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

[mjrhealth]

You mean like God did? I sure would hate to do that.

He never did, "thou shalt have no other Gods before Me",, just mens doing than winking at God as if He was so foolish.

 

[mjrhealth]

go and multiply - so not just Mary but even more so Jesus did not do as requested - twinc

Jesus had a reason Mary didnt.

 

[twinc]

You are an odd one//

You are an odd one//

letnus just simply ask did the Jews leaders accept that Joseph was only foster father to Jesus, as we do now - twinc

 

[mjrhealth]

letnus just simply ask did the Jews leaders accept that Joseph was only foster father to Jesus, as we do now - twinc

I have no idea what that has to do with the topic, Mary was a virgin at our Lords conception and birth in fulfillment of prophecy, anything after is irrelevant and changes nothing.

Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

The Catholic Church has always defended the Truth of scripture.

Scripture only names Jesus as her child. That is the truth.
Scripture only describes Mary as a virgin. That is the truth.
Adelphos does NOT mean blood brother. That is the truth.
Brothers and sisters are used in scripture in other instances and it does not mean blood brothers and sisters: Genesis 13:8, 1 Cor. 15:6. However anti-perpetual virginity Protestants won't admit that. That is the truth.
In John 20 Jesus said to Mary M., "Go instead to my brothers and tell them...". Who did Mary M. go and tell? The disciples, who were not his blood brothers. That is the truth.
Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, is mentioned in Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40 and she is CLEARLY not Mary, the mother of Jesus. However protestants want to act like it was never written. That is the truth.

The truth is this tradition of claiming that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters gained traction AFTER the reformation when anti-Catholism took root. They threw away 2,000 years of Christian teaching and belief in an effort to discredit the RCC.

The truth is the Protestant Reformers themselves, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible. Most Protestants adhere to that teaching.

The good news is if you believe one or the other, it doesn't affect your salvation.

The bad news is if you pretend that scripture says that Mary had children other than Jesus, you are being dishonest about what scripture says and what 2,000 years of Christian history has taught.

Mary

It seems to me that it's VERY important for the CC to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.

From your answer I can assume that you feel the reason is because it is THE TRUTH.
Which is a valid reason, of course.

Do you know of any ECF who spoke to this?
I can't remember any.

I sometimes feel it might be because the CC wanted to raise Mary to such a high ideal, although I've never understood why.

If she were so important, wouldn't there be more written about her?

I do find very interesting that, from the cross, Jesus said John This Is Your Mother...
Did she not have sons that could care for her?
What do you think of this?
Did Jesus mean this in a personl way?

 

[GodsGrace]

GodsGrace,

Interesting question!

Thayer's lexicon in its entry on adelphos gives one meaning as, 'A brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father, or only of the same mother' (source). That meaning is found in the Greek literature, so it is not original with the RCC.

Matt 1:25 (ESV): 'but [Joseph] knew her not until she [Mary] had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus'. :

Matt 13:55-56 (ESV):

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”​

See this in the Greek text::

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 13:55-56 SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)
55 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός; οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ [adelphoi] αὐτοῦ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας; 56 καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ [adelphai] αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν; πόθεν οὖν τούτῳ ταῦτα πάντα;​

Adelphos literally means, 'from the same womb' (Thayer's Lexicon).

Here in Matthew 13:55, the brothers are named in what seems to be the order of their birth: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. There is a statement here that Jesus had sisters, but their names are missing according to Matt 13:56. We also have examples from Matt 12:46-49; Mark 3:31 and Luke 8:19 that 'Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him'.

The issue you ask surrounds the meaning of adelphoi, which is the masculine, nominative case. plural of the singular, adelphos. Does this mean brother or cousin?

Adelphai is the feminine, nominative case, plural of the singular adelphe (sister).

I do not have access to my hard copies of Arndt & Gingrich Greek Lexicon and the Thayer Greek Lexicon as I'm moving house and they are packed in boxes in my garage, awaiting the removalist. However, Thayer's lexicon is available in pdf online.

Why don't you take a read of the meaning of adelphos HERE. After studying the Greek literature, Thayer's conclusion was that Jesus' own brothers, born after Jesus, are 'principally clear' from Matt 1:25 and Lk 2:7. He stated that if Mary had no other children after Jesus, a different Greek expression would have been used, e.g. huion monogenes would have been used instead of huion prwtotokon (which is in some MSS).

