It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[twinc]

so why is it believed and accepted that Mary had children other than Jesus - twinc

 

[BreadOfLife]

so why is it believed and accepted that Mary had children other than Jesus - twinc

It's only believed in and accepted by non-Catholics.
It was simply used as a means to further separate themselves from the original tree that they splintered from.

 

[Stranger]

so why is it believed and accepted that Mary had children other than Jesus - twinc

Because that is the testimony of Scripture.

What you should be asking is , 'what is the purpose of Mary being a perpetual virgin?', as taught by the Roman church.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Because that is the testimony of Scripture.

What you should be asking is , 'what is the purpose of Mary being a perpetual virgin?', as taught by the Roman church.

Stranger

It's only the "testimony of Scripture" to the ignorant.
If Scripture is clear about anything - it's that Mary didn't have any children other than Jesus.

I've explained the many uses of the words Adelphos and Adelphe ad nauseam on other threads - but they have fallen on deaf ears that choose to remain ignorant on the topic. Here's an interesting little bit of statistics. Look each on up for yourself if you disagree . . .


[SIZE=20pt]The Use of "Brothers" in the NT[/SIZE]
Cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling: [SIZE=11pt]41 [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]12%[/SIZE]
Cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling: [SIZE=11pt]47 [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]14%[/SIZE]
Cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling: [SIZE=11pt]256 [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]74%[/SIZE]
Total occurrences of "Adelphos" and Adelphe": 344 100%


