JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[Josiah]

Likewise there is no mention of their(yosef/miriam)celibacy after Yeshua was born.

So, you finally agree with me. How long did that take, LOL


The Bible is SILENT as to the question of whether (after Jesus was born) Mary had sex or additional children. Which is likely why in 17 PAGES of this thread, over 320 posts, you (and others) had to evade my request for the verses that state, "Mary had sex" and "Mary had other kids." Why were you mandated to evade this request, to persistently ignore it? Because the Bible nowhere states that. This has been my consistent claim for 17 pages of post;.... but you and others argued otherwise.


The Bible is SILENT. It nowhere states, "Mary had sex after Jesus was born" and equally, it nowhere states "Mary did not have sex after Jesus was born." It nowhere states, "Mary had other kids" and it nowhere states, "Mary did not have other kids." This has been my consistent claim for 17 pages of posts.... but you and others have argued otherwise.



Now, while the Bible is SILENT, Tradition is NOT. Tradition - the ancient, universal faith of the church, of the whole family of Christians. The Tradition that gave us the Bible (because God never sent out a memo to every Christian as to the Table of Contents of the Bible), the issue of which books make up the corpus of Scriptures comes from TRADITION, not some memo from God we got in the mail... The reality is no book in the Bible tells us what books should be in the Bible, the very books you point to in order to see if Mary had sex are a product of Tradition. Now, since at least the year 110 AD, we find the firm and universal faith that Mary never had sex.... and Mary never had other kids. Ancient, universal faith. True, the Bible doesn't say that, but nor does the Bible contradict that. And in the original, there was NOTHING that remotely suggested or implied otherwise (although I agree in 21st Century ENGLISH, some words may IMPLY otherwise - but in the First Century, no one knew English). The firm conviction of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, what books are Scripture .... that Tradition included that Mary remained a virgin and had no other kids. It's a matter of Tradition (just like what Books are Scripture). Luther accepted this Tradition. Calvin accepted this Tradition. John Wesley accepted this Tradition. Indeed, no one believed otherwise. There were some who questioned the Tradition of the Trinity, of the Divinity of Jesus, of the content of Scripture (all weaker Traditions) but no one questioned that Mary remained a virgin.

Now, about 200 years ago, there were a tiny number of radical, super-liberal Protestants who denied the authority and accuracy of Scripture, who denied the Virgin Birth who denied the divinity of Jesus, and who argued that of course Mary had sex - all women do. Now, they never remotely claimed that this new position was taught (or even remotely suggested in the Greek Bible), they simply felt that this (like the divinity of Jesus) was a myth - and they were mythbusters. Ironically.... some modern American "Evangelicals" now echo their new invention, this idea that Mary had lotsa sex and lotsa kids.



A blessed Easter season to you and yours.


- Josiah




.

 

[RichWh1]

The Bible doesn’t have to say verbatim that “Mary had sex with Joseph “ for it to be so!!
The fact that Joseph took Mary to be his wife indicates that they consummated that union as dictated by Torah.

Scripture says that “Joseph did not have relations with Mary until she gave birth to her firstborn, indicating that they did have relations after she gave birth.

That is not inconsistent with the Scripture and makes sense that a man and woman in Hebrew tradition did consummate their union, meaning they had sex!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

The fact that Joseph took Mary to be his wife indicates that they consummated that union

That's not a fact. The Bible never says that Joseph took Mary to be his wife.... The angel gave permission, the angel did not report an action taken.


Only twice in the Bible are the words "husband" and "wife" applied to Mary and Joseph, and both times are in Matthew chapter one BEFORE Jesus was born (and perhaps before Jesus was incarnate)... so if these terms MUST mean "are having sex" then the Virgin Birth of our Lord is a lie. Indeed, the terms do NOT (and did not) mean "ergo having sex."

Scripture says that “Joseph did not have relations with Mary until she gave birth to her firstborn, indicating that they did have relations after she gave birth.

