not become one with more than a single person, it is you who are Biblically wrong.

Second, what you are doing does not even make sense. Now you are trying to convert the statement in Genesis into a math equation. Sorry, Nelson, but the Bible just isn't a math equation. Also, 3 do not become 1. Rather, 2 become 1. Then, 2 become 1 again. And again. And in Solomon's case, 1000 times over.

Third, (having proved that it is possible to become one with more than a single woman) you have not responded to my objection that the passage neither states nor implies that a man should not marry more than one woman. In fact, the passage in Genesis is not even stating that a man should get married at all. It merely is describing the nature of the union. Which is of course why Christ reverts to that passage to show why the union should not be separated (a single whole cannot be separated without violence). The fact that the two become one says nothing to the effect that the man should not become one with more than a single woman. Think of it this way, Nelson: my blood is one with my hand. It is also one with my foot. My foot and my hand are not one with each other. The same analogy could be applied to polygamy (the man being the blood and the woman the various body parts). I'm just trying to illustrate here why your attempt to make this issue a first grade math problem doesn't hold water. The unity of man and wife is a mystery. If you really thought math worked, then the whole verse becomes problematic in the first place because 1+1 does not equal 2!

Fourth, you still have not said how David's wives caused him trouble (btw, remember that I agree polygamy is wrong and I will acknowledge that in most Scriptural examples polygamy created severe hardship.)

Finally, why oh why did you have to say that OT polygamy was sin?!!!! You admit that God permitted it. You admit that God gave David his multiple wives. Yet now you want suggest that David was sinning by accepting what God both gave him and permitted him to have?! I feel like I'm playing that "Mole Bash" game that they have in the arcade. How did this issue come back? What are you missing here? What am I missing? Help!!!

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
Take the context of what Paul said about becoming one with a prostitute.
Was he not talking about the act of sex with a prostitute being a wrong act? A simple yes or no will do for now.

Dave and Nelson
Every instance of polygamy recorded in Scripture that I can think of, details family disruption and disharmony. For instance, the intense feud in King David’s family all centered around a son’s lust for his half-sister. Had she been his full sister, such a thing would be most unlikely. We find Hannah being severely provoked by her ‘rival,’ her husband’s second wife (1 Sam 1:6-7), we find bitterness between Sarah and Hagar, and between Jacob’s wives and concubines. Scripture seems to go out of its way to paint polygamy as most unwise. Why, then, would the God of the Bible lead someone to do something that he himself has painted as unwise?

Dave,
How about this, where does it say in the Bible that we are to follow the church leaders? Is that biblical? Show me where it says that the bishops and priests are the ones we follow?

Agreed, SandT. Polygamy is and always has been unwise. Though I think your example with David stretches things significantly; she could have been his aunt or niece and it would have been equally evil. His lust was not driven by the fact that she was his half-sister. God gave David multiple wives (something you do not deny), because He knew that David would not be burdened by it. Also, consider that it served as evidence against David when he committed adultery, which was sinful. Finally, consider that David's multiple wives served as a method of punishment when God did not prevent the rebellious Absalom from taking over the kingdom and sleeping with several of the concubines. Of course now polygamy is not only unwise, it is prohibited.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
You have admitted that Scripture has shown polygamy to be unwise.
So lets observe for a minute. God at the beginning had the first marriage to be Adam and Eve. Adam did not have additional wives. Now as man fell further away from God, man starts to invent new ways, things that God never taught. Polygamy being one of them. Now if God made marriage to be one on one, and scripture shows polygamy to be unwise, why would God condone it?
He never did Dave.
God has tolerated many things done my men, and as we know men does not always do what is of God.
Yes God gave David Saul's wives. But you are getting to caught up with God giving wives to David. God gave all that had belonged to Saul. His house, his car, his horses, his clothes, his money and his wives.

Look what eventually got David in trouble. Because he was a polygamist, he still craved more women. He even killed a man so that he could steal his wife. This angered the Lord. David however did repent and God did give him mercy. God made it one way in the beginning. Jesus pointed this out in Mt 19:4-5. God made marriage one way. He did not make 2 women for Adam. He made 1 woman for Adam. Scripture shows this. I'd rather attempt to do things the way that God intended. Wouldn't you Dave? Are you saying that God did not intend for it to be this way?
Polygamy is something of man, and it is shown in scripture that it causes strife. Saul's kingdom was given to David, by God. That includes everything. Multiple wives were part of the deal. It definitely was not a blessing, how could it be? We see the strife that polygamy causes in scriptures. You concentrate too much on wives. I believe, this is just my belief, that the important lesson in 2 Samuel is that David was given unto him the possesion of his oppressor. God originally made marriage with just one man and one woman. Scripture shows that polygamy has its downfall. Even Roman Catholic Catechisms shows that based on Scripture, polygamy is wrong. You can check for yourself, Article 6 (2331). So how you can say that polygamy is not condemned by God is hard to grasp. God wrote the Bible, and the Bible shows us that polygamy causes problems.
If God allowed polygamy, then what is adultery Dave?

