Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
That's correct, but you are defending a doctrine that is predicated upon that very idea being true.

Are you not saying here that to be a virgin IS to be consecrated to God and "pure?" If so, you are now affirming that which you refused to affirm just prior to this comment!
The Bible never says anyone is a biological child of Mary accept for Jesus Christ!

And the Bible says Her child is holy! And Her child is God!

And the Bible says Lk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.


A good tree!

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

The fruit of the tree of Mary is our salvation! Matt 1:21 Lk 2:30 Jesus is our salvation! This reflects the immaculate conception of Mary and the miraculous conception of Jesus!
Lk 1:30 Mary found our salvation!
Lk 1:38 consented to our salvation!

A good tree (immaculate conception) Lk 1:49 God has done this and it is marvelous in our eyes!
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Mother of God Lk 1:43

Immaculate conception (sinless) gen 3:15
Lk 1:28 lk 1:49 Rev12:1

mother of our salvation Lk 2:30

Perpetual Virgin Isa 7:14 matt 1:21
Lk 1:31-34

Spiritual Mother Jn 19:26-27 rev 12:17
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Mark -





Okay,,,, now how does that prove that Mary and Joseph never once shared marital intimacies? The only way (logically) to make your argument (since obviously you have nothing in Scripture) is to say that such a sharing would desecrate the wife.... the sharing ITSELF would, by the very action of it, violate the consecration, indeed desecrate it. The way you are spinning this ENTIRELY depends on this view of the loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies desecrates of the wife (a position you CLAIM you don't hold). If it does not descrate the wife, then your whole apologetic is worthless.






Where does Scripture or logic state that? Jesus dwelt in the world -fully and completely - not for 9 months but for 30 plus YEARS. Can the world thus longer have ordinary purposes? Do crops no longer grow? The sun no longer shine?





You CLAIM that the marital sharing of intimacies is not wrong or bad and that it desecrates nothing... so your argument here is contradictory of your own view.






The Holy Spirit enters all at Baptism.

God Himself entered the world at the Incarnation.

Again, you are contradicting your own stance: You claim that a married couple lovingly sharing marital intimacies is NOT evil or wrong or bad... that it does NOT desecrate the wife.... but your entire apologetic (long ago abandoned by Catholic apologetics) wholly rests on that very thing, that marital sex is evil and desecrates the wife (but not husband).






..... and the loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies DESECRATES the wife? See, you can't make this (abandoned) apologetic without turning marital sex into something horrible and evil and bad, something that specifically DESECRATES the wife (but not husband). You want it both ways, but that's impossible. Either this whole drummed up apologetic (first proposed by Catholics around 1800 in a time when this view of sex was coming into vogue) is true OR it's false. And why just Mary's womb? Was Jesus ONLY there? Did She not give birth to Him? Was He not in the world, only in HER?






This too is drummed up.... based on an interpretation of a writing the Catholic Church REJECTED as inspired and canonical Scripture, a writing the Catholic Church declared CANNOT be used as normative for doctrine. The Bible that your church says IS to be used normatively says NOTHING of any such vow. IF the Catholic Church could show She made such a vow, that would be a slam dunk but it can't and we all know that.



Blessings!


Josiah




.
The Holy Spirit? Yes that’s why you’re body is the “temple” of the Holy Spirit and you are not to yield you’re members to unrighteousness!!!
You’re consecrated to God and His service bought with the precious blood of Christ!
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
That fact was part of my message to you. No Roman Catholic Church and no other denominations.


Yes, AND you also said that she was "pure." That is what a "Perpetual Virginity" is supposed to create.
One true church yes! denominations or sects having no authority from Christ no! The tradition of men started these sects not God
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Bible never says anyone is a biological child of Mary accept for Jesus Christ!

That's not the issue with the theory of her "Perpetual Virginity." Obviously, it would be natural and normal for her to have had sexual relations but not produce other children.


Lk 2:30 Jesus is our salvation! This reflects the immaculate conception of Mary and the miraculous conception of Jesus!

The topic is the supposed "Perpetual Virginity" of Mary, not her Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth.
 

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
733
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Bible never says anyone is a biological child of Mary accept for Jesus Christ!
And it never says that she didn't have biological children. It does, however, say that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that these brothers and sisters accompanied Mary on various occasions which indicates they are closer than "cousins" or kinfolk. The natural reading of the text is that they are Mary's children and Jesus's half siblings. Granted, they could be step siblings but the Bible doesn't say that James had children from a previous marriage. To say that is absolute truth is pure speculation.

