Wrong Teaching About Mary

kieranwaldron

When I went through the Bible for my other thread in this section of the site titled " Beware of false Christian theologies ", I could not help but notice that Mary has been misrepresented by the Catholic Church in their teachings about her. One of those teachings is that she remained a virgin all her life. This assertion contradicts Scripture. In the following paragraphs, I examine this using the NIV (New International Version) of the Bible in my references.

The first clue lies in what is said in the Bible after the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, as recorded in Matthew 1:25 as follows : " But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." The clear indication here is that he did consummate the marrage after Jesus was born, as the use of the word " until " implies.

The second clue is in the the birth of Jesus as recorded in Luke 2:7: " and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. " The word " firsborn " in the context used should be interpreted as " oldest child ", which strongly implies that she had other children. The very same biblical author in Luke 1:57 reported the birth of a sole child to Elizabeth and Zacharias as follows : " When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby, she gave birth to a son. " Note the word firstborn is not used in the verse as it relates to the birth of the only child the couple had.

To get the third piece of confirmation, I first need to set the context for the biblical quote. Jesus was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth with his mother, step-father, Joseph, and their family. Until about the age of 30 he remained in Nazareth in waiting for his ministry to begin. He then went away from his home town, got babtised by JohnThe Babtist and began his ministry commencing preaching and declaring himself the son of God etc. Susequently, when he returned to Nazareth to declare his new status, the Jews who lived there queried who he was as recorded in Matt 13: 55-56: "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things. ? "
It is clear from the above quotation that his former neighbours were trying to place him by reference to those who used to live around him- Joseph, Mary and their children. The reference to brothers and sisters are the sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph. The Greek words giving rise to the translations brothers and sisters were alelphos and adelphe respectively. If these were his cousins or relatives, as some have claimed, then Matthew would have used different Greek words more appropriate to that relationship.

During the ministry of Jesus, lasting a little over three years in duration, not all the children of Mary and Joseph supported his claim to be the Messiah, giving rise to the following verse in John 7:5 in the Bible : " For even his own brothers did not believe in him." The translation here for brothers is from the Greek word meaning blood-brothers, gining us the fourth confirmation that Jesus had siblings.

The last confirmation comes after Jesus had died on the cross. Whilst his siblings did not support him during his live ministry, at least one of them, James, had a change of heart after Jesus resurrection, and then went on to play a significant role in the early church. Consequently, we get the following quotation from Paul in Galatians 1:19 in relation to a trip to Jerusalem : " I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.". This is confirmation from Paul that Jesus had at least one brother.

On this subject Scripture is the only source of true information, and it reveals that Mary had children other than Jesus Christ thereby disepelling the myth that she remained a virgin all her life. The fact that Mary had children by her husband Joseph, and raised them alongside Jesus, enhances her reputation. Mary was therefore normal, and not abnormal as taught by the " ever-virgin" brigade.

Peregrinus

While the gospels and the letters of Paul do confirm that Jesus had brothers and sisters, it doesn't say that they were Mary's children; they could have been Joseph's by his first wife (and this in in fact the traditional belief in Eastern Christianity).

And it's probably not helpful, if you wish to consider other Christian traditions, to mischaracterise them. Traditions which hold that Mary was ever-virgin do not teach that she was "abnormal". You may regard virginity as abnormal, but it's not a view you should impute to others.

kieranwaldron

Peregrinus wrote: »

While the gospels and the letters of Paul do confirm that Jesus had brothers and sisters, it doesn't say that they were Mary's children; they could have been Joseph's by his first wife (and this in in fact the traditional belief in Eastern Christianity).

And it's probably not helpful, if you wish to consider other Christian traditions, to mischaracterise them. Traditions which hold that Mary was ever-virgin do not teach that she was "abnormal". You may regard virginity as abnormal, but it's not a view you should impute to others.

My first two paragraphs strongly suggest that Mary had normal sexual relations with Joseph and children by him. There is no confirmation in the Bible that Joseph had a first wife giving rise to children. Furthermore, if in Gal 1:19, for example. he was such that would not make him the Lord's brother but a cousin through marriage, and Paul would not have used adelphos but the Greek word for cousin or relation instead.

I do consider it abnormal for a man to live with his wife for years and not to have sexual relations with her, especially when there was no obligation placed on either of them to remain celibate.

Peregrinus

kieranwaldron wrote: »

My first two paragraphs strongly suggest that Mary had normal sexual relations with Joseph and children by him.

Your first paragraphs do carry some weight, but they rely on parsing particular words taken from modern English translations of the gospels. I think they'd carry more weight if they looked at the language of the original Greek, with experts in that language confirming that the original words have the same connotations as you are attaching to the words chosen by the modern translators.

(I'm not saying that they don't have those connotations; just that an analysis of this kind which works entirely off the modern translation is not that persuasive.)

kieranwaldron wrote: »

There is no confirmation in the Bible that Joseph had a first wife giving rise to children.

No, but nor is there anything to suggest that Mary was Joseph's first or only wife.

Joseph has a fairly patchy representation in scripture, and he disappears entirely after the finding of the child Jesus in the Temple, when Jesus was about 12. This is in marked distinction to Mary, who makes regular appearances during Jesus' public ministry, and who indeed survives Jesus. Furthermore, one of Jesus' last acts is to make provision for Mary's future care, suggesting that Mary was dependent on Jesus.

A reasonably explanation for all this is that, some time between the finding in the Temple and the Baptism of Jesus, Joseph has died. And, while that's by no means conclusive, it's certainly consistent with the view that Joseph was older than Mary.

It's also significant that Jesus doesn't seem to expect that James, or any of his other brother and sisters, will look after Mary. Again, that's not conclusive - there could, for example, have been a big family falling-out - but it's consistent with the idea that Mary is not their mother.

The Eastern tradition is basically this; Joseph was an older man, a widower with children, and he married a second time at least in part because that was necessary in order to care for and raise his family. The scriptural record doesn't confirm this by any means, but it's entirely consistent with it.

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Furthermore, if in Gal 1:19, for example. he was such that would not make him the Lord's brother but a cousin through marriage, and Paul would not have used adelphos but the Greek word for cousin or relation instead.

Josephs' sons by another wife would not have been cousins to Jesus; they would have been stepbrothers or half-brothers for which, I think, the Greeks did use the word adelphos. If Joseph had been married twice, the children of both his wives would have been considered as, and spoken of, as brothers and sisters to one another.

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I do consider it abnormal for a man to live with his wife for years and not to have sexual relations with her, especially when there was no obligation placed on either of them to remain celibate.

