-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Ever Virginity of Mary
- Thread starter James the Persian
- Start date
Linus
Well-Known Member
I don't think that Mary was a virgin for any particular length of time after Christ was born. I find it hard to believe that she and Joseph never consumated their marriage. I can't say for sure either way, obviously, but all logic seems to point me in the direction that she did not remain a virgin very long after Christ's death. It's a natural, God-given, beautiful thing for a husband and wife to engage in that. Why wouldn't they?
But either way, It doesn't change my opinion of Mary and her importance.
As for the Ezekiel passage...
it is very convincing. But how can it be taken the way you suggest in light of the verse 3, which says:
As for the prince, he shall sit in it as a prince to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the porch of the gate and shall go out the same way.
This, to me, seems to change the meaning slightly. Any thoughts?
But either way, It doesn't change my opinion of Mary and her importance.
As for the Ezekiel passage...
it is very convincing. But how can it be taken the way you suggest in light of the verse 3, which says:
As for the prince, he shall sit in it as a prince to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the porch of the gate and shall go out the same way.
This, to me, seems to change the meaning slightly. Any thoughts?
glasgowchick
Gives Glory to God !!!
Scott1 said:
Thanks Scott, But Im still not seeing why Joseph would want to be married to someone he could not share sexual relations with..Here is what I am seeing and I have read and re read it so you will have to fill me in ok ...The quote from Jerome to that one guy he is asking why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery...So I read that, as he is was wanting to know why joseph did not have intercourse with Mary until after the baby was born ?..Helvidius of course replies basically that Joseph refrained from having intercourse with Mary because the Child inside was concieved is of the Holy Ghost..[Which would fulfill prophecy the Virgin will have a child...] Im lost with everything else after that, what is it I am failing to see...Who is Helvidius?
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Even if you do read it like that glasgowchick, following your logic, why wouldn't Joseph have had intercourse before her pregnancy? Helvidius under your understanding was constrained by time. In other words, Joseph could not have intercourse with Mary throughtout the preganancy. Anything before or after is ok. Let me know if I misunderstood you.glasgowchick said:
Helvidius is an early heretic that maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestantt exegetes.
~Victor
Scott1
Well-Known Member
There is more to a marriage than having sex.... his role as "step-father" to the Word made Flesh was more important than any other "need" in his life. That is one of the key parts of the teaching about the Holy Family... Mary and Joseph trusted in God and put their personal needs aside to serve the Lord.... and awfully important example as I'm sure you agree.glasgowchick said:
Not really sure what his backround is... if I remember correctly, this exchange with Jerome is the only lasting piece of history about him.... after Jerome kicked his butt with this letter, not a peep was heard from him or anyone objecting to the content of the letter.
It kinda boils down to this:
"Joseph reacts with fear at the thought of taking Mary as a wife. Why fear? Modernity assumes it was because he thought her guilty of adultery, but the typical view in antiquity understood the text to mean he was afraid of her sanctityas a pious Jew would be afraid to touch the Ark of the Covenant. After all, think of what Mary told him about the angel's words: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."
I'm not even a pious Jew, but with words like that echoing in my ears about my wife, I'd find it easy to believe that Joseph, knowing what he did about his wife, would have chosen celibacy." Mother of the Son by Mark Shea
Thanks for taking the time to read and chat about this.... it is not a matter of "convincing/proving" this to one another...... I just pray that even if just in a small way, your relationship with Christ grows stronger (as mine did) as a result of your relationship with His mother.
Sc
tt
glasgowchick
Gives Glory to God !!!
Yeh and thankyou also scott for sharing...
glasgowchick
Gives Glory to God !!!
Victor said:
Hi Victor, I think you have misunderstood me sorry, I don't know who that one guy is or have I ever heard of him, but I was not saying that it was, or that it would be ok for Joseph to have had intercourse before or during Mary's pregnancy, but I truely believe that Mary had other children by Joseph afterwards..I don't see no evidence in the Bible that would suggest otherwise and feel it would be natural for Mary to fulfil her roll as a loving wife and mother ..All a blessing from God...
Hey all, any room on this thread for a blabbermouth?
I'm going to try to keep this as short as possible, and I'm going to try to not repeat what has already been said. Then I'm just going to pose some questions to consider.
