Some Questions About Mary

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Raccoon1010

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
15,392
17,897
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So - you're a Biblical literalist?
Do you believe that the sun "rises" and "sets" as described in Psalm 113:3 - or do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun?

Do you NOT understand that the Bible is NOT to be taken in a wooden, literal sense in ALL things?
Do you believe that the 120 "BRETHREN" in Acts 1:15 were literal uterine siblings - or were they simply fellow believers??

You didn't address the awesome logic I used in Galatians 1:19, which is clear that Jesus had a brother, that is evidence to my point and contrary to yours. Why point out two descriptions for James? He was apostle (which is also religious brother) and brother (literal brother to Christ). Or did you find some other "non-literal" meaning for the word brother here?

Galatians 1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

So yeah, I'm not entirely a literalist, but I find it intelligent to first take things literal, and if that doesn't work try the other stuff. I'll just disagree with you here :) Cheers.
 

Raccoon1010

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
15,392
17,897
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What's wrong with Paul pointing out the fact that James was related to Jesus??
According to the Scriptures I showed you, James WAS related to Jesus - because his mother was a relative of the mother of Jesus.

OK, you can ignore my post #98 then, but for the interpretation your pushing here it is a far stretch to say the least! This is why wikipedia pointed out that people with your interpretation are ignoring the evidence.
 

quietthinker

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
13,910
8,827
113
FNQ
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Lol,,,,the myth that she had other children started during the Reformation. Even the original Reformers didn't believe your myth. It was the men who broke away from the Reformers that started your myth. You accept a 500 year teaching of men. That is unless you can show me in Scripture where it says Mary had other children???
Check Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 Marymog. I'm surprised you are unfamiliar with these scriptures.

In the light of these scriptures your assertion 'It was the men who broke away from the Reformers that started your myth' only reveals your unfamiliarity with not only the scriptures but Reformation history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

quietthinker

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
13,910
8,827
113
FNQ
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Abortifacient was sold in the spice markets...it was harvested in Cyrene.
abortifacient | əˌbɔːtɪˈfeɪʃ(ə)nt | Medicine adjective(chiefly of a drug) causing abortion. noun an abortifacient drug.
 

Pearl

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Apr 9, 2019
12,288
18,844
113
Lancashire
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Check Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 Marymog. I'm surprised you are unfamiliar with these scriptures.

In the light of these scriptures your assertion 'It was the men who broke away from the Reformers that started your myth' only reveals your unfamiliarity with not only the scriptures but Reformation history.
She isn't unfamiliar with the scriptures you quoted. She has had them pointed out to her many, many times but still doesn't believe them to mean Jesus had siblings born of Mary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

historyb

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2011
2,989
2,704
113
53
in a house
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1. What if Mary had said that she didn't want to give birth to Jesus?

Good question. We would be talking about someone else, but Mary checked all the boxes in other words she had the right ancestry

2. Why was she a virgin and did she have to be for the prophecy to come true? (The Bible states that she had other children though.)

Because of Prophecy, God said the mother needed a virgin and Mary the Blessed Mother was always a virgin :)
 

JohnDB

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2010
5,295
3,500
113
TN
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
lol.... abortifacient is a general term for a substance that produces abortion. One might liken it to substances that cause diarrhoea.
Yes but it was sold as an Abortifacient...

They knew what it did...and it was sold for this particular reason.
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,823
683
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1. What if Mary had said that she didn't want to give birth to Jesus?
I don't really deal in 'what if' scenarios. They are too much like fantasies, in my opinion, and distract from reality and actual history, to which I love so much. Sacred history is something to cherish, for it is the unfolding of God's prophecies, God's words, God's sentence.

The reality is, that every woman who was faithful to God, and believe in the promise of Genesis 3:15,22, desired to be the woman who would give birth to the promised seed. See Eve, Genesis 4:1 to begin with.

2. Why was she a virgin
100% of girls/women start out that way. Nothing unusual about that part.

and did she have to be for the prophecy to come true?
Yes.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.​

The phrase "her seed", implies there is no 'male' (of mankind) involved.