You may consider it abnormal if you wish; that does not entitle you to say that the Catholic church teaches that Mary was abnormal. In saying that you are simply projecting your own views of what is "normal" onto the Catholic church. And if you're going to criticise the views of the Catholic church, it's important that what you criticise is, in fact, the view of the Catholic church; otherwise your criticism is pretty pointless.

Plus, if you think a bit further about the "second wife" reading of the scriptures, the notion that Mary and Joseph didn't have sex becomes might strike you as a bit less "abnormal". If Joseph is an older many who is marrying so that his existing children will have a mother-figure, it's entirely possible that he doesn't want any more children from his second marriage. In such circumstances, in that society, an abstinent marriage wouldn't be unknown, and certainly wouldn't be "abnormal".

Nekarsulm

It doesn't matted if you had one child or ten, your firstborn wil always be just that, your firstborn.
Then I suppose it depends on your definition of what constitutes a "virgin".
Someone who has never had penetrative sex, or someone whose hyman is unbroken?

It doesn't make much difference to the message of Christ, either way. But if I recall correctly, at the crucifixion, Jesus is reported to have looked down from the cross and addressed his Mother and brothers.

Peregrinus

Nekarsulm wrote: »

It doesn't make much difference to the message of Christ, either way. But if I recall correctly, at the crucifixion, Jesus is reported to have looked down from the cross and addressed his Mother and brothers.

One or more brothers of Jesus turn up on a few occasions in scripture but, as it happens, not at the crucifixion. Mary is there, but no brothers.

kieranwaldron

Peregrinus wrote: »

One or more brothers of Jesus turn up on a few occasions in scripture but, as it happens, not at the crucifixion. Mary is there, but no brothers.

I agree with you on this.

kieranwaldron

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your first paragraphs do carry some weight, but they rely on parsing particular words taken from modern English translations of the gospels. I think they'd carry more weight if they looked at the language of the original Greek, with experts in that language confirming that the original words have the same connotations as you are attaching to the words chosen by the modern translators.

(I'm not saying that they don't have those connotations; just that an analysis of this kind which works entirely off the modern translation is not that persuasive.)


No, but nor is there anything to suggest that Mary was Joseph's first or only wife.

Joseph has a fairly patchy representation in scripture, and he disappears entirely after the finding of the child Jesus in the Temple, when Jesus was about 12. This is in marked distinction to Mary, who makes regular appearances during Jesus' public ministry, and who indeed survives Jesus. Furthermore, one of Jesus' last acts is to make provision for Mary's future care, suggesting that Mary was dependent on Jesus.

A reasonably explanation for all this is that, some time between the finding in the Temple and the Baptism of Jesus, Joseph has died. And, while that's by no means conclusive, it's certainly consistent with the view that Joseph was older than Mary.

It's also significant that Jesus doesn't seem to expect that James, or any of his other brother and sisters, will look after Mary. Again, that's not conclusive - there could, for example, have been a big family falling-out - but it's consistent with the idea that Mary is not their mother.

The Eastern tradition is basically this; Joseph was an older man, a widower with children, and he married a second time at least in part because that was necessary in order to care for and raise his family. The scriptural record doesn't confirm this by any means, but it's entirely consistent with it.


Josephs' sons by another wife would not have been cousins to Jesus; they would have been stepbrothers or half-brothers for which, I think, the Greeks did use the word adelphos. If Joseph had been married twice, the children of both his wives would have been considered as, and spoken of, as brothers and sisters to one another.


You may consider it abnormal if you wish; that does not entitle you to say that the Catholic church teaches that Mary was abnormal. In saying that you are simply projecting your own views of what is "normal" onto the Catholic church. And if you're going to criticise the views of the Catholic church, it's important that what you criticise is, in fact, the view of the Catholic church; otherwise your criticism is pretty pointless.

Plus, if you think a bit further about the "second wife" reading of the scriptures, the notion that Mary and Joseph didn't have sex becomes might strike you as a bit less "abnormal". If Joseph is an older many who is marrying so that his existing children will have a mother-figure, it's entirely possible that he doesn't want any more children from his second marriage. In such circumstances, in that society, an abstinent marriage wouldn't be unknown, and certainly wouldn't be "abnormal".

I welcome constructive criticism of anything that I write on this site. I reply to the points made by you in your post, in the order you made them, as follows.

I use the NIV version of the Bible because it is written in modern English and not old English as is applicable to the original KJV Bible. By doing this, it is easier for people reading this thread, who are not necessarily Bible experts, to follow what is being said. The publisher of the NIV Bible gave consideration to previous versions, as well as to the original texts. Consequently, I only go back to the Greek, in the case of the NT, when the meaning of a verse hinges on the correct translation of a word (or words).

The mere fact that sexual relations is mentioned in Matthew 1:25 is proof for me that they took place, and God had foreknowledge of them. If their relationship was only ever meant to be platonic, then why mention them at all in a Bible verse ? I am therefore relying on reasonable inferences from the Bible text for my conclusions, and not on " parsing particular words ".

I don't think it undermines my case in any way that Jesus asked John from the cross to take care of Mary. We know of differences between Mary and Jesus's brothers regarding support for him during his ministry; and the precise family circumstances at the time of his death may also have had a bearing on his decision.

I don't think an inspired writer such as Paul would have used the Greek word for blood-brother in Galatians 1: 19 if there was no blood relationship at all as is applicable to half-brothers.

The word abnormal means " not normal ". If no sex took place in the relationship under review, then that is not normal, and I cannot see why you are objecting to the word used. I am therefore attacking advocates of the "ever- virgin" position , such as the Catholic Church, on their doctrine and nothing else.

In reply to your last paragraph, you are just employing more conjecture in assuming that Joseph was older than Mary. You overall appear to be making four unbiblical assumptions regarding Mary and Joseph's relationship in support of your stance, which are: 1. he was previously married; 2. he had children in his previous marriage; 3. he brought those children to live in the same house as him and his new wife; 4.he was older than her. That is a lot of unsupported assumptions to arrive at your position as against my reasonable interpretation of Bible text.

Skommando

Nekarsulm wrote: »

It doesn't matted if you had one child or ten, your firstborn wil always be just that, your firstborn.
Then I suppose it depends on your definition of what constitutes a "virgin".
Someone who has never had penetrative sex, or someone whose hyman is unbroken?

It doesn't make much difference to the message of Christ, either way. But if I recall correctly, at the crucifixion, Jesus is reported to have looked down from the cross and addressed his Mother and brothers.

why did he place "their" mother in the care of John and not her other "sons" ?

kieranwaldron

Skommando wrote: »

why did he place "their" mother in the care of John and not her other "sons" ?