The Bible never uses the word "until." The word the Holy Spirit inscripturated in Matthew 1:25 is "heos". Now, I agree, in Twenty-First American English, the word "until" MAY - PERHAPS - POSSIBLY - AT TIMES imply a changed situation (although not state it, and not necessarily even imply that) that's simply not true of the word "heos", the word found in Matthew 1:25. That word ONLY looks backward or to the present, it states and implies nothing of a change situation, nothing about the future.. Sorry.... what one may personally feel is IMPLIED by a modern English or Japanese or Hindi word they find in a modern translation is... well.... irrelevant. The New Testament was inspired in koine Greek, not modern Twenty-First Century English.... which is why for many centuries, all pastors around the world have been required to learn koine Greek (or they cannot be ordained) whereas for centuries all pastors around the world have not been required to learn 21st Century American English. The New Testament was not written in 21st Century English (or Japanese or Hindi).... but in koine Greek. To an American reader in 21st Century Florida... reading the modern English word "until" MAY perhaps personally feel that English word just might IMPLY something.... but... brother.... "until" doesn't appear in the Bible, just in your English translation.



Blessings on your Easter season...


- Josiah

 

[Faith]

Good. That's critical to realize.

Positions about the Bible are to be based on the ORIGINAL WORDS, not something one feels is implied by some modern English word in some English translation. This is why your pastor doesn't use any translation... this is why he took years of koine Greek and biblical Hebrew in school, why such is required for ordination in most denominations. If it is the modern English that is normative, then all pastors for 2000 years around the world would learn English for Bible study, wouldn't they?


"MARRIED." A c;laim was made that this English word mandates that the relationship has been consummated and there have been born to such children. This isn't even true in English! But I showed that the Bible TWICE (and only twice) calls Mary and Joseph "wife/husband" and in both cases, it's BEFORE Jesus was born. So, if it's true the word "wife" MUST mean "consummated" then Mary not a virgin when Jesus was born. Not only is the claim baseless (even in English) but the claim then denies the Virgin Birth of our Lord.


"UNTIL.'' In 21st Century English, the word USUALLY (but not always) implies that the situation changed. But the verse in the Bible wasn't written in English or in the 21st Century. The koine Greek word does NOT - at all - imply a changed situation.


"BROTHER" Right. In koine Greek, the word RARELY means "have the same parents." I gave biblical examples where it obviously does NOT mean share the same parents. Friend, you and I are brothers. And of course, there was no word for "step-brother" in koine Greek (such was just called "brother") so if these were children of Joseph but not Mary, there would be no other word available in all the Greek language to speak of them. And while there was a word for "cousin" (found also in the Bible) such were usually called "brother." Brother is simply a far broader word in koine Greek than in 21st Century American English, my brother.



Brother... consider.... in the Greek Orthodox Church, they know Greek. They read Greek. They speak Greek. And NEVER in all its history has even one person in the Greek Orthodox Church ever thought that Mary ceased being a virgin or she ever had other children. Is this because Greek speaking people don't know Greek? If the Greek word translated "wife" means "has sex and children" why does not one Greek speaking Greek Orthodox Christian know that? Why don't they all hold that Mary had sex and other children (and thus deny the Virgin Birth) since the word "wife" means "consummated woman with kids"? Don't they know the meaning of this Greek word? Or it doesn't matter because you feel something else is IMPLIED by an ENGLISH word? And if the Greek word for "until" MUST mean "but a 180 happened after that" why don't Greek speaking people know that? Then why for 2000 years has not one Greek speaking person believed the situation changed? Do Greek speaking people not know Greek? Or is all that matters is what you feel is implied by some English word in some English translation?



I'll ask again...

Where is the verse that states, "Mary and Joseph consummated their relationship"?
Where is the verse that states, "Mary had other children"?

You claim the Bible says so.... but you won't say where. Why?

All you can do is delete the Greek.... substitute some modern English word... appoint yourself to declare that you

- Josiah




.

 

[Faith]

Did his pastor take Greek and Hebrew in school?

 

[RichWh1]

That's not a fact. The Bible never says that Joseph took Mary to be his wife.... The angel gave permission, the angel did not report an action taken.


Only twice in the Bible are the words "husband" and "wife" applied to Mary and Joseph, and both times are in Matthew chapter one BEFORE Jesus was born (and perhaps before Jesus was incarnate)... so if these terms MUST mean "are having sex" then the Virgin Birth of our Lord is a lie. Indeed, the terms do NOT (and did not) mean "ergo having sex."