Mt 1:11 Joh 1:40 Ac 28:15 2Co 13:11 Heb 7:5 Mt 1:2 Joh 1:41 Ac 28:17 Ga 1:2 Heb 8:11 Mt 10:2 Joh 11:19 Ac 28:21 Ga 1:11 Heb 10:19 Mt 10:21 Joh 11:2 Ro 1:13 Ga 1:19 Heb 13:22 Mt 12:46 Joh 11:21 Ro 7:1 Ga 3:15 Heb 13:23 Mt 12:47 Joh 11:23 Ro 7:4 Ga 4:12 Jas 1:2 Mt 12:48 Joh 11:32 Ro 8:12 Ga 4:28 Jas 1:9 Mt 12:49 Joh 2:12 Ro 8:29 Ga 4:31 Jas 1:16 Mt 12:50 Joh 20:17 Ro 9:3 Ga 5:11 Jas 1:19 Mt 13:55 Joh 21:23 Ro 10:1 Ga 5:13 Jas 2:1 Mt 14:3 Joh 6:8 Ro 11:25 Ga 6:1 Jas 2:5 Mt 17:1 Joh 7:10 Ro 12:1 Ga 6:18 Jas 2:14 Mt 18:15 Joh 7:3 Ro 14:10 Eph 6:10 Jas 2:15 Mt 18:21 Joh 7:5 Ro 14:13 Eph 6:21 Jas 3:1 Mt 18:35 Ac 1:14 Ro 14:15 Eph 6:23 Jas 3:10 Mt 19:29 Ac 1:15 Ro 14:21 Php 1:12 Jas 3:12 Mt 20:24 Ac 1:16 Ro 15:14 Php 1:14 Jas 4:11 Mt 22:24 Ac 2:29 Ro 15:15 Php 2:25 Jas 5:7 Mt 22:25 Ac 2:37 Ro 15:30 Php 3:1 Jas 5:9 Mt 23:8 Ac 3:17 Ro 16:14 Php 3:13 Jas 5:10 Mt 25:40 Ac 3:22 Ro 16:17 Php 3:17 Jas 5:12 Mt 28:10 Ac 6:3 Ro 16:23 Php 4:1 Jas 5:19 Mt 4:18 Ac 7:2 1Co 1:1 Php 4:8 1Pe 5:12 Mt 4:21 Ac 7:13 1Co 1:10 Php 4:21 2Pe 1:10 Mt 5:22 Ac 7:23 1Co 1:11 Col 1:1 2Pe 3:15 Mt 5:23 Ac 7:25 1Co 1:26 Col 1:2 1Jo 2:7 Mt 5:24 Ac 7:26 1Co 2:1 Col 4:7 1Jo 2:9 Mt 5:47 Ac 7:37 1Co 3:1 Col 4:9 1Jo 2:10 Mt 7:3 Ac 9:17 1Co 4:6 Col 4:15 1Jo 2:11 Mt 7:4 Ac 9:30 1Co 5:11 1Th 1:4 1Jo 3:10 Mt 7:5 Ac 10:23 1Co 6:5 1Th 2:1 1Jo 3:12 Mr 1:16 Ac 11:1 1Co 6:6 1Th 2:9 1Jo 3:13 Mr 1:19 Ac 11:12 1Co 6:8 1Th 2:14 1Jo 3:14 Mr 10:29 Ac 11:29 1Co 7:12 1Th 2:17 1Jo 3:15 Mr 10:30 Ac 12:2 1Co 7:15 1Th 3:2 1Jo 3:16 Mr 12:19 Ac 12:17 1Co 7:24 1Th 3:7 1Jo 3:17 Mr 12:20 Ac 13:15 1Co 7:29 1Th 4:1 1Jo 4:20 Mr 13:12 Ac 13:26 1Co 8:11 1Th 4:6 1Jo 4:21 Mr 3:17 Ac 13:38 1Co 8:12 1Th 4:10 1Jo 5:16 Mr 3:31 Ac 14:2 1Co 8:13 1Th 4:13 3Jo 1:3 Mr 3:32 Ac 15:1 1Co 9:5 1Th 5:1 3Jo 1:5 Mr 3:33 Ac 15:3 1Co 10:1 1Th 5:4 3Jo 1:10 Mr 3:34 Ac 15:7 1Co 11:2 1Th 5:12 Jude 1:1 Mr 3:35 Ac 15:13 1Co 11:33 1Th 5:14 Re 1:9 Mr 5:37 Ac 15:22 1Co 12:1 1Th 5:25 Re 6:11 Mr 6:17 Ac 15:23 1Co 14:6 1Th 5:26 Re 12:10 Mr 6:18 Ac 15:32 1Co 14:20 1Th 5:27 Re 19:10 Mr 6:3 Ac 15:33 1Co 14:26 2Th 1:3 Re 22:9 Lu 12:13 Ac 15:36 1Co 14:39 2Th 2:1 Mt 19:29 Lu 14:12 Ac 15:40 1Co 15:1 2Th 2:13 Mt 13:56 Lu 14:26 Ac 16:2 1Co 15:6 2Th 2:15 Mr 10:29 Lu 15:27 Ac 16:40 1Co 15:50 2Th 3:1 Lu 10:39 Lu 15:32 Ac 17:6 1Co 15:58 2Th 3:6 Ac 23:16 Lu 16:28 Ac 17:10 1Co 16:11 2Th 3:13 Joh 11:28 Lu 17:3 Ac 17:14 1Co 16:12 2Th 3:15 Mr 10:30 Lu 18:29 Ac 18:18 1Co 16:15 1Ti 4:6 1Co 7:15 Lu 20:28 Ac 18:27 1Co 16:20 1Ti 5:1 Lu 10:40 Lu 20:29 Ac 20:32 2Co 1:1 1Ti 6:2 Mr 3:35 Lu 21:16 Ac 21:7 2Co 1:8 2Ti 4:21 Mt 12:50 Lu 22:32 Ac 21:17 2Co 2:13 Phm 1:1 1Co 9:5 Lu 3:1 Ac 21:20 2Co 8:1 Phm 1:7 Ro 16:1 Lu 3:19 Ac 22:1 2Co 8:18 Phm 1:16 Jas 2:15 Lu 6:14 Ac 22:5 2Co 8:22 Phm 1:20 Lu 14:26 Lu 6:41 Ac 22:13 2Co 8:23 Heb 2:11 Mr 6:3 Lu 6:42 Ac 23:1 2Co 9:3 Heb 2:12 Joh 11:39 Lu 8:19 Ac 23:5 2Co 9:5 Heb 2:17 Joh 11:1 Lu 8:20 Ac 23:6 2Co 11:9 Heb 3:1 Joh 11:5 Lu 8:21 Ac 28:14 2Co 12:18 Heb 3:12 Joh 19:25 Ro 16:15 2Jo 1:13 1Ti 5:2 Joh 11:3

 

[Stranger]

BreadOfLife

Again, stats are just another way of lying.