First, let me state that as an Orthodox Christian, like James, and like Roman Catholics like Scott and Victor, I believe that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin after her birthgiving of the Godman Christ. I believe this because the Church has always taught and believed this. It seems that one thing many who look at the Scriptures can't seem to fathom is that they truly do witness to a HOLY TRADITION. St. Paul never says, "Unless it's written, don't believe it", but rather, says "Stand fast, and keep the traditions you have been taught by WORD or EPISTLE" (2nd Thessalonians 2:15). Moreover, the first mentione of a tradition in writing does not mean that is the chronological "beginning" of a tradition...it just means that that tradition was mentioned at that particular time. There is very little writing about the importance of the Holy Eucharist in the Early Church Fathers, do we believe that this is because the Body and Blood of Christ were not important? No, rather, it was so taken for granted that it was FUNDAMENTAL, that no one needed to give long discussions on why we should come worthily to the Table of the Lord. The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, 325, was that the first time the Church believed in God as Trinity? Certainly not, it was the time when the Church had to defend the Trinity, a belief it had kept from the beginning, when people started to defame and challenge the Living One Faith (Ephesians 4:4) of the Church. Because certainly, one could not call themselves a Christian and just believe what they liked about any given topic, they had to keep the apostolic decrees and faith, worship (the Eucharist, breaking of bread) and liturgy (prayers) (Acts 2:42). Our Holy Scriptures did not fall out of the sky like others, but they were written under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, by members of the Church. Before the written Scriptures of the New Testament, there was the Church. The Lord surely did not tell His Apostles to grab a pen and paper and write down word for word, all He said and did. Where did the Lord write? On the fleshy tablets of His followers' hearts. If we trust the Lord, we trust His Church. And we trust the Holy Scriptures, because the Church, the pillar and ground of Truth, tell us that these documents are authentic testimonies, verified accounts of the life of Christ.
Okay, so much for keeping it short! Sorry. Okay, when it comes the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos (the Blessed Virgin Mary), a few arguments kept coming up. First, it seems that despite the fact that Victor and many others on the thread clearly brought up instances where God wants chastity, when something is extremely holy, it seems that many others could not set aside their own notions of marital propriety for an instant. It seems many of us project our own views on the situation of the Virgin Mary. We say, well she was married, it is weird that she wouldn't have sex with her husband. "It is not reasonable!", say others. Well, to be sure, many others will say that the Incarnation of God is not a "reasonable" or "logical" thing to consider. If we are looking for what the Truth is, we can't get caught up with our own projected limitations--we have to look at the Scriptures and what they are telling us. And since the Scriptures are truly Apostolic Tradition, but just put to writing, then the one who truly knows and keeps that Tradition is the Church. So, we have to try and understand the situation from the perspective of two pious Jews. One of them, a young girl, has just been told by an archangel, that she is going to give birth to the Uncontainable God. Quite extraordinary! The second is a pious elderly Jewish man, who believes his betrothed, Mary, is illicitly with child, and seeks to put her away secretly, so that she will not be stoned to death. Truly, a righteous man. But this man is also told by angels that he should not fear to take Mary as his wife, because she is with child by the Holy Spirit. We know that the Virgin Mary saw men coming from the East, astrologers from perhaps modern day Persia, and they fell down and worshipped her Son. We know from the Scriptures that Mary was lauded as the Mother of her cousin Elizabeth's, Lord. We see this young girl, Mary, venerated by her cousin, by her cousin's unborn child, that leaps in his mother's womb, by the Archangel Gabriel....we know that Mary kept all these things in her heart (Luke 2:51) We know she was a circumspect and contemplative woman. Would then, these two pious Jews, knowing what the world around them did not yet know, that God had incarnated through her...would the one give herself to a man, and would the man be willing to take to himself what God had chosen as His vessel to come into the world for its salvation. This is some SERIOUS STUFF, and true understanding of the situation cannot come without putting things in context.