I personally believe that most of the Mariology that isn't written in the Gospels (Immaculate conception, perpetual virgin, Assumption) developed in the decades after the resurrection in the form of what we would today call "urban legends". Sometime around the end of the 2nd Century someone wrote down these legends in the form of the Protoevangelium of James. It is important to note that the Proroevangelium of James was not written by James, is not scripture, was condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and the Gelasian Decree in 500.

There are also historical issues with the Protoevangelium of James. The biggest being the claim that Mary was a Temple virgin. There is no evidence that Temple Virgins ever existed. And if you ask a Rabbi they will tell you that Temple virgins are incompatible with Orthodox Judaism because in Judasim marriage is considered the most Holy State and having Children and a sign of blessings from God.

There was a non-orthodox Jewish Cult in the first century that had a dim view of marriage, the Essenes (where most of the dead sea scrolls come from), but to claim Mary was an Essene is to say she wasn't orthodox.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Holy Spirit? Yes that’s why you’re body is the “temple” of the Holy Spirit and you are not to yield you’re members to unrighteousness!!!
You’re consecrated to God and His service bought with the precious blood of Christ!


So.... since we too are temples of the Holy Spirit (as you now insist) does the willing, loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies DESECRATE the wife? If not, then why would it desecrate the wife of Joseph?



Perpetual Virgin Isa 7:14 matt 1:21
Lk 1:31-34


... and as you yourself have proven, none of these state that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. YOU say that.... your church says that.... but has you have gone to considerable lengths to prove, Scripture does not.



I’m saying Mary is consecrated to God


AGAIN. no one here debates that. Nor is that the topic here. Your argument is that the loving, willing, mutual sharing of marital intimates is NOT bad or evil or wrong and does NOT desecrate the wife BUT if Mary and Joseph had lovingly, willingly, mutually shared marital intimaces, that would have desecrated Mary, the wife.

See post 58




.




.
 
Last edited:

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
That's not the issue with the theory of her "Perpetual Virginity." Obviously, it would be natural and normal for her to have had sexual relations but not produce other children.




The topic is the supposed "Perpetual Virginity" of Mary, not her Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth.
Mary is not normal, she is the mother of God
Consecrated to God
God’s temple
Ordinary dont apply

Biblical principle:
Anything Consecrated to God must be pure and used only for the purpose of serving God!

Can a man use the ark of the covenant for a common dinner table? Or the temple of God and the holy of Holies for a rock & roll dance?
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
And it never says that she didn't have biological children. It does, however, say that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that these brothers and sisters accompanied Mary on various occasions which indicates they are closer than "cousins" or kinfolk. The natural reading of the text is that they are Mary's children and Jesus's half siblings. Granted, they could be step siblings but the Bible doesn't say that James had children from a previous marriage. To say that is absolute truth is pure speculation.

I personally believe that most of the Mariology that isn't written in the Gospels (Immaculate conception, perpetual virgin, Assumption) developed in the decades after the resurrection in the form of what we would today call "urban legends". Sometime around the end of the 2nd Century someone wrote down these legends in the form of the Protoevangelium of James. It is important to note that the Proroevangelium of James was not written by James, is not scripture, was condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and the Gelasian Decree in 500.

There are also historical issues with the Protoevangelium of James. The biggest being the claim that Mary was a Temple virgin. There is no evidence that Temple Virgins ever existed. And if you ask a Rabbi they will tell you that Temple virgins are incompatible with Orthodox Judaism because in Judasim marriage is considered the most Holy State and having Children and a sign of blessings from God.

There was a non-orthodox Jewish Cult in the first century that had a dim view of marriage, the Essenes (where most of the dead sea scrolls come from), but to claim Mary was an Essene is to say she wasn't orthodox.
I stick with the bible
No sex before during after Lk 1:34
Brothers and sisters of Jesus?

They are not the children of Mary!

Is 7:14 a virgin shall conceive and bear a son!
(One son, singular)

James is the son of zebedee, and the other James is the son of Alpheus not Joseph!
Matt 10:2-3

In Hebrew culture any close relative can be called brother or sister, lot was called Abraham’s brother but was his nephew.

Gen 12:5 and Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son..

Gen 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we are Brothers.

The 12 sons of Jacob are brothers but all are not the children of Leah and all are not the children of Rachel! They had 4 mother’s, These may be brothers but they are simply not the children of One mother and the brothers of Jesus are not the children of Mary!

Jose’s, Simon Salome are children of another Mary!

Mk 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Is Mary the mother of James?
If you mean the Blessed Virgin Mary then no. Her sister-in-law, Mary of Clopas, was the wife of Alphaeus (St. Joseph's brother), and mother of Simon, Joseph, and the apostles Judas Thaddeus, and James (the Less, brother of the Lord): Jesus' cousins.