Again, why is it so important that Mary be a perpetual virgin?

Stranger

 

[Mungo]

BreadOfLife

Again, stats are just another way of lying.

Again, why is it so important that Mary be a perpetual virgin?

Stranger

Mary's perpetual virginity bears witness to the uniqueness and Christ and to the divinity of Christ.

Denying the perpetual virginity of Mary subtly denies the divinity of Christ in the womb.

 

[mjrhealth]

Mary's perpetual virginity bears witness to the uniqueness and Christ and to the divinity of Christ.

Denying the perpetual virginity of Mary subtly denies the divinity of Christ in the womb.

Does nothing of teh sort, bible says He was born of a virgin, and He was, after that it doesnt matter, teh task set before her was complete, she did as she was asked. If she slept with ten other men after that it would not matter teh promise is still fulfilled. Christ is no longer in the womb after He is born, is he??

 

[epostle1]

BreadOfLife

Again, stats are just another way of lying.

Again, why is it so important that Mary be a perpetual virgin?

Stranger

So you dismiss 344 Bible verses and say stats are another way of lying? What a dishonest cop out!
It's important because it is the truth.
I suppose all the early reformers that believed the PV don't count.
And the unanimous consent of the ECF don't count.
Mary having other children was invented by liberal Protestants influenced by skeptics and atheists in the 19th century. It's a false tradition of men, made popular by a growing number of Protestants only recently. And they say WE are deceived???
Jesus' "Brothers" and Mary's Perpetual Virginity <best scripture based refutation of the "Jesus' brothers" lie I have yet found.

 

[Mungo]

The founders of the Reformation believed that Mary was ever-virgin

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

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.)

John Calvin:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

Does that mean that the founders of the Reformation were heretics promoting false doctrines?
Was Protestantism founded by heretics?

 

[Mungo]

Does nothing of teh sort, bible says He was born of a virgin, and He was, after that it doesnt matter, teh task set before her was complete, she did as she was asked. If she slept with ten other men after that it would not matter teh promise is still fulfilled. Christ is no longer in the womb after He is born, is he??

Do you then see God as an abuser of women? Someone who took a wife from her husband for his own purposes and then handed her back after he had finished with her?

 

[Stranger]

Mary's perpetual virginity bears witness to the uniqueness and Christ and to the divinity of Christ.

Denying the perpetual virginity of Mary subtly denies the divinity of Christ in the womb.

The virgin birth bears witness, and was necessary for The Son of God to accomplish salvation for man. There is no need for a 'perpetual virginity'. It serves no purpose, other than to give Mary a place God never intended.

To deny Mary's perpetual virginity in no way affects my faith in Christ as God the Son. You however place a belief in Mary equal with a belief in Christ.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

The founders of the Reformation believed that Mary was ever-virgin

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

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.)

John Calvin:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

Does that mean that the founders of the Reformation were heretics promoting false doctrines?
Was Protestantism founded by heretics?

It means they were wrong concerning Mary's perpetual virginity. Remember they were part of the Roman Church also for years. Thus they would be affected by it. They were drawing the line in some areas of doctrine, but not in all.

The Reformers were correct in dividing where they did. In other areas they didn't go far enough. It would be left to others to do so.

Well, according to Rome, yes Protestantism was founded by heretics.

Stranger

 

[Mungo]

The virgin birth bears witness, and was necessary for The Son of God to accomplish salvation for man. There is no need for a 'perpetual virginity'.