This is irrelevant to the discussion on Mary's perpetual virginity, as my reply to Peregrinus above states.

martinedwards

It doesn't matter to the work of Christ as to whether Mary remained a virgin or not.

But the problem with it is that it would have been seen as a sinful circumstance in those times. Sex in marriage is (and was) not sinful. Celibacy was NOT the model God intended in marriage, so the later addition to the story to make people feel bad about sex actually downgrades Mary from her status as blessed among women

kieranwaldron

martinedwards wrote: »

It doesn't matter to the work of Christ as to whether Mary remained a virgin or not.

But the problem with it is that it would have been seen as a sinful circumstance in those times. Sex in marriage is (and was) not sinful. Celibacy was NOT the model God intended in marriage, so the later addition to the story to make people feel bad about sex actually downgrades Mary from her status as blessed among women

I agree wholly with these observations by you.

Skommando

kieranwaldron wrote: »

This is irrelevant to the discussion on Mary's perpetual virginity, as my reply to Peregrinus above states.

not really, if she had other sons as you've tried to claim it's very relevant, so that still leaves the question you've tried to dodge unanswered.

kieranwaldron

Skommando wrote: »

not really, if she had other sons as you've tried to claim it's very relevant, so that still leaves the question you've tried to dodge unanswered.

I am not aware that I tried to dodge any question. My reply to Peregrinus above explains my position which I reproduce as follows:
" I don't think it undermines my case in any way that Jesus asked John from the cross to take care of Mary. We know of differences between Mary and Jesus's brothers regarding support for him during his ministry; and the precise family circumstances at the time of his death may also have had a bearing on his decision."

Skommando

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I am not aware that I tried to dodge any question. My reply to Peregrinus above explains my position which I reproduce as follows:
" I don't think it undermines my case in any way that Jesus asked John from the cross to take care of Mary. We know of differences between Mary and Jesus's brothers regarding support for him during his ministry; and the precise family circumstances at the time of his death may also have had a bearing on his decision."

why did he place "their" mother in the care of John and not her other "sons" ?

solodeogloria

Skommando wrote: »

why did he place "their" mother in the care of John and not her other "sons" ?

Good evening!

As is key in all Biblical interpretation, we don't assume things unless we have warrant to do so.

We know two things from Scripture:

• Jesus had brothers and sisters
• John took Mary into his care after Jesus' crucifixion

We aren't explicitly told why, therefore we shouldn't assume it.

Likewise, if one is looking at this from a Biblical perspective, there is no warrant to believe that Mary remained perpetually a virgin after marriage to Joseph. I suspect this is the reason why those from a Reformed and a Protestant perspective have never believed it. In much the same way that they don't believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or that Mary was born sinless.

Although I believe the OP's previous post was bordering on heresy, the objections that he raises are entirely fair given what we know about this from Biblical sources. This seems to be a key difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Protestantism accepts that the Bible is the highest authority in matters of belief and practice. The Roman Catholic Church places tradition and the papal magisterium above this. Therefore, we're always going to find ourselves in disagreement in matters where the Roman Catholic Church deems itself to have authority over Scripture.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Skommando

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

As is key in all Biblical interpretation, we don't assume things unless we have warrant to do so.

We know two things from Scripture:

• Jesus had brothers and sisters
• John took Mary into his care after Jesus' crucifixion

We aren't explicitly told why, therefore we shouldn't assume it.

Likewise, if one is looking at this from a Biblical perspective, there is no warrant to believe that Mary remained perpetually a virgin after marriage to Joseph. I suspect this is the reason why those from a Reformed and a Protestant perspective have never believed it. In much the same way that they don't believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or that Mary was born sinless.

Although I believe the OP's previous post was bordering on heresy, the objections that he raises are entirely fair given what we know about this from Biblical sources. This seems to be a key difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Protestantism accepts that the Bible is the highest authority in matters of belief and practice. The Roman Catholic Church places tradition and the papal magisterium above this. Therefore, we're always going to find ourselves in disagreement in matters where the Roman Catholic Church deems itself to have authority over Scripture.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

It's a question, not an assumption. If you don't know the answer, or cannot offer any explanation, but instead launched into a straw man lecture about assumptions, what assumptions have you made ?

Also your claims are false, there is no universal view about the subject in Protestantism. Martin Luther believed that Mary remained a virgin.
Zwingli believed she remained a virgin also, as did the Anglican reformers Latimer and Crammer. John Wesley one of the founders of Methodism also supported the doctrine.

solodeogloria

Skommando wrote: »

It's a question, not an assumption. If you don't know the answer, or cannot offer any explanation, but instead launched into a straw man lecture about assumptions, what assumptions have you made ?

Also your claims are false, there is no universal view about the subject in Protestantism. Martin Luther believed that Mary remained a virgin.
Zwingli believed she remained a virgin also, as did the Anglican reformers Latimer and Crammer. John Wesley one of the founders of Methodism also supported the doctrine.

Good evening!

Simply put, to follow the principles of the Reformation. I need to apply sola scriptura to the matter.

If you can argue on the basis of Scripture, that there is a clear case for Mary's virginity, or that Mary had an immaculate conception, then I would defer to the Bible on the matter. From reading it through a few times I would strain to see how one could form a cogent argument on the basis of Scripture to justify it.

That's my point.

Feel free to come back with me, but from what I can tell the vast majority of Reformed thought has rejected the notion. I accept that some of the first wave of Reformers held on to aspects of Roman Catholic teaching, for example Luther on the Lord's supper (he disagreed strongly with Zwingli on this) and perhaps in this case also, but nonetheless it must come back to sola scriptura for me.

Looking into the methodology of how we handle the Bible to ensure that we don't make unwarranted assumptions is very very important.

I hope that helps.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Skommando

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Simply put, to follow the principles of the Reformation. I need to apply sola scriptura to the matter.

If you can argue on the basis of Scripture, that there is a clear case for Mary's virginity, or that Mary had an immaculate conception, then I would defer to the Bible on the matter. From reading it through a few times I would strain to see how one could form a cogent argument on the basis of Scripture to justify it.

That's my point.

Feel free to come back with me, but from what I can tell the vast majority of Reformed thought has rejected the notion. I accept that some of the first wave of Reformers held on to aspects of Roman Catholic teaching, for example Luther on the Lord's supper (he disagreed strongly with Zwingli on this) and perhaps in this case also, but nonetheless it must come back to sola scriptura for me.

Looking into the methodology of how we handle the Bible to ensure that we don't make unwarranted assumptions is very very important.