As for thinking it sin for a woman to not consummate her marriage, I will simply say that one cannot be so haughty as to speak for God, and His standards. If God was pleased with virginity in instances of the Old Testament, then certainly it was not foreign. Let us not therefore take it upon ourselves to say what would displease the Lord, and how dysfunctional a situation like that would be. If the Lord had chosen the virgin womb of the Virgin Mary, then He would surely need her to be protected, for she would be stoned, according to Mosaic law, and the Child would be in danger. Truly, the Scriptures witness not only to the protection of the Christ child, like the vessel which He chose to incarnate from was just some throwaway, but it clearly shows that God warned Joseph to take the Child and His mother, and flee to Egypt. Joseph, an elderly man, could take her as a wife, while her wishes for virginity would be solemn and respected by him. This is not at all unreasonable.
As for Scripture telling us that she was a virgin, I agree with what James, Scott and Victor have argued. In Holy Scriptures, it is not at all uncommon in the Hebrew to call a kinsman--stepbrother, cousin, etc.--a brother. When Lot, Abram's brother's son, was taken, the Scriptures tell us that Abram referred to Lot as a brother (See Genesis 14:12-14). Boaz spoke of his relative Eimelech as his "brother" (See Ruth 4:3). Joab called Amasa, his first cousin, "brother" just before he killed him (see 2 Samuel 17:25, 2 Samuel 20:9). So, from these few passages, it is not at all unreasonable to say that yes, kinsmen who were not brothers were called "brothers". Under Mosaic Law, a widow would be placed in the care of her children. Why Christ's great concern over who would care for His mother? In His agony on the cross, why did He assign St. John the Apostle to care for her, if she had other children. To be sure, and I think another post-er on the thread said this, that no one has been able to adequately refute this need? What for, if she had other children? Moreover, it is clear that when referring to His mother, the evangelist and Apostle St. Matthew says "His mother" (Matthew 12:46). But in Matthew 27:56, when listing who was alongside during the Crucifixion, we know that there was Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons (Matthew 27:56). No, this Mary is not "His mother", the evangelist would have stated it simply. This Mary is not to be confused with the Virgin Mary. Quite frankly, it is NEVER stated in the Bible that the brothers and sisters of Jesus are "sons and daughters" of Mary. Quite frankly, the previously mentioned passages in the Old Testament illustrated that one could call their kinsman a "brother". Add to this the fact that the Virgin Mary was not kept by another son, but assigned by a suffering and compassionate Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostle, St. John, and there really is nothing in scripture to warrant that Mary had any other children.
So I would just sum up with this. Are there explicit passages stating that Mary remained a virgin. No. Are there implicit passages that suggest that Mary never had any other children? Yes. Has the Church always taught the Ever-Virginity of the Virgin Mary? Yes. Do we trust the Church? Yes, because it is the pillar and ground of Truth. It's so interesting that we can scoff at writers in the Church, whether recognized Church Fathers or not, who write of Mary's perpetual virginity and say "oh, they lived 200 years after Christ, they are not exactly reliable sources". You'll forgive me, but the first person to put forward the teaching that Mary had children after Christ was Martin Luther, a man who leave some 1400 years after Christ's Crucifixion. Why is he a much more "reliable source"?
The peace of Christ, Who incarnated from the womb of the Blessed Virgin, come to us all.
The least in Christ,
Theodore (Ted)
I'm going to try to keep this as short as possible, and I'm going to try to not repeat what has already been said. Then I'm just going to pose some questions to consider.
First, let me state that as an Orthodox Christian, like James, and like Roman Catholics like Scott and Victor, I believe that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin after her birthgiving of the Godman Christ. I believe this because the Church has always taught and believed this. It seems that one thing many who look at the Scriptures can't seem to fathom is that they truly do witness to a HOLY TRADITION. St. Paul never says, "Unless it's written, don't believe it", but rather, says "Stand fast, and keep the traditions you have been taught by WORD or EPISTLE" (2nd Thessalonians 2:15). Moreover, the first mentione of a tradition in writing does not mean that is the chronological "beginning" of a tradition...it just means that that tradition was mentioned at that particular time. There is very little writing about the importance of the Holy Eucharist in the Early Church Fathers, do we believe that this is because the Body and Blood of Christ were not important? No, rather, it was so taken for granted that it was FUNDAMENTAL, that no one needed to give long discussions on why we should come worthily to the Table of the Lord. The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, 325, was that the first time the Church believed in God as Trinity? Certainly not, it was the time when the Church had to defend the Trinity, a belief it had kept from the beginning, when people started to defame and challenge the Living One Faith (Ephesians 4:4) of the Church. Because certainly, one could not call themselves a Christian and just believe what they liked about any given topic, they had to keep the apostolic decrees and faith, worship (the Eucharist, breaking of bread) and liturgy (prayers) (Acts 2:42). Our Holy Scriptures did not fall out of the sky like others, but they were written under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, by members of the Church. Before the written Scriptures of the New Testament, there was the Church. The Lord surely did not tell His Apostles to grab a pen and paper and write down word for word, all He said and did. Where did the Lord write? On the fleshy tablets of His followers' hearts. If we trust the Lord, we trust His Church. And we trust the Holy Scriptures, because the Church, the pillar and ground of Truth, tell us that these documents are authentic testimonies, verified accounts of the life of Christ.