You asked why it was important that Mary was a perpetual virgin but when given an answer you fail to engage with it. Instead you just retreat into denial.

It serves no purpose, other than to give Mary a place God never intended.

How can you be so sure of what God intended?

Do you claim to know the mind of God?

 

[Mungo]

It means they were wrong concerning Mary's perpetual virginity.

If they were wrong about that, how many other things were they wrong about?

Remember they were part of the Roman Church also for years. Thus they would be affected by it. They were drawing the line in some areas of doctrine, but not in all.

The Reformers were correct in dividing where they did. In other areas they didn't go far enough. It would be left to others to do so.

That's a non answer - a cop out!

These founding reformers seemed quite able to challenge the Catholic Church on many other issues.

But you are right on one point - it would be left to others to go further and further from the truth.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife

Again, stats are just another way of lying.

Again, why is it so important that Mary be a perpetual virgin?

Stranger

Translation:
"That is way too much evidence and I'm not even going to try to refute it."

Nothing but a gigantic cop-out.

As to your question - about WHY it's "important" that Mary be a perpetual Virgin - it's because we believe in God.
His Word shows us through prophecy, type and fulfillment that she was to remain a virgin If God lied about that - then ALL of Scripture is a lie.

 

[Born_Again]

Translation:
"That is way too much evidence and I'm not even going to try to refute it."

Nothing but a gigantic cop-out.

Regardless of my standpoint, this made me chuckle!!! LOL

I guess the same question could be asked the other way... Why is it important that she not be a virgin after Christs birth? What troubles me about a lot of these debates is it seems more time is taken to disprove each other than time spent following what Christ commanded us to do. I have recently be convicted in my circumstance of what my priorities are. I may start a thread to elaborate and ask a question or two of the forum. Carry on!!

 

[Stranger]

You asked why it was important that Mary was a perpetual virgin but when given an answer you fail to engage with it. Instead you just retreat into denial.


How can you be so sure of what God intended?

Do you claim to know the mind of God?

Yes I know what you answered and I showed you that I disagree with your answer. Mary's perpetual virginity is not needed to show any uniqueness to Christ and neither does it do anything for His Divinity. It is not necessary. The virgin birth was necessary. Perpetual virginity is not.

I can be sure because of what is written in the Scripture.

I can know the things revealed to us. I can know the mind of God to the extent that I understand the Revelation He has given.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

If they were wrong about that, how many other things were they wrong about?


That's a non answer - a cop out!

These founding reformers seemed quite able to challenge the Catholic Church on many other issues.

But you are right on one point - it would be left to others to go further and further from the truth.

Well, they could be wrong about other things. Which they were. But we have the Scripture to be our judge.

My answer is not a cop out. It is the answer. Though they did move away from the Roman church, they didn't move far enough.

Ah, you're being deceptive. I can't be right in saying that others would go farther from the truth. Because I didn't say it.

Stranger

 

[Mungo]

Yes I know what you answered and I showed you that I disagree with your answer. Mary's perpetual virginity is not needed to show any uniqueness to Christ and neither does it do anything for His Divinity. It is not necessary. The virgin birth was necessary. Perpetual virginity is not.

I didn't suggest it was necessary.

You didn't ask if it was necessary.

You asked "why is it so important that Mary be a perpetual virgin?"

Typically you try and switch the terms in the middle of the discussion.

I can be sure because of what is written in the Scripture.

I can know the things revealed to us. I can know the mind of God to the extent that I understand the Revelation He has given.

Stranger

You can know your personal (and presumable fallible) interpretation of what God has revealed to us.

But unless you consider yourself infallible you cannot be sure.

 

[Stranger]

Translation:
"That is way too much evidence and I'm not even going to try to refute it."

Nothing but a gigantic cop-out.

As to your question - about WHY it's "important" that Mary be a perpetual Virgin - it's because we believe in God.
His Word shows us through prophecy, type and fulfillment that she was to remain a virgin If God lied about that - then ALL of Scripture is a lie.

God never said Mary was to be a perpetual virgin.

Stranger