I hope that helps.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Did Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley not apply Sola Scriptura ? If not why not ? and how did they arrive at their conclusion regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary ? Also the Anglican Church, to which I believe you are a member, currently leaves this question open, and doesn't assume it as you have. Do they not hold to sola scriptura either ? Also if you are going to assume sola scriptura, can you please detail where the doctrine of sola scriptura is laid out and proven in scripture ?

solodeogloria

Skommando wrote: »

Did Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley not apply Sola Scriptura ? If not why not ? and how did they arrive at their conclusion regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary ? Also the Anglican Church, to which I believe you are a member, currently leaves this question open, and doesn't assume it as you have. Do they not hold to sola scriptura either ? Also if you are going to assume sola scriptura, can you please detail where the doctrine of sola scriptura is laid out and proven in scripture ?

Good evening!

If you can argue on the basis of Scripture as to why I should accept it, I'll happily hear you out. I want to play on the right pitch though. I think that's fair.

I've not assumed anything, other than if it isn't clearly stated in the Bible, I don't believe it. That's the method encouraged in the 39 Articles of Religion also.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Skommando

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If you can argue on the basis of Scripture as to why I should accept it, I'll happily hear you out. I want to play on the right pitch though. I think that's fair.

I've not assumed anything, other than if it isn't clearly stated in the Bible, I don't believe it. That's the method encouraged in the 39 Articles of Religion also.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

On what basis do you reject it ? and if so, on what basis do you believe Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley, who believed, accepted it and even promoted it, were wrong ? What else were they wrong on ?

You claim it must be clearly stated in the bible before you believe it. Where is her loss of virginity clearly stated in the bible ?
Where is sola scriptura clearly stated in the bible ? Where is the doctrine of the trinity clearly stated in scripture ?

Where in the 39 articles does it reject the perpetual virginity of Mary ?

martinedwards

Where does it even start to imply that it DID happen?

It doesn't mention anywhere in the Bible that Jesus had a beard.

it's safe to assume that he did as all Jewish men would have had beards.

If he had been clean shaven, then it's VERY likely that someone would have mentioned it.

As I stated earlier in the thread, IF may and Joseph had a sexless marriage, (or if she was born without sin), then it would have been mentioned as something out of the ordinary.

I KNOW that these are solid building blocks of the RC faith and they don't matter to the redemptive work of Jesus, so if RCs believe it then it's no skin off my nose!

Skommando

martinedwards wrote: »

Where does it even start to imply that it DID happen?

It doesn't mention anywhere in the Bible that Jesus had a beard.

it's safe to assume that he did as all Jewish men would have had beards.

let's see if solo delivers a straw man lecture this time about making assumptions . . .

martinedwards wrote: »

I KNOW that these are solid building blocks of the RC faith and they don't matter to the redemptive work of Jesus, so if RCs believe it then it's no skin off my nose!

If that is the case, why was her perpetual virginity important to Protestants such as Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, and Wesley ?

solodeogloria

Skommando wrote: »

On what basis do you reject it ? and if so, on what basis do you believe Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley, who believed, accepted it and even promoted it, were wrong ? What else were they wrong on ?

You claim it must be clearly stated in the bible before you believe it. Where is her loss of virginity clearly stated in the bible ?
Where is sola scriptura clearly stated in the bible ? Where is the doctrine of the trinity clearly stated in scripture ?

Where in the 39 articles does it reject the perpetual virginity of Mary ?

Good morning!

To be brief: basically if the Bible doesn't teach it, or rather if there is no verse stating it, I'm inclined not to believe it.

If you can show me clearly from the Scriptures then I will adopt that position. Until then I don't believe it.

Where the 39 Articles come in is here:

39 Articles of Religion wrote:

VI. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION

HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

In short - if it's not in the Bible or if it can't be proved from the Bible, I'm not required to believe it and my salvation doesn't depend on it. At present the perpetual virginity of Mary falls into that category.

I hope that helps.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Skommando

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

To be brief: basically if the Bible doesn't teach it, or rather if there is no verse stating it, I'm inclined not to believe it.

If you can show me clearly from the Scriptures then I will adopt that position. Until then I don't believe it.

In that case where is sola scriptura stated in scripture ?

And these questions are not posted in response to what you believe or don't believe, but rather the false claim that you made earlier that the Reformed and a Protestant perspective have never believed it.

solodeogloria wrote: »

In short - if it's not in the Bible or if it can't be proved from the Bible, I'm not required to believe it and my salvation doesn't depend on it. At present the perpetual virginity of Mary falls into that category.

Where does scripture say the bolded part ?

It also leads to the question, why Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley, who believed, accepted it and even promoted the doctrine ?
You're keen enough to quote these "reformers" whenever it suits, were they correct or incorrect ?

Also you claimed in this forum to be a member of the Anglican Church, which in fact, doesn't hold to sola scriptura (nor does Methodism), but by contrast prima scriptura, with sacred scripture also being interpreted in line with authentic apostolic tradition and reason.

solodeogloria

Skommando wrote: »

Also you claimed in this forum to be a member of the Anglican Church, which doesn't hold to sola scriptura (nor does Methodism), but by contrast prima scriptura, with Sacred Scripture being illumined by apostolic tradition and reason.

Good evening!

The definition of sola scriptura that I've quoted to you is from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The 39 Articles are central to Anglican theology and are a codification of essential Anglican belief. Basically, it tells me, that if it can't be proved from Scripture, I'm not under any obligation to believe it.

Now, I'm happy to consider a Biblical case as to why I should believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. That's the 'pitch' I'm referring to. We need to play on the right pitch for the discussion to be worthwhile. Otherwise, I think there are potentially more fruitful things to discuss.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Skommando

solodeogloria wrote: »

Basically, it tells me, that if it can't be proved from Scripture, I'm not under any obligation to believe it.

Again, the Anglican church'es doctrine is actually prima scriptura not sola scriptura.

If you believe in sola scriptura, where is sola scripture stated in scripture ?

Why did Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley, who believed, accepted it and even promoted the doctrine, were they correct or incorrect ?

Nick Park

Skommando wrote: »

Why did Luther, Zwingli, Latimer, Crammer, Wesley, who believed, accepted it and even promoted the doctrine, were they correct or incorrect ?

It always amuses me when I see a Roman Catholic adopting this argument with non-Catholics. It seems to project a Catholic view of tradition onto others, as if Luther etc were some kind of Church Father to be quoted as an authority.

Most non-Catholics don't feel bound by the views of Luther, Zwingli, Wesley or anyone else. They were fallible human beings who were right about some stuff and wrong about others - just like every theologian.

Skommando

Nick Park wrote: »

It always amuses me when I see a Roman Catholic . . .