Isa_7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.​

Mat_1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Luk_1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.​

She is a type of the church, and thus God was to marry a 'virgin'. Israel (peoples) is as a 'virgin' all through scripture.
 
Last edited:

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,823
683
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(The Bible states that she had other children though.)
Actually, no. Look carefully please:

Before we begin, please pray, and open your Bible.

We can know that Jesus was the ‘firstborn’ of Mary, as per St. Matthew 1:25; St. Luke 2:7.

Now, because of the term, ‘firstborn’, many incorrectly teach that it automatically implies, further children (of Mary, by Joseph), but this is not necessarily the case, as the word ‘firstborn’ has a range of meaning, from simply the original child of inheritance, and also the first to be born among others later to come (1 Samuel 8:2; 1 Chronicles 3:1,15, 8:1,39, 26:2,4, &c.), and even has a greater meaning, than simply ‘first child to be born’, but is used to describe even those who are not a first child, but that which is the child through whom the inheritance or blessing or rulership comes:

Consider that Numbers 3:42,43, 18:15, 33:4; Judges 11:34; or Nehemiah 10:36; Psalms 78:51, 105:36, 135:8; or Luke 1:7-80, 9:28, &c. In some of those cases there was only a single child, and yet, would be the “firstborn”. Even the ‘only’ children in those cases are ‘firstborn’, even if they never had another child after. There is no indication that all the Israelites, or all the Egyptians had other child after their ‘firstborn’, though many would have. In the cases of John the Baptist, Jesus and the daughter of Jephthae, and the son of the man who came to Jesus, &c. they are only children, yet would be considered ‘firstborn’.

Genesis 10:15, 19:31,33,34,37, 22:21, 25:13,25, 27:19,32, 29:26, 35:23, 36:15, 38:6,7,28, 41:51, 43:33, 46:8, 48:14,18, 49:3; Exodus 4:23, 6:14, 11:5, 12:12,29, 13:2,13,15, 22:29, 34:20; Numbers 3:2,12,13,40,41,42,43,45,46,50, 8:16,17, 18:15, 33:4; Deuteronomy 21:15,16,17, 25:6; Joshua 6:26, 17:1; Judges 8:20; 1 Samuel 8:2, 14:49, 17:13; 2 Samuel 3:2; 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Chronicles 1:13,29, 2:3,13,25,27,42,50, 3:1,15, 4:4, 5:1,3, 6:28, 8:1,30,39, 9:5,31,36, 26:2,4; 2 Chronicles 21:3; Nehemiah 10:36; Psalms 78:51, 105:36, 135:8, 136:10; Micah 6:7; Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7; Hebrews 11:28.​

Continuing with the ‘firstborn’, in the greater sense, see:

Isaac over Ishmael: Genesis 22:2,12,16.

Ephraim was made firstborn, over Manasseh: Genesis 41:50-52, 48:16-20; Jeremiah 31:9.

Joseph over Reuben: Genesis 49:3; 1 Chronicles 5:1.

Jacob/Israel over Esau: Exodus 4:22; Genesis 25:25-26; Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:13-15.

Levites over the others: Numbers 3:41-45, 8:14-18.

David over others: Psalms 89:20,27; 1 Samuel 16:10-11. David is a type of Christ (Luke 24:27; John 5:39).

Simri, over others: 1 Chronicles 26:10.

Jesus over all: Colossians 1:15-18; see also 2 Corinthians 1:20, and Romans 9:5; Colossians 1:26, 2:10; Ephesians 1:21-23, 3:9, 4:15; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:3.

However, Jesus is also the ‘firstborn’ (spiritually; Luke 1:35) of the ‘woman’, that ‘church in the wilderness (Acts 7:38), among many 'brethren": Isaiah 9:6; Luke 2:11; Hebrews 2:10-12; Revelation 12:1-5,13.

and there are other uses: Job 18:12-13; Isaiah 14:30.​

Scripture records explicitly that:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 1:18

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” Matthew 1:23

“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” Matthew 1:25

“To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.” Luke 1:27

“And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” Luke 2:7​

This means that Mary had no children before Jesus, since He is called her “firstborn son” and she was a “virgin”, thus we can immediately eliminate any others before that time for her.