The Bible never uses the word "until." The word the Holy Spirit inscripturated in Matthew 1:25 is "heos". Now, I agree, in Twenty-First American English, the word "until" MAY - PERHAPS - POSSIBLY - AT TIMES imply a changed situation (although not state it, and not necessarily even imply that) that's simply not true of the word "heos", the word found in Matthew 1:25. That word ONLY looks backward or to the present, it states and implies nothing of a change situation, nothing about the future.. Sorry.... what one may personally feel is IMPLIED by a modern English or Japanese or Hindi word they find in a modern translation is... well.... irrelevant. The New Testament was inspired in koine Greek, not modern Twenty-First Century English.... which is why for many centuries, all pastors around the world have been required to learn koine Greek (or they cannot be ordained) whereas for centuries all pastors around the world have not been required to learn 21st Century American English. The New Testament was not written in 21st Century English (or Japanese or Hindi).... but in koine Greek. To an American reader in 21st Century Florida... reading the modern English word "until" MAY perhaps personally feel that English word just might IMPLY something.... but... brother.... "until" doesn't appear in the Bible, just in your English translation.



Blessings on your Easter season...


- Josiah

The word ‘eos’ (until) is used 546 times in the Scriptures! Almost 100 times in the New Testament alone and all have the same meaning!
Matthew 5:26 is just one example
26 Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last quadrans.
Matthew 5:26 - Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 5:26 - New American Standard Bible
Mark 6:10 another And He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave town.
Mark 6:10 - Bible Gateway passage: Mark 6:10 - New American Standard Bible

All mean Until!!

As far as Mary and Joseph being married the Bible is replete with verses that mention the fact!

Besides why is it so important that Mary be perpetual Virgin? Because Rome said so, or because Scripture says so??

I think I know the answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

The word ‘eos’ (until) is used 546 times in the Scriptures! Almost 100 times in the New Testament alone and all have the same meaning!

And they don't mean "after that, the situation reversed."

As far as Mary and Joseph being married the Bible is replete with verses that mention the fact!

Never once does it say Mary had sex.

Only TWICE does it use the words "wife" and "husband" to describe Mary and Joseph, and they are both BEFORE the birth of Jesus. So if the word must mean "having sex and kids" then the Virgin Birth of Our Lord is a lie.

why is it so important that Mary be perpetual Virgin?

Of course, as everyone knows, I never ONCE remotely said so. YOU have said she was not so. Why is that SO very important to you?




,

 

[RichWh1]

And they don't mean "after that, the situation reversed."




Never once does it say Mary had sex.

Only TWICE does it use the words "wife" and "husband" to describe Mary and Joseph, and they are both BEFORE the birth of Jesus. So if the word must mean "having sex and kids" then the Virgin Birth of Our Lord is a lie.




Of course, as everyone knows, I never ONCE remotely said so. YOU have said she was not so. Why is that SO very important to you?




,

Fact facts! If Mary didn’t have sexual relations she remained a virgin!! Inferring perpetual virginity!

No one is saying that the situation reversed!! Until means that at some point there were sexual relations between the two; right?

Married couples have sex as God planned it and Joseph took Mary to be his wife! Scripture doesn’t have to say that Mary had sex!! We know married people do.

Scripture also says that Jesus had other siblings, James and Jude being two of whom we know.

Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is His mother not called Mary, and His brothers, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man acquire all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56 - Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 13:55-56 - New American Standard Bible

These were neighbors who referred to them as family!

After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days.
John 2:12 - Bible Gateway passage: John 2:12 - New American Standard Bible

This is the word of God!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

No one is saying that the situation reversed!!

So... your position is her being a virgin did not change?

Until means that at some point there were sexual relations between the two; right?

Wrong.


The ENGLISH word "until" may, perhaps, possibly, sometimes, IMPLY a changed situation. The ENGLISH word can, at time, IMPLY that (but not necessarily mean that).

But brother, that ENGLISH word doesn't appear in the Bible, only in some ENGLISH translations of the Bible. The word in the original does NOT imply a changed situation. It ONLY refers to the past and present, not the future. The word does NOT mean "but after this period of time. that ceased to be and the opposite happened." That's not the meaning of the Greek word here. NOR does it imply that. It ONLY means "in this time...."