I'm not a Roman Catholic, I'm not from the diocese of Rome (the correct use of Roman Catholic, as apposed to the Ian Pasiely intended style of use ). I'm an Irish Catholic, born in Ireland. I don't refer to Anglicans and Protestants or Presbyterians as English, German or Scottish ones.

Nick Park wrote: »

. . adopting this argument with non-Catholics.

The poster I was discussing it with, identifies as Anglican. Are Anglicans non Catholics in your opinion ?

Nick Park wrote: »

It seems to project a Catholic view of tradition onto others, as if Luther etc were some kind of Church Father to be quoted as an authority.

Most non-Catholics don't feel bound by the views of Luther, Zwingli, Wesley or anyone else. They were fallible human beings who were right about some stuff and wrong about others - just like every theologian.

That's your own projection not mine.

As I already said in my previous posts, that isn't why they were refereed to.

The assertion that was challenged was the false claim that "those from a Reformed and a Protestant perspective have never believed it", and the poster often makes references to Luther and other reformers as though they are Church fathers or an authority.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon,

Skommando wrote: »

The poster I was discussing it with, identifies as Anglican. Are Anglicans non Catholics in your opinion ?

And I've quoted you the sola-scriptura position given in the 39 Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer.

I'm not a Catholic. But a 'catholic' (lower case c) which means I'm a part of the universal church of Jesus Christ.

The church is also reformed. Meaning it subscribes to the principles of the Protestant Reformation. The Anglican Communion is a Protestant denomination in the fullest sense of the word. Hence why I call myself using many terms, Protestant, Evangelical, Reformed, Christian, Anglican because they are all compatible.

I think it's a touch rude to presume to teach me about the church I'm a member of, don't you?

I'm happy for you to present a Biblical argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'll accept it provided it's sufficiently persuasive.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Nick Park

Skommando wrote: »

I'm not a Roman Catholic, I'm not from the diocese of Rome (the correct use of Roman Catholic, as apposed to the Ian Pasiely intended style of use ). I'm an Irish Catholic, born in Ireland. I don't refer to Anglicans and Protestants or Presbyterians as English, German or Scottish ones.

Perhaps you should deliver this lecture to the bishops and clergy of your own denomination who frequently apply the designation "Roman Catholic" to themselves? I'm sure they'll appreciate the Paisleyite slur.

kieranwaldron

Whilst recent comments on this thread have been interesting, the reason that I opened it in the first instance was to compare the Catholic Church's teaching on the subject solely with Scripture. The latter supports the view that Mary had normal sexual relations with Joseph. If they were never meant to have sexual relations, as some claim, then why did Matthew mentioned them at all in a Bible verse ? The views of Luther, Crammer, Wesley etc on the subject are irrelevant- these are just the views of men who lived hundreds of years ago and had no particular insight on this subject.

Nick Park

Skommando wrote: »

I don't refer to Anglicans and Protestants or Presbyterians as English, German or Scottish ones.

Actually, I think you just did! :pac:

lmaopml

I'll just leave this here...

Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate. I feel the need to say that again, 'Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate'......Our Lady was a tabernacle of sorts and this raises her up as such. A person who can pray for us on request like the prayer of the most righteous. This is a person God listens to. This is a person Most Holy.

...and so we should, ask her to pray for us!

Do you really believe that God chose to become incarnate in just any single lady, and not 'being God' didn't have a plan to chose a perfect vessel? At the perfect time? Of course the same place Our Lord became incarnate would inevitably have 'brothers' - because that's what the Holy does - not!

Jesus and Mary will always end up being under scrutiny from anybody who is examining their faith . It's sad when Christians scrutinize Mary and don't understand that both Jesus and Mary are tied intricately. Question one, and question the other. There is only one faith that never reduces Mary to mere right time and place. She's important. She is not God no...she cannot save no, but she is important, her 'yes' was probably the most important 'yes' ever. A fantastic woman.

solodeogloria

lmaopml wrote: »

I'll just leave this here...

Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate. I feel the need to say that again, 'Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate'......Our Lady was a tabernacle of sorts and this raises her up as such. A person who can pray for us on request like the prayer of the most righteous. This is a person God listens to. This is a person Most Holy.

...and so we should, ask her to pray for us!

Do you really believe that God chose to become incarnate in just any single lady, and not 'being God' didn't have a plan to chose a perfect vessel? At the perfect time? Of course the same place Our Lord became incarnate would inevitably have 'brothers' - because that's what the Holy does - not!

Jesus and Mary will always end up being under scrutiny from anybody who is examining their faith . It's sad when Christians scrutinize Mary and don't understand that both Jesus and Mary are tied intricately. Question one, and question the other. There is only one faith that never reduces Mary to mere right time and place. She's important. She is not God no...she cannot save no, but she is important, her 'yes' was probably the most important 'yes' ever. A fantastic woman.

Good morning!

I watched the first 2 minutes of that, and I could already see numerous counterarguments to the video, that we've already been through here.

That aside, it's worth pointing out a number of things from your post:
1) The stuff about Mary being a tabernacle is extra Biblical. It also doesn't work with the idea that Jesus Himself is the temple that is with us from John chapter 4. Jesus is the temple here with us on earth, He provides us direct access to God anywhere, without the need of being in a physical temple on earth.

2) The idea of Mary or anyone else praying for us on request denotes a lack of faith that we have direct access to God the Father through Jesus Christ as a result of His death and resurrection. To quote what Jesus says about the privilege of prayer in John chapter 16:

John 16:26-28 ESVUK wrote:

In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

That is a huge privilege that you're missing out on if you insist that you need Mary as a go-between to make your prayers better heard. I think we should ask God the Father and pray to Him in Jesus' name like the Bible tells us to do.

3) The idea that Mary can't have children because she wouldn't be "holy" enough again isn't a Biblical idea. It's just that if we see the concept of Jesus having "brothers" or "sisters" the most logical conclusion is to take it at it's word.

4) As for the question do I think that God chose to be incarnate in just any single lady? Yes. I think He also chose to be born in a stable, which was lowly to say the least. God chooses very ordinary people to show His extraordinary power. The same could be said for Abraham and Sarah and the birth of Issac. If you claim that Mary was sinless or that God had a plan for her to be perfect, the only way you can satisfy a Protestant of that is by Biblical reference.