I'm comfortable with the Greek of passages like Matt 13: 55-56 (SBLGNT) that endorse the brothers and sisters of Jesus as blood relatives (half brothers and half-sisters) and not cousins. Do you see any significant doctrine affected if adelphos means brother or cousin?

I write this for your consideration. It could be wrong and I'd appreciate your showing me where it fails the biblical test.

Oz

Oz,

I don't think anything you say fails the biblical test.

I highlighted two statements above.
I AM a little bit confused as to this:
ADELPHOS means literally, "from the same womb". (I did download the Lexicon)
Then HOW could they possibly be HALF brothers or sisters --- children of Joseph from a previous marriage as some catholic theologians state.

It seems to me it would have to be one or the other.
There IS much confusion about this IMO.

The second statement highlighted is very interesting to me:
Mathew 13:56-57

Jesus is saying He was not accepted in His own household. The onlookers were saying, with wrath, that if Jesus were so different, wouldn't Mary or Joseph have mentioned it to someone? (in normal conversation). Meaning, in my understanding... that Jesus was just like His brothers.

See John 7:5

 

[OzSpen]

Do you know of any ECF who spoke to this [Mary's perpetual virginity]?
I can't remember any.

GodsGrace,

St Augustine wrote of Mary: '.... the Virgin, a true but inviolate Mother, gave birth to Him who became visible for our sake and by whom she herself was created. A virgin conceives, yet remains a virgin; a virgin is heavy with child; a virgin brings forth her child, yet she is always a virgin’ (Sermon 186.1, emphasis added).

Oz

 

[bbyrd009]

antichrist yack, found nowhere in the Book

 

[OzSpen]

I AM a little bit confused as to this:
ADELPHOS means literally, "from the same womb". (I did download the Lexicon)
Then HOW could they possibly be HALF brothers or sisters --- children of Joseph from a previous marriage as some catholic theologians state.

It seems to me it would have to be one or the other.
There IS much confusion about this IMO.

GodsGrace,

While the literal meaning of adelphos is 'from the womb', if you read Thayer on that word, you will see that it has a number of other relationship meanings. In fact, one of the meaning refers to brother and sister in Christ, i.e. Christians.

They can be half brothers or half sisters because Joseph was the human father and for Jesus, Mary was impregnated another way and it wasn't by Joseph.

The second statement highlighted is very interesting to me:
Mathew 13:56-57

Jesus is saying He was not accepted in His own household. The onlookers were saying, with wrath, that if Jesus were so different, wouldn't Mary or Joseph have mentioned it to someone? (in normal conversation). Meaning, in my understanding... that Jesus was just like His brothers.

See John 7:5

In physical appearance there would have been some similarity because of the marital union that involved Mary, who was also involved with Jesus' conception and birth.

Gotta run as I have my final open house for the sale of my house (even though I have a contract on it). I have some tidying and dry mopping to do. Perhaps we can talk about these issues later.

Blessings,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

antichrist yack, found nowhere in the Book

bb,

Which Bible are you reading? You have come to a conclusion here that is not in Scripture. Let's check the Bible:

• 1 John 2:18 (NIV), 'Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour'.
• 1 John 2:22 (NIV), 'Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son'.
• 1 John 4:3 (NIV), 'but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world'.
• 2 John 1:7 (NIV), 'I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist'.

The great AntiChrist is Satan himself: 'The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him' (Rev 12:9 NIV).

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

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?

Abuser, He did ask, but please dont let teh truth get in teh way of ones religion????

 

[Helen]

please don't let the truth get in the way of ones religion????

Haha!! Love that, I don't remember hearing it before...is that an original or have I just not heard it?
I'll have to remember it, it's a cute 'come back' sounds more like something bbyrd009 would say. LOL

 

[pia]