Brother, the Bible was not written in ENGLISH (or Japanese or Polish). So what MIGHT POSSIBLY be IMPLIED by some English or Japanese or Polish word in some translation is... well.... irrelevant. Pastors around the word learn biblical Hebrew and koine Greek because the Bible was written in those languages, not English or Japanese or Polish or Hindi. Japanese pastors don't learn English to study the Bible, they learn biblical Hebrew and koine Greek because what might be meant by some Japanese word in some Japanese translation is, well, irrelevant.

Married couples have sex

Nowhere does the Bible say they married. You are assuming that. That IS a common view in the West BUT that it was not a consummated relationship, so not married in THAT sense. By the way, while rare, even today, even in the USA, there are marriages where sex doesn't happen, by MUTUAL consent. You are not only assuming they married (in spite of the Bible never saying so) but also assuming they both wanted sex (in spite of the Bible never saying a word about what these two mutually decided or desired). You know what they say about "assume" (LOL)

Scripture also says that Jesus had other siblings, James and Jude being two of whom we know.

But it does NOT say these are children of Mary. Brother, the text you are referring to is very specific, it says Mary was the mother of JESUS (it mentions no other!!!!!) then goes on to say Jesus had brothers. But brother, in koine Greek, this is a VERY broad term (as we can see in the Bible itself), the word does NOT mean "shares the same mother." Indeed, USUALLY, MOST OF THE TIME, it didn't refer to blood relatives AT ALL (you and I are brothers). And, the common belief since at least 110 AD is that these were children of Joseph... if that's true, then there was no other word to use for them since there was no word in koine Greek for "step-brother" or "half brother" such were simply called "brother" (only word available). There's also a belief these were cousins. And while there is a word for "cousin" in koine Greek, it was rarely used, such were just called "brother." You are wrong to assume the Greek word means (and can only mean) "came from the same womb." No, brother.


Brother, look up the following:

1 Corinthians 5:4
Matthew 25:40
Mark 3:3-5
Ephesians 6:23
Hebrews 2:11
Acts 11:29
Matthew 5:23
Galatians 1:19
And many, many more. In all the above, is the meaning obviously, "share the same biological mother?" Indeed, this word is very common in the NT and very, very rarely does it apply to people who share ANY biological parent. In secular Greek. soldiers called each other "brother."




Brother, you indicate what matters is what the Bible states. Okay. Then it's easy.... just quote these two verses:

"Mary had sex"
"Mary had other kids."

Frankly, it doesn't matter much what you feel is IMPLIED by some word not in the Bible. Nor ASSUMPTIONS you make and then require are true of a specific couple. You say what matters is what the Bible states. So where does it state that Mary had lotsa sex and kids? Where?



See post 341



A blessed Easter season to you and yours...



- Josiah

'

.

 

[Lanman87]

Now, while the Bible is SILENT, Tradition is NOT. Tradition - the ancient, universal faith of the church, of the whole family of Christians.

I'm really really late to this thread but I have one question. How do you know this tradition is true?

The Pharisees had their traditions that were man made and not from God. The Protestant Reformation questioned the authenticity of Roman Catholic (and to a lesser degree Orthodox) Traditions as being inventions of men (Theologians and Bishops) and not part of the rule of faith taught by Christ and the apostles, hence the practice of Sola Scriptura.

It seems to me that if someone just picked up a Bible and read the gospels without knowledge of "tradition" they would believe that Mary miraculously became pregnant by the Holy Spirit, Joseph married her anyway at the direction of the angel, they waited until after Jesus was born in Bethlehem to consummate their marriage, then they had other sons and daughters.

 

[Josiah]

I'm really really late to this thread but I have one question. How do you know this tradition is true?

We don't.

"Tradition" here means the ancient, universal belief of Christians, especially in things where the Bible itself isn't specific. For example, what books are canonical? The Bible doesn't say what is the content of the Bible (which books make it up) BUT we have consensus that formed that is ancient and ecumenical, we accept this by Tradition. Can we prove it's true? No. Did God send a memo to every Christian about this? No. But we have a strong Tradition. Well, the Tradition that Mary never has sex or other kids is actually much older and stronger. Can we prove this belief? No. Does the Bible specifically state that Mary did or did not ever have sex? No. Does the Bible state Mary had other kids? No, it ONLY says she was the mother of Jesus (that's specifically stated) it says nothing about her having other children (or not). The Bible is silent. Tradition is not.