The "sisters" of Jesus refer to women disciples

Salome, or Mary Salome, was the wife of Zebedee, and mother of apostles John (the beloved), and James (the greater).


Regarding Mat. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3, two of the four "brethren" are James and Judas of Alphaeus (cf. Mat. 10:2-3, Lk. 6:15-16, Act. 1:13). The third, Joseph, is identified in Mk. 15:40 as the brother of James of Alphaeus. The fourth, Simon, is identified in Mat. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3 as the brother of Joseph, James, and Judas of Alphaeus. Therefore, all four are were the sons of Alphaeus, not St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

When Jesus was twelve they went up to Jerusalem, the holy family, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Where are the brothers and sisters?

Jesus on the cross gives His mother to John, why? Why not James or a brother? Perhaps the law of Moses requires a mother to be given to the next oldest son? Because he was an only Son!
Only begotten of the Father, only begotten of the Mother.

Only God can be born of a Virgin-mother!


First born does not imply a second born. An only child is still first born!
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
More info
Martin Luther

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin

(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

John Wesley

‘I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin’ (‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, The Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol 10, p. 81).


St Augustine, Sermons 186.1 (early 5th century):

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.28.3 (13th century):

"Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.

For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

“Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

“Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

“Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."

The blessed Mary mother of God, is a perpetual virgin to the glory of God!
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So.... since we too are temples of the Holy Spirit (as you now insist) does the willing, loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies DESECRATE the wife? If not, then why would it desecrate the wife of Joseph?


You came up with desecrate the wife not me

... and as you yourself have proven, none of these state that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. YOU say that.... your church says that.... but has you have gone to considerable lengths to prove, Scripture does not.

I dont have a church, no one has a church accept Jesus Christ matt 16:18

AGAIN. no one here debates that. Nor is that the topic here. Your argument is that the loving, willing, mutual sharing of marital intimates is NOT bad or evil or wrong and does NOT desecrate the wife BUT if Mary and Joseph had lovingly, willingly, mutually shared marital intimaces, that would have desecrated Mary, the wife.
no she would not be a perpetual virgin

See post 58




.




.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Both Matthew and Luke leave no room for doubt. (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:34–35, 3:23). That virginal motherhood is the guarantor of both Jesus’ divinity and Jesus’ humanity. It safeguards the truth that he was both fully God and fully man
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

Faith

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,140
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I stick with the bible
No sex before during after Lk 1:34
Brothers and sisters of Jesus?

They are not the children of Mary!

Is 7:14 a virgin shall conceive and bear a son!
(One son, singular)

James is the son of zebedee, and the other James is the son of Alpheus not Joseph!
Matt 10:2-3

In Hebrew culture any close relative can be called brother or sister, lot was called Abraham’s brother but was his nephew.

Gen 12:5 and Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son..

Gen 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we are Brothers.

The 12 sons of Jacob are brothers but all are not the children of Leah and all are not the children of Rachel! They had 4 mother’s, These may be brothers but they are simply not the children of One mother and the brothers of Jesus are not the children of Mary!

Jose’s, Simon Salome are children of another Mary!

Mk 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Is Mary the mother of James?
If you mean the Blessed Virgin Mary then no. Her sister-in-law, Mary of Clopas, was the wife of Alphaeus (St. Joseph's brother), and mother of Simon, Joseph, and the apostles Judas Thaddeus, and James (the Less, brother of the Lord): Jesus' cousins.

The "sisters" of Jesus refer to women disciples

Salome, or Mary Salome, was the wife of Zebedee, and mother of apostles John (the beloved), and James (the greater).


Regarding Mat. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3, two of the four "brethren" are James and Judas of Alphaeus (cf. Mat. 10:2-3, Lk. 6:15-16, Act. 1:13). The third, Joseph, is identified in Mk. 15:40 as the brother of James of Alphaeus. The fourth, Simon, is identified in Mat. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3 as the brother of Joseph, James, and Judas of Alphaeus. Therefore, all four are were the sons of Alphaeus, not St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

When Jesus was twelve they went up to Jerusalem, the holy family, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Where are the brothers and sisters?

Jesus on the cross gives His mother to John, why? Why not James or a brother? Perhaps the law of Moses requires a mother to be given to the next oldest son? Because he was an only Son!
Only begotten of the Father, only begotten of the Mother.

Only God can be born of a Virgin-mother!


First born does not imply a second born. An only child is still first born!
I’m an only child. I’m not my parents “first born”. I’m their only born.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I’m an only child. I’m not my parents “first born”. I’m their only born.

Well truth be told, you're also their first. The term first born has a really big biblical meaning and not just an order of children being born.
 