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

Hello there 'Mungo', haven't 'seen' you on a forum for years now. Had heard that you were back.
In relation to your post, imho ALL the various religious traditions and observances have been input by men, and not God Himself . Jesus even had to try to show the 'teachers' of the Hebrews, how they had misinterpreted God and the scriptures in many places, but alas....they were like all the ones we see today also....Deaf, dumb and blind, trying to lead others in their own specific way of understanding. So very few willing to seek The Almighty for the Truth, through HIS Spirit of Truth.
I have days where I actually feel so very sorry for Jesus, that He went through all He went through, to re-establish a relationship between mankind and The Creator, to have it mostly ignored or disbelieved. but I also know I shouldn't, as He already knew what men would do with His Word. Good thing we are told that He said, He was NOT the author of confusion, which ought to set us straight on a few points...
The Holy Spirit is another, most people ignore or disbelieve, so I do wonder at times, that those who say they read and believe every word in the Bible, how they can resist, argue against or leave out the very things, which allow us to have an actual relationship with Him?????
Do you believe we, as believers are in a position to ask for, and receive revelation from above? Do you believe anyone can say that they truly KNOW something, without any experience or first hand knowledge of that something?
I am curious, as quite a few people on this forum, confuse me utterly, when they call themselves Christians of whatever 'denomination' or traditions or teachings they follow, but reject utterly any form of reality concerning The Risen Resurrected Jesus, when there are written accounts of Him revealing Himself in His Resurrection reality.
I look forward to your reply, as in order to fellowship, I need to know where you stand.....If of course you are even interested in fellowship In Christ ?

 

[pia]

@BreadOfLife . It occurred to me just a moment ago, that there is simply NOTHING in what you write, which would allow people to come to Him as a small child, as you seem to think that one has to be very learned, know how to spell correctly, and to know 1000's of pages of written material, which of course has only become a common thing for children, in the last 1 1/2 centuries, if even that long. As well as the men-assigned chapters and verses, Capital lettering and so on......
So how do you suggest that people do what Jesus said to do, in this instance?

 

[pia]

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!!

Well said ! Far too many people do nothing more than argue and debate over what other men experienced and wrote about in the distant past, instead of following after the Resurrected Christ NOW...In the Bible Jesus is quoted as saying :" Come to me, learn of me !" (paraphrased a little but from the same verse).............. I am not aware of Him having put a use by date on that, are you?

 

[BreadOfLife]

@BreadOfLife . It occurred to me just a moment ago, that there is simply NOTHING in what you write, which would allow people to come to Him as a small child, as you seem to think that one has to be very learned, know how to spell correctly, and to know 1000's of pages of written material, which of course has only become a common thing for children, in the last 1 1/2 centuries, if even that long. As well as the men-assigned chapters and verses, Capital lettering and so on......
So how do you suggest that people do what Jesus said to do, in this instance?

Gee - and I thought you didn't want to talk to me anymore.
What happened with that??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hi MM
Could you just tell me why you think it is that it's so important for the CC that Mary had not had other children?

There is scripure which seems pretty clear to say that Jesus DID have brothers. James would be one of them.

I'm not too interested in discussing this since it makes not too much difference to me if Jesus had brothers or not.

It seems to me that the original Church did proclaim this in some writings -- I just don't understand WHY.

Any ideas?

Can you tell me where the bible says that Mary had "other" children?
Can you tell me where the "original" Church proclaimed this?

 

[GodsGrace]

Can you tell me where the bible says that Mary had "other" children?
Can you tell me where the "original" Church proclaimed this?

Misunderstanding.

I said that the ECF might have said that Mary had no other children.
I just can't remember.
I was asking for some statements by them...the ECF stating that Jesus was an only child or making some comment that would lead one to understand this to be the case.

Where in the bible does it say Mary had other children?
They might have been Joseph's.


Mathew 12:46
Mathew 13:55
John 7:2-3

There are more which do not come to mind right now.
I truly don't understand what difference it makes.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Can you tell me where the bible says that Mary had "other" children?
Can you tell me where the "original" Church proclaimed this?

Matthew 12:46;
Mark 6:3;
John 2:12;
John 7:3,5,10;
Acts 1:14;
1 Corinthians 9:5;
Galatians 1:19;

 

[OzSpen]

Misunderstanding.

I said that the ECF might have said that Mary had no other children.
I just can't remember.
I was asking for some statements by them...the ECF stating that Jesus was an only child or making some comment that would lead one to understand this to be the case.

Where in the bible does it say Mary had other children?
They might have been Joseph's.


Mathew 12:46
Mathew 13:55
John 7:2-3

There are more which do not come to mind right now.
I truly don't understand what difference it makes.

GodsGrace,

I found 10 examples in the NT where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned.

These are in Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55-56; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14, and 1 Cor. 9:5.

I agree that there are no Christian doctrines affected by whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin. For me, the issue is, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" (2 Tim 2 15 NIV). I desire to be a Berean (Acts 17:11).

Oz