5) You're somehow interpreting questioning the Roman Catholic position with denegrating Mary. This isn't true. Most Protestants regard Mary as hugely important, and it's quite wrong to claim that we reduce her to a "time and a place", but to go to the extent of referring to her as the Queen of Heaven amongst other things is quite frankly where people find it ghastly, because it goes way way to far. It's more beautiful that Mary was an ordinary woman who submitted to God's command in bearing Jesus, than it is to elevate her nearly to the status of a demi-god.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

martinedwards

Totally agree with your final paragraph. Mary was blessed among women.
As to asking for her to pray for me?
Nah, Jesus told his disciples to pray "our father" not "hey Mary, put a word in for me"

hinault

lmaopml wrote: »

I'll just leave this here...

Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate. I feel the need to say that again, 'Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate'......Our Lady was a tabernacle of sorts and this raises her up as such. A person who can pray for us on request like the prayer of the most righteous. This is a person God listens to. This is a person Most Holy.

...and so we should, ask her to pray for us!

Do you really believe that God chose to become incarnate in just any single lady, and not 'being God' didn't have a plan to chose a perfect vessel? At the perfect time? Of course the same place Our Lord became incarnate would inevitably have 'brothers' - because that's what the Holy does - not!

Jesus and Mary will always end up being under scrutiny from anybody who is examining their faith . It's sad when Christians scrutinize Mary and don't understand that both Jesus and Mary are tied intricately. Question one, and question the other. There is only one faith that never reduces Mary to mere right time and place. She's important. She is not God no...she cannot save no, but she is important, her 'yes' was probably the most important 'yes' ever. A fantastic woman.

Excellent post.

It is subjects like these which iterate the importance of language, and people's ability to understand language.
This is the danger with various "versions" of the Bible.

The content of the Bible was settled long before 16th century. In the 16th century, heretics such as Martin Luther decided to create his own "bible" and as such Luther and all the various adherents lost their way and have done since.

In Catholicism, I'd urge that the Church return to the use of the Latin language. It is a language which contains far more precision than the English language.

To reiterate the point.

In Catholicism, the worship of God and God-alone is referred to as Latria.
Latria is translated in to English as Adoration. It is the highest form of worship and is reserved solely for God.

Dulia is the veneration of saints in Catholicism. Dulia translates as veneration in English.

Dulia and Latria are wholly different forms of worship.
There is an intermittent form of worship that sits between Dulia and Latria, this worship is called HyperDulia. In Catholicism, only Mary is subject to HyperDulia.

It is wholly correct that Mary is in receipt of this special veneration. It is God's will.

DrPhilG

hinault wrote: »

It is wholly correct that Mary is in receipt of this special veneration. It is God's will.

Says who?

solodeogloria

Good evening!

A few questions:

hinault wrote: »

It is subjects like these which iterate the importance of language, and people's ability to understand language.
This is the danger with various "versions" of the Bible.

What version of the Bible teaches that Mary was perpetually a virgin?

How does Matthew 1:24-25 read in that translation?

hinault wrote: »

The content of the Bible was settled long before 16th century. In the 16th century, heretics such as Martin Luther decided to create his own "bible" and as such Luther and all the various adherents lost their way and have done since.

The Protestant Old Testament is the same as the Hebrew Bible canon in the first century. This is the canon that Jesus would have used and have been familiar with during His ministry. We see that in Luke 11:51 in his ordering of the prophets. From Abel to Zechariah.

Isn't that just Luther insisting on using the same canon as Jesus did? You can interpret that as creating his own Bible but wouldn't that be dishonest?

hinault wrote: »

In Catholicism, I'd urge that the Church return to the use of the Latin language. It is a language which contains far more precision than the English language.

So to clarify - a translation of Hebrew and Greek into Latin is better than a translation from Hebrew and Greek into English? Why?

hinault wrote: »

In Catholicism, the worship of God and God-alone is referred to as Latria.
Latria is translated in to English as Adoration. It is the highest form of worship and is reserved solely for God.

How does this help with finding a Biblical basis for this view of Mary? Why should we just take the Roman Catholic Church's word for it?

hinault wrote: »

Dulia is the veneration of saints in Catholicism. Dulia translates as veneration in English.

Doesn't Paul call all Christian believers saints in his letters?

hinault wrote: »

Dulia and Latria are wholly different forms of worship.
There is an intermittent form of worship that sits between Dulia and Latria, this worship is called HyperDulia. In Catholicism, only Mary is subject to HyperDulia.

It is wholly correct that Mary is in receipt of this special veneration. It is God's will.

This is all well and good but as I've asked previously why should I take the Roman Catholic Church's word on it?

How does this help with a Biblical basis for these doctrines?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

hinault

solodeogloria wrote: »

but as I've asked previously why should I take the Roman Catholic Church's word on it?

Because you and your ilk took the word for it for the preceding 1,400 years.

That's why.

Good evening.:rolleyes:

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

It is subjects like these which iterate the importance of language, and people's ability to understand language.
This is the danger with various "versions" of the Bible.

The content of the Bible was settled long before 16th century. In the 16th century, heretics such as Martin Luther decided to create his own "bible" and as such Luther and all the various adherents lost their way and have done since.

In Catholicism, I'd urge that the Church return to the use of the Latin language. It is a language which contains far more precision than the English language.

Might I point out a self-defeating issue here (one which has consequences for you beyond just language)

In placing your trust in another to correctly interpret God's word for you, you express faith in your own ability to discern their occupying a loftier position than you.

You might say "but these people have studied the language more than I". To which I say "so what?" If you decide the studying of a language a most important element in correct communing with God ... then that is a faith expression regarding your own discernment.

There is no escape: the ultimate authority of your faith is you, whether you decide to be a "heretic" and study/draw conclusions for yourself. Or whether you decide to receive wholesale, the study/conclusions of The Magisterium (a.k.a. someone else).

It is you doing the deciding in both cases.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Might I point out a self-defeating issue here (one which has consequences for you beyond just language)

In placing your trust in another to correctly interpret God's word for you, you express faith in your own ability to discern their occupying a loftier position than you.

You might say "but these people have studied the language more than I". To which I say "so what?" If you decide the studying of a language a most important element in correct communing with God ... then that is a faith expression regarding your own discernment.

There is no escape: the ultimate authority of your faith is you, whether you decide to be a "heretic" and study/draw conclusions for yourself. Or whether you decide to receive wholesale, the study/conclusions of The Magisterium (a.k.a. someone else).

It is you doing the deciding in both cases.

Nope.

In Catholicism, one is required to accept the teaching of the Church. One is required to adhere to what the Church teaches.
Of course the choice to adhere remains with the individual.

The canon of the Bible was settled in the 4th century A.D.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Nope.

This doesn't compute. You say you do precisely what I suppose you do. Yet you say nope?

Compare:

ME: "you decide to receive wholesale, the study/conclusions of The Magisterium (a.k.a. someone else)."