The Pharisees had their traditions that were man made and not from God. The Protestant Reformation questioned the authenticity of Roman Catholic (and to a lesser degree Orthodox) Traditions as being inventions of men (Theologians and Bishops) and not part of the rule of faith taught by Christ and the apostles, hence the practice of Sola Scriptura.

Correct. And as a Lutheran, I'm very sensitive to this. But two points must be remembered:

1. The Tradition Jesus and Luther objected to was neither ancient or ecumenical and often in conflict with Scripture. "Tradition" for the Pharisees and for the medieval Roman Catholic Church was nothing more than the current claims of that singular denomination. "Tradition" in the Catholic Church is simply the claim that it itself has always taught this (never can this be confirmed, often it can be denied). When Reformation Protestants use this term, we don't mean "what I currently think - and no other Christian church agrees") we use the term to mean beliefs that are ancient (the view that Mary remained a virgin can be shown from the year 110 AD) and quite universal/ecumenical (no one believed otherwise until the 19th Century and they were radical liberals who denied the authority of Scripture and the Virgin Birth). Protestants also only accept Tradition that is permitted by the words of Scripture, it cannot be variant (although may not be specifically stated). For Protestants, Tradition is UNDER Scripture, not OVER Scripture as it is in Catholicism and was for the Pharisees.

2. Reformation Protestants often accept this ancient/ecumenical Tradition. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, the Anglican Church - they all believed that Mary never had sex or other kids. What "tradition" did they reject? That the unique claim of the singular RCC was founded directly by Jesus and is infallible as the RCC itself alone claims (it's not ancient, it's not ecumenical, it's biblically problematic). The view from the middle ages of the singular Catholic Church that when a Catholic priest says the words of consecration, an alchemic metamorphasis happens and the bread and wine convert into body and blood via a very specific means, and the bread and wine cease to exist except as Aristotelian accients. Whey did Luther and Cslvin reject this RCC tradition? It's not ancient.... it's not ecumenical.... it's biblically problemmatic. Reformation Protestants accept the ancient ecumenical creeds (Apostle's and Nicene) which are ancient, ecumenical Tradition. We take seriously the Seven Ecumenical Councils (that gave us the concepts of the Trinity for example) as ancient, ecumenical Tradition.

It seems to me that if someone just picked up a Bible and read the gospels without knowledge of "tradition" they would believe that Mary miraculously became pregnant by the Holy Spirit, Joseph married her anyway at the direction of the angel, they waited until after Jesus was born in Bethlehem to consummate their marriage, then they had other sons and daughters.

... especially if they only read a modern English translation and appoint self to impose what they feel is IMPLIED by some modern English word.

But you make an excellent point! When people hold that the Bible belongs only to self.... that the Holy Spirit only leads self.... that the Bible was written in the language of self... and whatever self thinks is MEANT or IMPLIED by some modern word in their translation.... well, remember, every heretic on the planet in all history had a Bible in front of them... Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, all of them quoted the Bible all the time. And we're quick to tell you what is MEANT or IMPLIED by some English word in their translation, what God SHOULD have said but (sadly) didn't so THEY are telling you cuz they just know and no one other than them, in 2000 years, matters. Just themself. What we often see is that the words in the Bible (koine Greek or biblical Hebrew) are ultimately irrelevant, God's Words are simply subject to their own individual personal feelings, thoughts, philosophies, and desires. "Itching ears.... choosing teachers that fit THEM" See Ephesians 4:6-11.



See posts 341 and 349.



Blessings on your Easter season....


Josiah




.

 

[Lanman87]

We don't.

"Tradition" here means the ancient, universal belief of Christians, especially in things where the Bible itself isn't specific. For example, what books are canonical? The Bible doesn't say what is the content of the Bible (which books make it up) BUT we have consensus that formed that is ancient and ecumenical, we accept this by Tradition. Can we prove it's true? No. Did God send a memo to every Christian about this? No. But we have a strong Tradition. Well, the Tradition that Mary never has sex or other kids is actually much older and stronger. Can we prove this belief? No. Does the Bible specifically state that Mary did or did not ever have sex? No. Does the Bible state Mary had other kids? No, it ONLY says she was the mother of Jesus (that's specifically stated) it says nothing about her having other children (or not). The Bible is silent. Tradition is not.