What then of afterwards, since it is written that Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth” Jesus?, which would help indicate that their marriage was eventually consumated after her purification [Luke 2:22], as is the rightful God-gifted/given position of the married, Husband and Wife, before God [Genesis 2:24; Proverbs 5:18, 18:22; Matthew 1:25, 19:5; Mark 10:7; Ephesians 5:31; Hebrews 13:4, etc], Joseph fulfilling and “perform[ing] the duty of an husband” [see and compare Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 25:5,7, but in the case of an original husband to a new wife, etc], which includes intimacy of marital relations, and not remaining away from her forever, since that would lead to greater temptation for them both [1 Corinthians 7:5]. Though such marital relations are indeed indicated in the Scripture between Joseph and Mary [let us tread carefully in such areas, for they are personal, and generally private], this does not necessarily lead to further children, as is found the case with many a couple in Scripture, and as it is written, that those things are written about Jesus [John 5:39], being types in their lives pointing to Him and His life, etc.

Some, will of course, point to the term “firstborn”, and say that this means that there had to have been others afterwards born of Mary, being 'second-born' etc, yet the word itself, does not inherently dictate this, and is forced into it, by others which have an apriori, or preconceived notion to defend. The word simply means, “firstborn”, whether that child was the only one, or whether the first in a line/series of others/many, yet it is always the context which would indicate any further application or definition. Therefore, we need to consider some context.

Contextually, we do see that the Bible mentions that Jesus had “brothers” [named] and “sisters” [unnamed]:

“Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” Matthew 12:47

“Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” Matthew 13:55

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” Mark 6:3​

etc.
 
Last edited:

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,823
683
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(The Bible states that she had other children though.)
Actually, no. Look carefully please:

Questions we can then ask of the Scripture, are:

[A] Who then are these “brothers” and “sisters” [at least two, plural]?

[I.] Are they of Mary after Jesus was born?

[II.] Are are they of Joseph to another previous wife, before Mary was married to Joseph and before Jesus was born?

[III.] Or could these be “cousins”, but simply called “brothers” and “sisters”?​

They could not be “cousins”, since the Bible does not designate in such a way, but when a “cousin” or another family relative [like “mother in law”, etc] is made mention of, it is plainly stated:

“And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.” Luke 1:36

“And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.” Luke 1:58

“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Matthew 10:35

“The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Luke 12:53

“And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.” John 18:13

etc.​

Elizabeth, Mary's “cousin”, was never called Mary's “sister” in Scripture. The same applies to these “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus, of their father Joseph. Not once in Scripture are they called “cousins” of Jesus. Thus, we can eliminate that option.

Scripture gives us clues, when we are so inclined to ask of God, asking for the Holy Spirit to teach us, and to pray for guidance in these things, that will be connected to show us the way to the answer.

The Scripture does not make any mention of Mary siring any other children after Jesus, or other than Jesus. This would sort of be an argument from silence, but not really as there are minute indications in Scriptures, which are helpful none-the-less, as we shall see further which demonstrates that conclusion.

Ok, now, we can confirm that Mary was indeed a 'virgin' and had no children before Jesus by the following texts: Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18,23,25; Luke 1:27, 2:7, which helps to confirm the meaning 'firstborn' in reference to Jesus.

These texts are clear that Mary had no children before Jesus, for she was "virgin".

Nowhere, in scripture, is it recorded that Mary had a "second", "third" child and so on. Many incorrectly read those things into the text, simply based on the words "firstborn" and "brother(s)" and "sisters" of Jesus. However, the text never gives those children the designation of being the children of Mary, even once. They are called "brother(s)" and "sisters" of Jesus, never the sons and daughters of Mary. Thus they can only be the 'brothers' and 'sisters' of Jesus by Mary's marriage to Joseph. They are all older (humanly speaking) than Jesus, as we shall see.

Notice, "thy brethren", as in Matthew 12:47 and "his brethren", as in Matthew 13:55 and see also Mark 6:3.

These are not "cousins", since the Holy Scriptures, know how to designate relatives, see:

"daughter in law" (in reference to Sarai/Sarah), Genesis 11:31.