YOU: "In Catholicism, one is required to accept the teaching of the Church. One is required to adhere to what the Church teaches. Of course the choice to adhere remains with the individual.


The point is that you are the ultimate authority of your faith and where it is placed.

The canon of the Bible was settled in the 4th century A.D.

Relevance (other than a person deciding the canon settled by folk something to which they will bow or otherwise)?

lazybones32

kieranwaldron wrote: »

When I went through the Bible for my other thread in this section of the site titled " Beware of false Christian theologies ", I could not help but notice that Mary has been misrepresented by the Catholic Church in their teachings about her. One of those teachings is that she remained a virgin all her life. This assertion contradicts Scripture. In the following paragraphs, I examine this using the NIV (New International Version) of the Bible in my references.

The first clue lies in what is said in the Bible after the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, as recorded in Matthew 1:25 as follows : " But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." The clear indication here is that he did consummate the marrage after Jesus was born, as the use of the word " until " implies.

The second clue is in the the birth of Jesus as recorded in Luke 2:7: " and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. " The word " firsborn " in the context used should be interpreted as " oldest child ", which strongly implies that she had other children. The very same biblical author in Luke 1:57 reported the birth of a sole child to Elizabeth and Zacharias as follows : " When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby, she gave birth to a son. " Note the word firstborn is not used in the verse as it relates to the birth of the only child the couple had.

To get the third piece of confirmation, I first need to set the context for the biblical quote. Jesus was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth with his mother, step-father, Joseph, and their family. Until about the age of 30 he remained in Nazareth in waiting for his ministry to begin. He then went away from his home town, got babtised by JohnThe Babtist and began his ministry commencing preaching and declaring himself the son of God etc. Susequently, when he returned to Nazareth to declare his new status, the Jews who lived there queried who he was as recorded in Matt 13: 55-56: "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things. ? "
It is clear from the above quotation that his former neighbours were trying to place him by reference to those who used to live around him- Joseph, Mary and their children. The reference to brothers and sisters are the sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph. The Greek words giving rise to the translations brothers and sisters were alelphos and adelphe respectively. If these were his cousins or relatives, as some have claimed, then Matthew would have used different Greek words more appropriate to that relationship.

During the ministry of Jesus, lasting a little over three years in duration, not all the children of Mary and Joseph supported his claim to be the Messiah, giving rise to the following verse in John 7:5 in the Bible : " For even his own brothers did not believe in him." The translation here for brothers is from the Greek word meaning blood-brothers, gining us the fourth confirmation that Jesus had siblings.

The last confirmation comes after Jesus had died on the cross. Whilst his siblings did not support him during his live ministry, at least one of them, James, had a change of heart after Jesus resurrection, and then went on to play a significant role in the early church. Consequently, we get the following quotation from Paul in Galatians 1:19 in relation to a trip to Jerusalem : " I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.". This is confirmation from Paul that Jesus had at least one brother.

On this subject Scripture is the only source of true information, and it reveals that Mary had children other than Jesus Christ thereby disepelling the myth that she remained a virgin all her life. The fact that Mary had children by her husband Joseph, and raised them alongside Jesus, enhances her reputation. Mary was therefore normal, and not abnormal as taught by the " ever-virgin" brigade.

The word "adelphos" is also used to describe the "...five hundred brothers and sisters..." that Jesus appeared to in I Cor 15:6. By your insistent stance that the inspired author could have chosen a different word, but didn't, to distinguish between blood-brothers and kin (cousins being called the same as blood-brothers is a common occurrence in Hindu/Indian, African languages, Spanish - I think - and the old Irish...), Mary, God bless her, had 500 babies after Jesus. Maybe we should re-dub her 'The never-Virgin Mary'? :eek:

(But even with so many brothers, why did Jesus give her to John? As a Jewish woman, she 'belonged' to her father, her husband or son. When her husband passed away, she passed to Jesus and then to another son...but...wait...)

Also, two of the four brothers you say are Jesus' blood-siblings are called the children of a different Mary in Mt 27. So, if scripture is the only true source of information on this subject, why does it contradict itself? And where does scripture say it is the only true source of information?

And lastly....being a virgin isn't abnormal; unless you consider Jesus to be abnormal? Or maybe He had kids too? Would love to hear your thoughts on that one.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Relevance (other than a person deciding the canon settled by folk something to which they will bow or otherwise)?

It's relevant because what constitutes the Bible was settled in the 4th century.

And deviation from what has already been settled is heresy.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

It's relevant because what constitutes the Bible was settled in the 4th century.

And deviation from what has already been settled is heresy.

Relevance to the point being made to you, namely:

".. you are the ultimate authority of your faith and where it is placed."

kieranwaldron

lazybones32 wrote: »

The word "adelphos" is also used to describe the "...five hundred brothers and sisters..." that Jesus appeared to in I Cor 15:6. By your insistent stance that the inspired author could have chosen a different word, but didn't, to distinguish between blood-brothers and kin (cousins being called the same as blood-brothers is a common occurrence in Hindu/Indian, African languages, Spanish - I think - and the old Irish...), Mary, God bless her, had 500 babies after Jesus. Maybe we should re-dub her 'The never-Virgin Mary'? :eek:

(But even with so many brothers, why did Jesus give her to John? As a Jewish woman, she 'belonged' to her father, her husband or son. When her husband passed away, she passed to Jesus and then to another son...but...wait...)

Also, two of the four brothers you say are Jesus' blood-siblings are called the children of a different Mary in Mt 27. So, if scripture is the only true source of information on this subject, why does it contradict itself? And where does scripture say it is the only true source of information?

And lastly....being a virgin isn't abnormal; unless you consider Jesus to be abnormal? Or maybe He had kids too? Would love to hear your thoughts on that one.

I reply to your points as follows:

1. The NIV Bible translates 1 Corinthians 15:16 as " brothers and sisters " while the KJV translates it as " brethren". Clearly the last is the correct translation because of the context applicable. It seems in the Greek language they do not have a separate word, other than adelphos, for brethren.

2. The fact that Jesus gave the care of Mary to one of his apostles is irrelevant, as he may have other family considerations in his decision.

3.Matthew 27:56 does not disprove that Jesus had brothers and sisters; it means Mary, the wife of Zebedee, had two sons with similar names to two of Jesus Christ's four brothers.

4. Jesus Christ was abnormal (i.e. not normal) because God set it up that way. The Bible tells us that " all have sinned " but he never did; he did not marry because God just wanted a son and not a line of His progeny; and he performed miracles like raising people from the dead to prove that he had God-given qualities.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Relevance to the point being made to you, namely:

".. you are the ultimate authority of your faith and where it is placed."

