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

[OzSpen]

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

Thanks Rollo. You've found an 11th mention of Jesus' brother, James, in Gal 1:19.

Oz

 

[Helen]

Mark 3:32 "And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And He answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brothers? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."
IF those males outside were only His followers He would have said.."who is my mother.." Not who is my mother and brethren...because His next comment was " these followers are my mothers and brothers.." That is obsolete if the men outside were followers and not blood related.
And Mark 6:3. Mentioning the names of some of them..
Also...in the writing of Josephus he interviewed some of the brothers children of Joseph and Mary.

PS edit...oh whoops, while I was writing this, someone else posted the same...haha!! But I was on the wrong page number and didn't see it!!
A bit like the Pool of Bethesda .." While I was coming another stepped into the water.."

 

[pia]

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

Apologies, won't happen again

 

[OzSpen]

Also...in the writing of Josephus he interviewed some of the brothers children of Joseph and Mary.

ByGrace,

Would you please be so kind as to document the source of this information in Josephus?

Oz

 

[Marymog]

Mary,

Again, that's false. I gave you the full quote for 'a brother' in Thayer's Greek lexicon. You gave only 2 words. Therefore, I gave a fuller definition of the meaning of adelphos and Thayer said it included,

(the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used​

Your claim is:

Not according to Thayer where he cause the opinion of the church fathers (the doctors of the church) since Augustine is that adelphos means 'any blood-relation or kinsman'. It is you who doesn't want to agree with the etymology of adelphos in the Greek lexicon by Thayer.

Your statement in #538 is:

I've showed you in this post that it is not throwing away 2,000 years of Christian belief to not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Thayer has pointed out that adelphos, 'denotes any blood-relation or kinsman' - this was the opinion the church fathers from the time of Jerome & Augustine. It's not 2,000 years. Jerome lived and 'own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used'. You don't want to agree with Thayer, do you?

Jerome's life span was ca 347 – 420. St Augustine of Hippo's life span was ca. 354 – 430. So from the time of the 5th century, adelphos was accepted as meaning 'blood-relation or kinsman'. While some Protestant leaders from the time of the Reformation did believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, that is not my experience in the contemporary, Evangelical, Protestant Church. In fact, by using the

Many Christian leaders do/did not believe in the perpetual virginity, e.g. Timothy George [Dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University].

Your statement, 'Oz, who throws away 2,000 years of Christian belief and teaching? Oz who accepts a 500 year tradition? Or Mary who accepts what has always been since the beginning of Christianity?', committed the Genetic Fallacy.
Oz

Dear Oz,

I quoted from the link YOU provided. Your disagreement is not with me, it is with the link YOU provided. If you choose to partially quote the link YOU provided then so be it. I agree with the link YOU provided. You don't.

Quoting AGAIN from the link YOU provided: a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother).

Mary

 

[Marymog]

You are an odd one//

And you didn't answer the question. Instead you insult.

Why did you chime in if it doesn't matter?

Curious

 

[Marymog]

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

Hi mrhealth,

For the average person putting someone on a pedestal (having great respect and admiration for them) is not the same as worshipping them as a God or Goddess (in this matter).

God said "go out and multiply" to Noah and his family. How do you equate that with Mary and Joseph?

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

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.

None of the verses you provided show those children to be Mary's.
It IS important because Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was not to be touched or defiled by man.

God doesn't deal in coincidences. Everything in Scripture is according to HIS plan.
Consider the comparisons below as proof if this:

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mar, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

NONE of these verses state that Mary had other children.
Try again.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

Wrong.
See post #568.

It DOES matter.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

None of the verses you provided show those children to be Mary's.
It IS important because Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was not to be touched or defiled by man.

God doesn't deal in coincidences. Everything in Scripture is according to HIS plan.
Consider the comparisons below as proof if this:

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mar, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

The problem with your line of reasoning is that you have not given adequate reason why the other verses are wrong.
All you are doing is claiming a contradiction in the Bible, and we know that is not true.

This is a ploy of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
When you show them a verse in the Bible that proves them wrong, they ignore what you said and instead show a verse that proves them right.

How does it feel to have your beliefs compared to a Jehovah's Witness?

 

[Marymog]

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?

Hi GG,

I have not found any ECF's arguing for Mary's perpetual virginity. Maybe it was just an accepted fact and there was no opposition to it therefor there was no reason for them to defend it or write about it? That seems to be the reason the later Church Fathers started writing about it.

"Raise Mary to such a high ideal"? You mean kind of like God did by choosing her to give birth to His son?

'If she were so important"? Think of it this way: No Mary, No Jesus.

If Mary had given birth to other sons the second born would have been responsible for Mary's care after Jesus died. Jesus would have been acting counter to Jewish customs by assigning John as her care taker. This implies that there were no other sons to take care of Mary. Scripture only list Jesus as the son of Mary so there might be a deeper meaning to Jesus assigning John to her care. Or, maybe, he just trusted John more than the others to care for her.