Okay, so much for keeping it short!
Sorry. Okay, when it comes the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos (the Blessed Virgin Mary), a few arguments kept coming up. First, it seems that despite the fact that Victor and many others on the thread clearly brought up instances where God wants chastity, when something is extremely holy, it seems that many others could not set aside their own notions of marital propriety for an instant. It seems many of us project our own views on the situation of the Virgin Mary. We say, well she was married, it is weird that she wouldn't have sex with her husband. "It is not reasonable!", say others. Well, to be sure, many others will say that the Incarnation of God is not a "reasonable" or "logical" thing to consider. If we are looking for what the Truth is, we can't get caught up with our own projected limitations--we have to look at the Scriptures and what they are telling us. And since the Scriptures are truly Apostolic Tradition, but just put to writing, then the one who truly knows and keeps that Tradition is the Church. So, we have to try and understand the situation from the perspective of two pious Jews. One of them, a young girl, has just been told by an archangel, that she is going to give birth to the Uncontainable God. Quite extraordinary! The second is a pious elderly Jewish man, who believes his betrothed, Mary, is illicitly with child, and seeks to put her away secretly, so that she will not be stoned to death. Truly, a righteous man. But this man is also told by angels that he should not fear to take Mary as his wife, because she is with child by the Holy Spirit. We know that the Virgin Mary saw men coming from the East, astrologers from perhaps modern day Persia, and they fell down and worshipped her Son. We know from the Scriptures that Mary was lauded as the Mother of her cousin Elizabeth's, Lord. We see this young girl, Mary, venerated by her cousin, by her cousin's unborn child, that leaps in his mother's womb, by the Archangel Gabriel....we know that Mary kept all these things in her heart (Luke 2:51) We know she was a circumspect and contemplative woman. Would then, these two pious Jews, knowing what the world around them did not yet know, that God had incarnated through her...would the one give herself to a man, and would the man be willing to take to himself what God had chosen as His vessel to come into the world for its salvation. This is some SERIOUS STUFF, and true understanding of the situation cannot come without putting things in context.As for thinking it sin for a woman to not consummate her marriage, I will simply say that one cannot be so haughty as to speak for God, and His standards. If God was pleased with virginity in instances of the Old Testament, then certainly it was not foreign. Let us not therefore take it upon ourselves to say what would displease the Lord, and how dysfunctional a situation like that would be. If the Lord had chosen the virgin womb of the Virgin Mary, then He would surely need her to be protected, for she would be stoned, according to Mosaic law, and the Child would be in danger. Truly, the Scriptures witness not only to the protection of the Christ child, like the vessel which He chose to incarnate from was just some throwaway, but it clearly shows that God warned Joseph to take the Child and His mother, and flee to Egypt. Joseph, an elderly man, could take her as a wife, while her wishes for virginity would be solemn and respected by him. This is not at all unreasonable.