That's not a point that I made.:o

solodeogloria

lazybones32 wrote: »

The word "adelphos" is also used to describe the "...five hundred brothers and sisters..." that Jesus appeared to in I Cor 15:6. By your insistent stance that the inspired author could have chosen a different word, but didn't, to distinguish between blood-brothers and kin (cousins being called the same as blood-brothers is a common occurrence in Hindu/Indian, African languages, Spanish - I think - and the old Irish...), Mary, God bless her, had 500 babies after Jesus. Maybe we should re-dub her 'The never-Virgin Mary'? :eek:

(But even with so many brothers, why did Jesus give her to John? As a Jewish woman, she 'belonged' to her father, her husband or son. When her husband passed away, she passed to Jesus and then to another son...but...wait...)

Also, two of the four brothers you say are Jesus' blood-siblings are called the children of a different Mary in Mt 27. So, if scripture is the only true source of information on this subject, why does it contradict itself? And where does scripture say it is the only true source of information?

And lastly....being a virgin isn't abnormal; unless you consider Jesus to be abnormal? Or maybe He had kids too? Would love to hear your thoughts on that one.

Good morning!

Let's unpack this further.

Firstly - on 1 Corinthians you need to take some time on your bible handling. The first thing is context. In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul is referring to his brothers in the Christian church who are brought together by their heavenly Father. The passage in the gospel refers to Jesus' biological mother and "his brothers and sisters". Unlike the 1 Corinthians example it isn't referring to brothers in the church because it speaks of his siblings while referring to His mother. Your comment about Mary having 500 children is crude. We can regard these passages as referring to different things because the context is different. This is why I believe we need to spend more time in our Bibles to learn how to read them with God's help.

Secondly - there's potentially numerous explanations one could offer. Speculation isn't good though. The honest answer is we don't know. Jesus refers to two families in the Gospels. Our biological family and the truer more real family of believers. It's not illegitimate to give her to John, particularly if Mary had believed by then.

Thirdly - please make your point more clear on Matthew 27. Please quote the passage and explain what you mean.

Finally - being a virgin is not abnormal if you are single. It is weird if you're married. Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph didn't know Mary until Jesus was born. That implies that he did afterwards. So does having brothers and sisters.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

lazybones32

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I reply to your points as follows:

1. The NIV Bible translates 1 Corinthians 15:16 as " brothers and sisters " while the KJV translates it as " brethren". Clearly the last is the correct translation because of the context applicable. It seems in the Greek language they do not have a separate word, other than adelphos, for brethren.

2. The fact that Jesus gave the care of Mary to one of his apostles is irrelevant, as he may have other family considerations in his decision.

3.Matthew 27:56 does not disprove that Jesus had brothers and sisters; it means Mary, the wife of Zebedee, had two sons with similar names to two of Jesus Christ's four brothers.

4. Jesus Christ was abnormal (i.e. not normal) because God set it up that way. The Bible tells us that " all have sinned " but he never did; he did not marry because God just wanted a son and not a line of His progeny; and he performed miracles like raising people from the dead to prove that he had God-given qualities.

I was away on holiday but now I'll reply to your points as follows:

1. The point was that adelphos doesn't specifically mean blood-brothers or siblings when used in the NT. Yet you insist, in your first post, that it does. It is the correct Greek word to describe a sibling but it doesn't only mean that.

2: It was relevant enough for the author to include it and God allowed it to become part of scripture, so it must have some value to us.
I already wrote that if Jesus had other brothers or sisters, the care of Mary would pass to them with the death of Jesus. Jesus, from the cross, gave John to Mary and gave Mary to John. If Mary had another son or daughter, they would be required to care for her, not John, regardless of other considerations. Scripture is littered with lists of duties and requirements toward parents and Jesus even reprimanded the scribes for allowing people to give gifts as a sacrifice to God when the gift should have been given to help the donors parents (This is corban).

3: Neither does it prove the point you are making. You are filling in gaps without biblical evidence. The only definitive relationship that scripture tells us exists between Mary and any child, is the relationship to Jesus as his Mother. It doesn't say she had other sons or daughters.
I haven't made a claim that Mary didn't have children. You made a claim that Mary had. I asked where the other children were when it was their time to fulfill their God-given duty towards their mother...and the best you can reply with is conjecture about other considerations?


4: Jesus was normal. True God, true Man. Scripture doesn't give personal details about the choices and decisions Jesus made, so it is not right for anyone to definitively say why he didn't marry.

kieranwaldron

lazybones32 wrote: »

I was away on holiday but now I'll reply to your points as follows:

1. The point was that adelphos doesn't specifically mean blood-brothers or siblings when used in the NT. Yet you insist, in your first post, that it does. It is the correct Greek word to describe a sibling but it doesn't only mean that.

2: It was relevant enough for the author to include it and God allowed it to become part of scripture, so it must have some value to us.
I already wrote that if Jesus had other brothers or sisters, the care of Mary would pass to them with the death of Jesus. Jesus, from the cross, gave John to Mary and gave Mary to John. If Mary had another son or daughter, they would be required to care for her, not John, regardless of other considerations. Scripture is littered with lists of duties and requirements toward parents and Jesus even reprimanded the scribes for allowing people to give gifts as a sacrifice to God when the gift should have been given to help the donors parents (This is corban).

3: Neither does it prove the point you are making. You are filling in gaps without biblical evidence. The only definitive relationship that scripture tells us exists between Mary and any child, is the relationship to Jesus as his Mother. It doesn't say she had other sons or daughters.
I haven't made a claim that Mary didn't have children. You made a claim that Mary had. I asked where the other children were when it was their time to fulfill their God-given duty towards their mother...and the best you can reply with is conjecture about other considerations?


4: Jesus was normal. True God, true Man. Scripture doesn't give personal details about the choices and decisions Jesus made, so it is not right for anyone to definitively say why he didn't marry.

I reply to your post in the order of your points as follows:

1. The word adelphos is used in the NT in all instances of blood brothers. However, a person has to be careful of it in certain instances because there isn't a separate Greek word for brethren. Corinthians 15:16 is an example of this where the correct translation of it is brethren (meaning "followers") because of the context used.

2.The fact that Jesus Christ gave the care of Mary from the cross to John is irrelevant to the topic under discussion on this thread, which is the perpetual virginity of Mary.

3. The assertion made by you in your post dated the 6.1.17 that two of the four brothers listed as Jesus siblings belonged to " the other Mary " is incorrect, as Matthew in the Bible is taking about two different sets of brothers in the applicable quotations.

4. Jesus Christ had two natures -that of man and God at the same time, which makes him abnormal because no other human being who ever lived had this.