Correct. And as a Lutheran, I'm very sensitive to this. But two points must be remembered:

1. The Tradition Jesus and Luther objected to was neither ancient or ecumenical and often in conflict with Scripture. "Tradition" for the Pharisees and for the medieval Roman Catholic Church was nothing more than the current claims of that singular denomination. "Tradition" in the Catholic Church is simply the claim that it itself has always taught this (never can this be confirmed, often it can be denied). When Reformation Protestants use this term, we don't mean "what I currently think - and no other Christian church agrees") we use the term to mean beliefs that are ancient (the view that Mary remained a virgin can be shown from the year 110 AD) and quite universal/ecumenical (no one believed otherwise until the 19th Century and they were radical liberals who denied the authority of Scripture and the Virgin Birth). Protestants also only accept Tradition that is permitted by the words of Scripture, it cannot be variant (although may not be specifically stated). For Protestants, Tradition is UNDER Scripture, not OVER Scripture as it is in Catholicism and was for the Pharisees.

2. Reformation Protestants often accept this ancient/ecumenical Tradition. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, the Anglican Church - they all believed that Mary never had sex or other kids. What "tradition" did they reject? That the unique claim of the singular RCC was founded directly by Jesus and is infallible as the RCC itself alone claims (it's not ancient, it's not ecumenical, it's biblically problematic). The view from the middle ages of the singular Catholic Church that when a Catholic priest says the words of consecration, an alchemic metamorphasis happens and the bread and wine convert into body and blood via a very specific means, and the bread and wine cease to exist except as Aristotelian accients. Whey did Luther and Cslvin reject this RCC tradition? It's not ancient.... it's not ecumenical.... it's biblically problemmatic. Reformation Protestants accept the ancient ecumenical creeds (Apostle's and Nicene) which are ancient, ecumenical Tradition. We take seriously the Seven Ecumenical Councils (that gave us the concepts of the Trinity for example) as ancient, ecumenical Tradition.






... especially if they only read a modern English translation and appoint self to impose what they feel is IMPLIED by some modern English word.

But you make an excellent point! When people hold that the Bible belongs only to self.... that the Holy Spirit only leads self.... that the Bible was written in the language of self... and whatever self thinks is MEANT or IMPLIED by some modern word in their translation.... well, remember, every heretic on the planet in all history had a Bible in front of them... Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, all of them quoted the Bible all the time. And we're quick to tell you what is MEANT or IMPLIED by some English word in their translation, what God SHOULD have said but (sadly) didn't so THEY are telling you cuz they just know and no one other than them, in 2000 years, matters. Just themself. What we often see is that the words in the Bible (koine Greek or biblical Hebrew) are ultimately irrelevant, God's Words are simply subject to their own individual personal feelings, thoughts, philosophies, and desires. "Itching ears.... choosing teachers that fit THEM" See Ephesians 4:6-11.



See posts 341 and 349.



Blessings on your Easter season....


Josiah




.

Just Curious. Do you also hold the other Catholic Dogmas about Mary? the Immaculate Conception/sinless life, and Assumption?

 

[atpollard]

Does the Bible say “Eve had sex”, or is all of mankind the result of immaculate conception from perpetual virgins?

 

[Stravinsk]

Does the Bible say “Eve had sex”, or is all of mankind the result of immaculate conception from perpetual virgins?

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD

"knew" Strongs H3045

1. to know
   1. (Qal)
      1. to know
         1. to know, learn to know
         2. to perceive
         3. to perceive and see, find out and discern
         4. to discriminate, distinguish
         5. to know by experience
         6. to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess
         7. to consider
      2. to know, be acquainted with
      3. to know (a person carnally)
      4. to know how, be skilful in
      5. to have knowledge, be wise
   2. (Niphal)
      1. to be made known, be or become known, be revealed
      2. to make oneself known
      3. to be perceived
      4. to be instructed
   3. (Piel) to cause to know
   4. (Poal) to cause to know
   5. (Pual)
      1. to be known
      2. known, one known, acquaintance (participle)
   6. (Hiphil) to make known, declare
   7. (Hophal) to be made known
   8. (Hithpael) to make oneself known, reveal oneself

Only one option mentions carnal relations, but there are so many other options! Also Eve declared her child from the LORD. It seems possible you may be right!