Jeff,
The Bible is pretty clear that Jesus founded a Church in Matthew 16:18. If you then read Matthew Matthew 18:15-20, you can see that Jesus intends for us to follow the Church. These verses imply that the Church is the highest form of earthly authority - if your brother doesn't follow what the Church says, you should basically terminate your relationship to him.

It's also important to note the end of this passage. Jesus is only speaking to the Apostles when he gives them the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. In addition, Jesus tells them that whenever two of them agree on something, it will be done. That's pretty powerful.

In addition, in the Bible there is a clear Church hierarchy. Read this article clearly showing that the Bible teaches that Peter was the first Pope. We have bishops or episkopos (Acts 1:20, Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25), elders or presbyteros (Acts 15:2-6; Acts 21:18; Hebrews 11:2; 1 Peter 5:1; 1 Timothy 5:17), and deacons or diakonos (1 Corinthians 3:5; Philippians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8-13).

Finally, to understand why we should follow the Church, read 1 Tim 3:15 and Ephesians 3:8-10. In 1 Timothy we are told that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Protestants typically put the Bible in this position, but clearly the Bible disagrees. In Ephesians we learn that "through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known." So God's wisdom comes through the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

We don't follow a single, fallible human. We follow the Church of God and we know that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18).

And for one, clear verse:

Hebrews 13:7. Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
So basically you are saying that bishops,deacons and elders are our example? Hebrews 13:7 says

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Does that say that church leaders are the ones we should imitate Jay?

I'm going to very quickly wrap up the polygamy topic by saying that polygamy is wrong and the Scriptures support this conclusion by way of the words of Genesis, Christ, Paul, Revelation, and others that demonstrate the true character of marriage. Support is further drawn from the almost universal strife that polygamy has created in Scripture. However, Scripture alone (sola scriptura) does not conclusively establish any prohibition on polygamy, and, unlike issues such as divorce or homosexuality, Scripture never even addresses the actual subject of polygamy in a prohibitory fashion (other than for bishops, priests, and deacons).

This analysis can be applied to many Catholic and Protestant doctrines, a great number of which have support that can be drawn from Scripture, but on which doctrines Scripture is by no means clear. This is the case with the debate on Mary's perpetual virginity. Clearly the word "adelphos" is used at certain points, and in some cases it is used to distinguish certain individuals from believers. Additionally, the words "anepsios" and "suggenes" are also used, so the writers of the New Testament knew how to use them when they wanted to.

On the other hand, "adelphos" is used in a variety of non-familial circumstances. Jesus entrusted his mother to John rather than his believing "adelphos" James. Jesus being rebuked by His "adelphos" as being drunk or mad, as well as being mocked by the unbelieving "adelphos", would be an outrageous anomaly in Jewish culture if they were younger than He. According to Jewish culture, it would hardly have been inappropriate for Joseph to have a) been married with children before he took Mary as his wife, or b) taken another wife after Mary. Thus, it is entirely possible that Joseph had children either before or after Jesus, but by another wife. Scripture is totally silent on the issue, and thus cannot support or oppose this possibility. (And remember SandT, if silence is evidence, then you have a world of problems outside of the perpetual virginity issue.) Finally, there is the issue of the propriety of Joseph have sexual relations with the woman who has been referred to throughout the history of the Church as "the spouse of the Holy Spirit."

With these conflicting Scriptural evidences, one can excuse either Protestants or Catholics for believing as they do. And in part, what we are trying to show is that Catholic doctrine on this and all other issues is actually supported by Scripture, even though we can acknowledge that there is other evidence that might appear to support Protestant doctrine on the issue. The charge that Catholics ignore Scripture and simply make up their own beliefs is a fallacy. My hope is that the participants in this discussion will at least realize that the Church is not opposing Scripture, but rather construing Scripture in a manner that is at a minimum a no less valid (note that valid does not mean correct) manner than the way in which Protestants construe the Scripture. Just as with so many issues, there is more than one way of looking at things (i.e