From the cross Jesus said, “Woman, behold, your son!” Sounds kind of impersonal, doesn't it? Calling his mother WOMAN. Jesus did the same thing in John 2:4! Woman, in Jewish customs, is a title of honor. John used the word 'woman' several other times in Revelation. Is John equating the 'woman' in Revelation with Mary?

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Marymog]

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

Hi Oz,

Did St. Augustine get it wrong? Or are you getting it wrong?

Curious

 

[Marymog]

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

Hi Oz,

Can you find anywhere in the NT that gives the names of Mary's other children? I can only find Jesus named as Mary's child.

You quote 2 Timothy 2:15 to suggest that YOU are correctly handling the word of truth? Or am I misunderstanding you?

You do know the Bereans were converted from Judaism to Christianity on the 'words' of Paul? They searched scripture (the OT) for proof that what Paul was TELLING them was true about Jesus. They listened to Paul's words, believed him, and converted. So if you desire to be a Berean, who's words are you listening to? Or are you saying you eagerly search the NT to see if what everyone else says about scripture is true?

Respectfully, Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi Oz,

Did St. Augustine get it wrong? Or are you getting it wrong?

Curious

Mary, the above is for Oz.
I just need to say that I don't care for St. Augustine - he got more than one thing wrong and disagreed with the other ECF many times.

I like Aquinas and other ECF, but I like to keep away from Augustine.
So, in this case, Oz might be right! (as he many times is).

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

I have not found any ECF's arguing for Mary's perpetual virginity. Maybe it was just an accepted fact and there was no opposition to it therefor there was no reason for them to defend it or write about it? That seems to be the reason the later Church Fathers started writing about it.

"Raise Mary to such a high ideal"? You mean kind of like God did by choosing her to give birth to His son?

'If she were so important"? Think of it this way: No Mary, No Jesus.

If Mary had given birth to other sons the second born would have been responsible for Mary's care after Jesus died. Jesus would have been acting counter to Jewish customs by assigning John as her care taker. This implies that there were no other sons to take care of Mary. Scripture only list Jesus as the son of Mary so there might be a deeper meaning to Jesus assigning John to her care. Or, maybe, he just trusted John more than the others to care for her.

From the cross Jesus said, “Woman, behold, your son!” Sounds kind of impersonal, doesn't it? Calling his mother WOMAN. Jesus did the same thing in John 2:4! Woman, in Jewish customs, is a title of honor. John used the word 'woman' several other times in Revelation. Is John equating the 'woman' in Revelation with Mary?

Respectfully, Mary

I also have never found any. It may not have seemed important to them, who can know?

As far as raising Mary to a high ideal: I'm not too happy with the church's elevation of Mary to ALMOST a co-redemptrix, and at this rate, she might actually be named with this title one day. I know that she suffered at that cross, but she was not ON the cross. That is reserved for Jesus only. He is the ONLY mediator between man and God, which NOW the CC does teach, but what is to become of priests then? We'll see.
1 Timothy 2:5

(I was Always taught that the priest is a mediator. They will, of course, Always have confession and Mass)

P.S. I do think that Mary was very important to God's salvation economy.
I love her and respect her and I find the denegration of Mary to be very unpalitable.

 

[GodsGrace]

None of the verses you provided show those children to be Mary's.
It IS important because Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was not to be touched or defiled by man.

God doesn't deal in coincidences. Everything in Scripture is according to HIS plan.
Consider the comparisons below as proof if this:

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mar, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

I do believe the above is a great post.

I do, however, find that in some instances in the N.T. it's very clear that the word "brothers" means exactly that.

James is clearly stated to be a Brother of Jesus.
Josephus stated that Jesus had, if I remember correctly, as LEAST one Brother named James. Perhaps more.

As I've said I do respect the post above, but I don't see what difference it makes to my salvation if Jesus had brothers.

They might have been children that belonged to Joseph by a previous marriage?

 

[bbyrd009]

As I've said I do respect the post above, but I don't see what difference it makes to my salvation if Jesus had brothers.

see though that the point is that the "Catholic" church does not share your attitude there, and they would insist upon being the mediators for God, even though that is completely anti-Scriptural too

 

[GodsGrace]

see though that the point is that the "Catholic" church does not share your attitude there, and they would insist upon being the mediators for God, even though that is completely anti-Scriptural too

They insist upon being the mediators for God because the Catholic Church is the original Church. This cannot be denied if history is Worth anything.

As far as brothers or sisters of Jesus:
It may come as a surprise to some here but I'm sure that Marymog and BreadofLife both know that there are theologians within the CC that DO believe that Jesus had Brothers.

We all believe we are the true mediators of God...
Only God knows who truly is.

 

[bbyrd009]

They insist upon being the mediators for God because the Catholic Church is the original Church. This cannot be denied if history is Worth anything.

yes, i understand, but see how this contests that Christ is our Mediator, the only One between God and yourself. So you say that that cannot be denied, but Scripture denies it plainly.

Now i also understand that if you have been raised in a culture that accepts an earthly mediator then that is what will be "truth" for you, and i guess there is even some Scriptural dialectic available to justify the position, but inevitably in cases where this is employed, other Scripture will be violated, as we can see here imo