As for Scripture telling us that she was a virgin, I agree with what James, Scott and Victor have argued. In Holy Scriptures, it is not at all uncommon in the Hebrew to call a kinsman--stepbrother, cousin, etc.--a brother. When Lot, Abram's brother's son, was taken, the Scriptures tell us that Abram referred to Lot as a brother (See Genesis 14:12-14). Boaz spoke of his relative Eimelech as his "brother" (See Ruth 4:3). Joab called Amasa, his first cousin, "brother" just before he killed him (see 2 Samuel 17:25, 2 Samuel 20:9). So, from these few passages, it is not at all unreasonable to say that yes, kinsmen who were not brothers were called "brothers". Under Mosaic Law, a widow would be placed in the care of her children. Why Christ's great concern over who would care for His mother? In His agony on the cross, why did He assign St. John the Apostle to care for her, if she had other children. To be sure, and I think another post-er on the thread said this, that no one has been able to adequately refute this need? What for, if she had other children? Moreover, it is clear that when referring to His mother, the evangelist and Apostle St. Matthew says "His mother" (Matthew 12:46). But in Matthew 27:56, when listing who was alongside during the Crucifixion, we know that there was Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons (Matthew 27:56). No, this Mary is not "His mother", the evangelist would have stated it simply. This Mary is not to be confused with the Virgin Mary. Quite frankly, it is NEVER stated in the Bible that the brothers and sisters of Jesus are "sons and daughters" of Mary. Quite frankly, the previously mentioned passages in the Old Testament illustrated that one could call their kinsman a "brother". Add to this the fact that the Virgin Mary was not kept by another son, but assigned by a suffering and compassionate Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostle, St. John, and there really is nothing in scripture to warrant that Mary had any other children.
So I would just sum up with this. Are there explicit passages stating that Mary remained a virgin. No. Are there implicit passages that suggest that Mary never had any other children? Yes. Has the Church always taught the Ever-Virginity of the Virgin Mary? Yes. Do we trust the Church? Yes, because it is the pillar and ground of Truth. It's so interesting that we can scoff at writers in the Church, whether recognized Church Fathers or not, who write of Mary's perpetual virginity and say "oh, they lived 200 years after Christ, they are not exactly reliable sources". You'll forgive me, but the first person to put forward the teaching that Mary had children after Christ was Martin Luther, a man who leave some 1400 years after Christ's Crucifixion. Why is he a much more "reliable source"?
The peace of Christ, Who incarnated from the womb of the Blessed Virgin, come to us all.
The least in Christ,
Theodore (Ted)
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
Good (if long) post Ted. You've summed up all the arguments in the thread rather nicely. Personally I do hope that one of those people on the opposing side will attempt to tackle the problem of the Theotokos being entrusted to John, but I've yet to see anybody who believes Christ's siblings were Mary's children tackle this, whether here or elsewhere, so I'm not too optimistic.
James
James
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Quite right Victor.... I hate to use another quote from Shea's article... but I just love it so:Victor said:
The command to call her "Mother" comes, of course, from Jesus himself. John doesn't record the words "Behold your mother" (John 19:27) because he thought his readers might be curious about domestic arrangements for childless Jewish widows. Rather, as with everything else John writes, "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).
"curious about domestic arrangements for childless Jewish widows":biglaugh: Love it.
I am a protestant, so I have to agree with the dragon lady. I believe in sovreignty of the scriptures, so as far as I am concerned if it is not in the Bible it doesn't matter. The Bible says that if one word is added or taken away the person who does so shall have their name removed from the Lamb's Book of Life. I am not willing to accept any man made dogma and take that chance. What you are quoting is "traditions" and not biblical teaching.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
tonyt,tonyt1967 said:
I don't believe in Mary's perpetual virginity any more than you do, but you really ought to be aware that the Bible doesn't say what you've said it does. When John penned the book of Revelation, there was no such thing as the Bible. God was referring to the prophesy He was giving to John and not to a book which didn't even exist at the time.
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
Quite right. Frubals to you.Katzpur said:
James
ChrisBianchi
Member
There aren't any scriptures describing the sex life other than that which states that they did not have a sexual relationship during her pregnancy with Jesus. There are no scriptures that describe their sex life outside of the pregnancy nor are there any scriptures that either explicitly confirm nor reject perpetual virginity. The concept of perpetual virginity is merely a tradition held by the Catholic Church and nothing more. There is no documented, scriptural evidence to support or deny it. Therefore, it is of little significance.Draka said:
However, you ask how soon after marriage did they learn of the pregnancy. This question is easy to answer. They knew of the pregnancy prior to the marriage. They were engaged, Mary became pregnant, they were married, and finally Mary delivered Jesus. An angel came to Joseph and told him that he should not be afraid to wed Mary because her child was of the holy spirit.