 

[Josiah]

Just Curious. Do you also hold the other Catholic Dogmas about Mary? the Immaculate Conception/sinless life, and Assumption?

The ONLY dogmas about Mary that I "hold" to are Mary as the Mother of Our Lord and I accept the title "Matre Dei" which Lutherans use (and is found in our Confessions). I do NOT "hold" that Mary remained a virgin all her life (actually, to be frank, I don't think it matters and it's none of our business anyway) BUT I do think this is very strong, very ancient, very ecumenical faith.... it is mentioned in a true Ecumenical Council.... I have no problems with it, I just don't accept it as dogma.


I challenge those who insist the BIBLE states She did or did not ever have sex or kids, because it does not. However, there IS very, very strong, ancient, ecumenical Tradition on this (which I take seriously)... dating back to about 110 AD... it was universally upheld until a few radical Protestant liberals about 200 years ago included this in the things they repudiated (along with the truthfulness of Scripture, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection), ironically their views have largely been rejected but this one is echoed by American Evangelicals.... the very people who CLAIM to care but Scripture but here are just repeating the claims of those who called the Bible "mythology" and who admitted their view that Mary was not a perpetual virgin is NOT taught in the Bible.

Does the Bible say “Eve had sex”, or is all of mankind the result of immaculate conception from perpetual virgins?

See Genesis 4:1. It says EVE conceived via Adam and that SHE gave birth to a son as a result of that "knowing". Now, where is the verse that states that MARY conceived via Joseph (specifically via that "knowing") and that she born a child or children other than Jesus? Where is that verse? The Bible 3 times says Mary bore JESUS... and without any man. Nowhere does it state she bore ANY other children - immaculately or normally. You know that.




Blessings on your Easter season...


Josiah



.

 

[pinacled]

So, you finally agree with me. How long did that take, LOL


The Bible is SILENT as to the question of whether (after Jesus was born) Mary had sex or additional children. Which is likely why in 17 PAGES of this thread, over 320 posts, you (and others) had to evade my request for the verses that state, "Mary had sex" and "Mary had other kids." Why were you mandated to evade this request, to persistently ignore it? Because the Bible nowhere states that. This has been my consistent claim for 17 pages of post;.... but you and others argued otherwise.


The Bible is SILENT. It nowhere states, "Mary had sex after Jesus was born" and equally, it nowhere states "Mary did not have sex after Jesus was born." It nowhere states, "Mary had other kids" and it nowhere states, "Mary did not have other kids." This has been my consistent claim for 17 pages of posts.... but you and others have argued otherwise.



Now, while the Bible is SILENT, Tradition is NOT. Tradition - the ancient, universal faith of the church, of the whole family of Christians. The Tradition that gave us the Bible (because God never sent out a memo to every Christian as to the Table of Contents of the Bible), the issue of which books make up the corpus of Scriptures comes from TRADITION, not some memo from God we got in the mail... The reality is no book in the Bible tells us what books should be in the Bible, the very books you point to in order to see if Mary had sex are a product of Tradition. Now, since at least the year 110 AD, we find the firm and universal faith that Mary never had sex.... and Mary never had other kids. Ancient, universal faith. True, the Bible doesn't say that, but nor does the Bible contradict that. And in the original, there was NOTHING that remotely suggested or implied otherwise (although I agree in 21st Century ENGLISH, some words may IMPLY otherwise - but in the First Century, no one knew English). The firm conviction of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, what books are Scripture .... that Tradition included that Mary remained a virgin and had no other kids. It's a matter of Tradition (just like what Books are Scripture). Luther accepted this Tradition. Calvin accepted this Tradition. John Wesley accepted this Tradition. Indeed, no one believed otherwise. There were some who questioned the Tradition of the Trinity, of the Divinity of Jesus, of the content of Scripture (all weaker Traditions) but no one questioned that Mary remained a virgin.