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
733
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Both Matthew and Luke leave no room for doubt. (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:34–35, 3:23). That virginal motherhood is the guarantor of both Jesus’ divinity and Jesus’ humanity. It safeguards the truth that he was both fully God and fully man
Nobody questions that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.
 

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
733
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No sex before during after Lk 1:34
34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” ESV

This has nothing to do with the future. Mary was giving her current state. A paraphrase in modern english would be "How can I get pregnant, I not having sex with anyone". It is about what her life was like at that moment, not years later, when she was fully married. To say that she didn't have sex after the birth of Christ is to read something into the text that just isn't there.

The problem with your long discourse about how the "brothers" were some of the apostles is that scripture differentiates between the apostles and followers of Christ (like the two James who were disciples) and the "brothers" of Christ.

Acts 1:13-14

13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

John 2:12

2 After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days.

John 7:3

So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing.

And they weren't believers

John 7:5

5 For not even his brothers believed in him.
When Jesus was twelve they went up to Jerusalem, the holy family, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Where are the brothers and sisters?
I'm assuming they were being kept by relatives and friends while Mary and Joseph returned home. But the Bible does not say so I can only speculate. However, having a brood of children does explain why they could leave Jesus behind. I am the youngest of 5 kids and my parents left me at church a few times when I wandered off to play with friends when church was over. With that many kids it is just hard to keep up with everyone.

In Hebrew culture any close relative can be called brother or sister, lot was called Abraham’s brother but was his nephew
That is true. Brothers can also be used in a spiritual sense as fellow followers of Christ. But actual brothers and sisters are also, and more often called brothers and sisters. To understand which usage is being used you have to look at the context. Matthew 13:55-56 and Matthew 12:46 in particular shows a family unit of a Mother and her children. The fact that they are following Mary around as a child follows their mother indicates that they are more than a close relative. The fact that they are "with Mary" shows they are her children or at least her step children. It shows that Mary had some sort of authority over them, which she would not have had if they were "close relatives".

It has always amazed me that the main argument is that brothers and sisters doesn't really mean brothers and sisters. It is like saying the Lord screwed up and used the wrong words in the Bible so that if you read it you get the wrong message. There is a reason that no Bible translates brothers and sisters as "close relatives". It is because the best usage is "Brothers and Sisters". And if you read Brothers and Sisters the natural thought is Mary's other children and Christ half siblings.
Jesus on the cross gives His mother to John, why? Why not James or a brother?
Two possible reasons:

Because James and Jude and the other brothers were not yet believers and having His mother taken care of by a believer was more important that having her taken care of by a blood relative. Jesus had a special relationship with John and understood that John, as a believer and close friend, would take better care of Mary that His brothers.

Because John was there and James and the other brothers weren't.
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
FAQ: From whence did baby Jesus obtain a Y chromosome for his male gender?

A: In the beginning, Eve's entire body was constructed with material taken from
Adam's body.

Seeing as how Eve is the mother of all women, then any material taken from Mary's
body to construct a Y chromosome for baby Jesus would be owed to Eve's body.

The beauty of it is that a Y chromosome constructed with material taken from
Mary's body would not be an alien substance created ex nihilo; but would be 100%
natural, and easily traceable all the way back to Eve, and from thence to the very
dust that was used to construct Adam's body.

I can't prove any of this of course, but nevertheless I sincerely believe that what I
suggest herein actually took place when the power of the Most High overshadowed
Jesus' mom per Luke 1:35; and if my suggestion is true, then little Jesus was
thoroughly my fellow top to bottom-- biologically descended, as I, from the Man
that God created in the book of Genesis.


Heb 2:17 . . He had to be made like his brethren in every way
_
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
  1. Mark 8:35
    For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

  2. Mark 10:29
    And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,

    you also are created by God but

    what good is scripture if you don’t believe?

    Faith ascents & never protests or rebels!
    Spiritual Pride protests & is always in rebellion

    Nature of doctrine:

    Truth or doctrine MUST be Revealed by God And Proposed by the church for belief, not spiritual pride and self-righteous private judgement!
    Claim: “scripture alone”
    It’s really just the ugly repugnant pride!
    It’s no faith at all only spiritual pride and self-righteous private judgement!
    They Hope in creatures not in God!

    It is unlawful to refuse to accept a truth revealed by God!

    Matt 28:19 eph 4:5 Jude 1:3






You do know that endlessly quoting Scripture that isn't relevant to a point doesn't make the point, right?

Your argument appears to be little more than "Assume this is true, quote loads of unrelated Scripture, therefore this is true". If the points you are trying to use to support your argument would provide just as much support to the exact opposite argument it's pretty clear you don't have a valid point.
 
Top Bottom