The Virgin Mary Never Remained a Virgin:
Some maintain that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin, but that is NOT true. Here is some proof that Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) had fleshly half-brothers and that "blows your false tale of ever virginity of the Virgin Mary" right out of the window. This if from a historian who lived at the same time as Jesus did, i.e., his contemporary and not some so called Early Church Father a group that had many divisions among themselves and quickly left the true teachings of the Apostles due to their own teachings and heresies. No wonder, when the apostles were here, they had to constantly write letters admonishing congregations to faithfully remain in the teachings of Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves).
Here is what a contemporary historian of the times, Flavius Josephus, has to say concerning Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) and his brother James:
Concerning Albinus Under Whose Procuratorship James Was Slain; As Also What Edifices Were Built By Agrippa.
1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on
the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and
Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against
them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they
disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some
of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the
high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. [Chapter 9 (first Part), The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus
Translated by William Whiston]
It would renew a theologically charged debate about James's relationship to Jesus. The traditional Roman Catholic view is that Jesus is the only son of Mary. If Mary was always a virgin, the argument goes, then James must actually be a cousin or half-brother or step-brother. The ossuary may be "the nail in the coffin of the 'cousin' argument," says John Meier, a New Testament professor at Notre Dame University. [Christian Science Monitor]
One person expressed the following opinion which contains a lot of common sense, "Well, maybe, but in my humble opinion, when Christ's groupies told him, "Yo Yo your mom and brothers and sisters are here" Christ asked "Who are my mother and brothers and Sisters?" and then explained that all who believed in Him were his brothers and sisters, but clearly the groupies thought Mary and the people she brought with her were his mother and brothers and sisters. I think this was part of the NEW DEAL Christ was teaching us, that once we abide in Christ we become brothers and sisters in Him. I'm kind of thinking, though don't really know for sure but am thinking before it was time for Christ to start teaching He was pretty much just Jesus the carpenter, and thought of as Joseph and Mary's son." Based on, "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!" (Matthew 12:46-49 AV), " Is not this the carpenters son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" (Matthew 13:55 AV), and " Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3 AV)
Also the following argument used by some does not hold water as another individual pointed out:
For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time.
Where does it say that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
The Scripture does say "Joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee thy WIFE, for what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit .had bidden him and took unto him his WIFE and knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born son;" Matthew 1:20 - 25.
From Genesis we are told that a man is to leave and cleve unto his WIFE and they shall become ONE FLESH. Sexual intimacy is a requirement of being married. In fact Paul tells us that for a man to have sex with a harlot becomes one flesh with her, ie "married".
In fact in the OT if a man RAPED a virgin girl who was not engaged to another, he had to consider her his wife and provide for her.
It is hard to understand why many think would think that Mary is any less of a person in God's eyes if she had children by Joseph after the birth of Christ.
In fact the scriptures clearly say, " And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:25 AV)
Also, Many have tried to obfuscate the issue of whether the Virgin Mary remained ever a virgin with confusing genealogies, claims of ambiguity of words, etc., but the simple truth is the contents carry the meaning of words in most languages and that is true in this case also. The following scriptures in their contents make it clear that she had other children who were the half brothers and half sisters of Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves), lets examine a few that make this absolutely clear from the context:
"Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenters son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house." (Matthew 13:52-57 AV) leaves no doubt as to the relationship.
"And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." (Mark 6:3 AV)
" But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother." (Galatians 1:19 AV)
The context of these scriptures make it clear beyond doubt that he had half brothers and half sisters that were children of Mary his mother; therefore, she is proven not to have remained a virgin. Also, there is not a single scripture that says she remained a virgin.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Some maintain that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin, but that is NOT true. Here is some proof that Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) had fleshly half-brothers and that "blows your false tale of ever virginity of the Virgin Mary" right out of the window. This if from a historian who lived at the same time as Jesus did, i.e., his contemporary and not some so called Early Church Father a group that had many divisions among themselves and quickly left the true teachings of the Apostles due to their own teachings and heresies. No wonder, when the apostles were here, they had to constantly write letters admonishing congregations to faithfully remain in the teachings of Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves).
Here is what a contemporary historian of the times, Flavius Josephus, has to say concerning Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) and his brother James:
Concerning Albinus Under Whose Procuratorship James Was Slain; As Also What Edifices Were Built By Agrippa.