Now, about 200 years ago, there were a tiny number of radical, super-liberal Protestants who denied the authority and accuracy of Scripture, who denied the Virgin Birth who denied the divinity of Jesus, and who argued that of course Mary had sex - all women do. Now, they never remotely claimed that this new position was taught (or even remotely suggested in the Greek Bible), they simply felt that this (like the divinity of Jesus) was a myth - and they were mythbusters. Ironically.... some modern American "Evangelicals" now echo their new invention, this idea that Mary had lotsa sex and lotsa kids.



A blessed Easter season to you and yours.


- Josiah




.

I only agree in that the gospels are silent on marriage consumation or celibacy of miriam(mary) nothing more.

Likewise the gospels are silent on abortion.
But that does not mean we are to ignore The Holy Royal Torah.

And with a foundation of such a person can easily deduce or even study with exegesis/PaRDeS that miriam had followed the Torah dutifully with her husband by consumating the marriage after the birth of Our Messiah Yeshua.

Now whether she had other children after is an area of questioning I chose to refrain from.
Because the context of scripture that some claim mentions such depending on english version usually refers to brothers as jewish brethren(male-female).

Blessing Always

 

[atpollard]

See Genesis 4:1. It says EVE conceived via Adam

No, it does not say that.
My point is exactly the same as yours.
Scripture does not specifically state that Adam had intercourse with Eve and she had a child.
We are forced to infer that from what scripture does say because that is the normal relationship between a husband and a wife.

Yet we are required to provide an explicit verse to prove that Mary was the wife of Joseph and that Jesus’ brothers were really brothers.

 

[pinacled]

The ONLY dogmas about Mary that I "hold" to are Mary as the Mother of Our Lord and I accept the title "Matre Dei" which Lutherans use (and is found in our Confessions). I do NOT "hold" that Mary remained a virgin all her life (actually, to be frank, I don't think it matters and it's none of our business anyway) BUT I do think this is very strong, very ancient, very ecumenical faith.... it is mentioned in a true Ecumenical Council.... I have no problems with it, I just don't accept it as dogma.


I challenge those who insist the BIBLE states She did or did not ever have sex or kids, because it does not. However, there IS very, very strong, ancient, ecumenical Tradition on this (which I take seriously)... dating back to about 110 AD... it was universally upheld until a few radical Protestant liberals about 200 years ago included this in the things they repudiated (along with the truthfulness of Scripture, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection), ironically their views have largely been rejected but this one is echoed by American Evangelicals.... the very people who CLAIM to care but Scripture but here are just repeating the claims of those who called the Bible "mythology" and who admitted their view that Mary was not a perpetual virgin is NOT taught in the Bible.







See Genesis 4:1. It says EVE conceived via Adam and that SHE gave birth to a son as a result of that "knowing". Now, where is the verse that states that MARY conceived via Joseph (specifically via that "knowing") and that she born a child or children other than Jesus? Where is that verse? The Bible 3 times says Mary bore JESUS... and without any man. Nowhere does it state she bore ANY other children - immaculately or normally. You know that.




Blessings on your Easter season...


Josiah



.

I thought "Matre Dei" was strictly a catholic teaching!

 

[pinacled]

Yes, indeed the Scripture declares that Jesus had brothers & sisters born of Mary. We see this clearly in the Gospels -

"While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” - Matt 12:46-50

These were physical siblings born in the flesh. Now, God has called others to become "brothers of Christ Jesus" and "sons of God" in the spiritual, eternal, divine sense. (Rom 8:29, Heb 2:10-12). But man, we'll open up a whole can of worms here if I pursue this further!

Again brethren(male-female) is a contextual reference to jewry/jew in heart during this instance.
Which is a distinction from the "crowd" ie "lost sheep"!

Matthew 12
[ 46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.]

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

No, it does not say that.
My point is exactly the same as yours.
Scripture does not specifically state that Adam had intercourse with Eve and she had a child.
We are forced to infer that from what scripture does say because that is the normal relationship between a husband and a wife.

Yet we are required to provide an explicit verse to prove that Mary was the wife of Joseph and that Jesus’ brothers were really brothers.

The scripture doesn't reveal that our Messiah Yeshua had biological siblings from miriam.

Context/PaRDeS: is a key.
And there is level beyond the sod of exegesis.

Blessings Always