1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on
the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and
Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against
them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they
disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some
of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the
high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. [Chapter 9 (first Part), The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus
Translated by William Whiston]
It would renew a theologically charged debate about James's relationship to Jesus. The traditional Roman Catholic view is that Jesus is the only son of Mary. If Mary was always a virgin, the argument goes, then James must actually be a cousin or half-brother or step-brother. The ossuary may be "the nail in the coffin of the 'cousin' argument," says John Meier, a New Testament professor at Notre Dame University. [Christian Science Monitor]
One person expressed the following opinion which contains a lot of common sense, "Well, maybe, but in my humble opinion, when Christ's groupies told him, "Yo Yo your mom and brothers and sisters are here" Christ asked "Who are my mother and brothers and Sisters?" and then explained that all who believed in Him were his brothers and sisters, but clearly the groupies thought Mary and the people she brought with her were his mother and brothers and sisters. I think this was part of the NEW DEAL Christ was teaching us, that once we abide in Christ we become brothers and sisters in Him. I'm kind of thinking, though don't really know for sure but am thinking before it was time for Christ to start teaching He was pretty much just Jesus the carpenter, and thought of as Joseph and Mary's son." Based on, "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!" (Matthew 12:46-49 AV), " Is not this the carpenters son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" (Matthew 13:55 AV), and " Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3 AV)
Also the following argument used by some does not hold water as another individual pointed out:
For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time.
Where does it say that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
The Scripture does say "Joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee thy WIFE, for what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit .had bidden him and took unto him his WIFE and knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born son;" Matthew 1:20 - 25.
From Genesis we are told that a man is to leave and cleve unto his WIFE and they shall become ONE FLESH. Sexual intimacy is a requirement of being married. In fact Paul tells us that for a man to have sex with a harlot becomes one flesh with her, ie "married".
In fact in the OT if a man RAPED a virgin girl who was not engaged to another, he had to consider her his wife and provide for her.
It is hard to understand why many think would think that Mary is any less of a person in God's eyes if she had children by Joseph after the birth of Christ.
In fact the scriptures clearly say, " And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:25 AV)
Also, Many have tried to obfuscate the issue of whether the Virgin Mary remained ever a virgin with confusing genealogies, claims of ambiguity of words, etc., but the simple truth is the contents carry the meaning of words in most languages and that is true in this case also. The following scriptures in their contents make it clear that she had other children who were the half brothers and half sisters of Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves), lets examine a few that make this absolutely clear from the context:
"Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenters son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house." (Matthew 13:52-57 AV) leaves no doubt as to the relationship.
"And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." (Mark 6:3 AV)
" But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother." (Galatians 1:19 AV)
The context of these scriptures make it clear beyond doubt that he had half brothers and half sisters that were children of Mary his mother; therefore, she is proven not to have remained a virgin. Also, there is not a single scripture that says she remained a virgin.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Hi Everyone
An even easier way to understand that Mary did not remain a virgin is Matthew 1:18-25, "
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Authorized King James Bible; AV)
Verse 25 is the key when it says, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: " since 'knew her' is the Bible's way of saying he had sexual intercourse with her; clearly showing that Joseph did so after she had brought forth her firstborn son.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
An even easier way to understand that Mary did not remain a virgin is Matthew 1:18-25, "
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Authorized King James Bible; AV)
Verse 25 is the key when it says, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: " since 'knew her' is the Bible's way of saying he had sexual intercourse with her; clearly showing that Joseph did so after she had brought forth her firstborn son.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
joeboonda
Well-Known Member
12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(King James Bible, Matthew)
8:19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
8:20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
(Luke)
2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord 2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
(King James Bible, Luke)
From these verses, it seems that Jesus had brothers, thus Mary and Joseph would have had sex, and there is nothing wrong with that. It also shows that Mary gave a sin offering, making her not 'sinless'. She had to be purified like everyone else. I try to keep the focus on Jesus, not Mary, lead folks to Jesus, He is the one who can save sinners.
12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(King James Bible, Matthew)
8:19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
8:20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
(Luke)
2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord
2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.(King James Bible, Luke)
From these verses, it seems that Jesus had brothers, thus Mary and Joseph would have had sex, and there is nothing wrong with that. It also shows that Mary gave a sin offering, making her not 'sinless'. She had to be purified like everyone else. I try to keep the focus on Jesus, not Mary, lead folks to Jesus, He is the one who can save sinners.