"son in law" (in reference to Lot's daughter's husbands), Genesis 19:12.

"daughter in law" (in reference to Tamar), Genesis 38:11.

"daughter in law" (the son's wife), Leviticus 18:15.

"father in law" (in reference to Moses' wifes' father), Numbers 10:29.

... &c. ...(yet a "son in law" can also be considered a "son" (as David to Saul through his wife, Michal, 1 Samuel 18:18,21, 26:17) and so also a "daughter in law" be a "daughter" (a in the case of Ruth and Naomi, Ruth 1:22, 2:2,8,20,22, 3:1,16,18, 4:15 ), and also as a term used of the elder to a younger, Ruth 3:10,11.)

"thy cousin Elizabeth" (in reference to Mary), Luke 1:36.

"her neighbours and cousins" (in reference to Mary), Luke 1:58.

"daughter in law, ... mother in law" (in general), Mathew 10:35; Luke 12:53.

"father in law" (to Caiphas), John 18:13.​

Mary is never called the 'sister' of Elizabeth.

Now let's take a look at some other details.

One of those, is when we come to the event of the Cross itself in the Gospel accounts, we see that Jesus entrusts Mary into the hands of John the Apostle, and not to any previous family members who were born of Joseph previously, which would have been their duty to do, in taking care of a widower like Mary, if they were her actual blood children.

“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!” John 19:26

“Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” John 19:27​

Another, is when Jesus previously had stated, that he had no inheritance on this earth to speak of, and therefore was not the eldest, by any means, but like King David before Him, was the youngest, even though Mary's “firstborn”, and would have received only from His father a portion which remained after being divided among the “sons” of Joseph, and since his earthly 'father' [not by blood/flesh, but by care/commission from Heaven] was deceased, His inheritance could only come from His Heavenly Father.

“And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Matthew 8:20

“And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Luke 9:58​

The “brothers” of Jesus, being older, from Joseph, at a point in the Gospel record, convince Mary that Jesus was possessed of devils, for they did not follow Jesus, nor believe on Him, but rather they had listened to and believed the Pharisees, which were accusing Him of being used of Satan to cast out Satan, and since they were older, they were using their authority to convince Mary to get Jesus to cease what He had been sent to do:

“But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” Matthew 12:24

“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.” Matthew 12:46

“Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. “ Matthew 12:47

“And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.” Mark 3:20

“And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.” Mark 3:21

“And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.” Mark 3:22

“Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” Mark 3:30

“There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.” Mark 3:31

“And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.” Mark 3:32

“Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.” Luke 8:19

“And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.” Luke 8:20​

At another time, the “brothers” spoke to Jesus in tones of authority, something only which elders would do to their youngers, declaring His path before Him, apart from The Father's instruction:

“His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.” John 7:3​
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,823
683
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(The Bible states that she had other children though.)
Actually, no. Look carefully please:

The Spirit of Prophecy, picking up on what the Bible declares in these things, in a more detailed/magnified consideration, plainly says that the “brothers of Jesus” were all “older” than Jesus, constantly attempting to use that elder “authority” to get Him to acquiesce/resign His works/teachings and ways to theirs, and to the teachings of the Pharisees, Religious Leaders, rather than they listening to Him, their Saviour [even as Moses, a type of Christ, Acts 7:25]:

[A.] “... His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called, sided with the rabbis. They insisted that the traditions must be heeded, as if they were the requirements of God. They even regarded the precepts of men more highly than the word of God, and they were greatly annoyed at the clear penetration of Jesus in distinguishing between the false and the true. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 86.2

[B.] “ … All this displeased His brothers. Being older than Jesus, they felt that He should be under their dictation. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 87.2

[C.] “... Here were the familiar forms and faces of those whom He had known from infancy. Here were His mother, His brothers and sisters, and all eyes were turned upon Him as He entered the synagogue upon the Sabbath day, and took His place among the worshipers. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 236.2

[D.] “... His brothers often brought forward the philosophy of the Pharisees, which was threadbare and hoary with age, and presumed to think that they could teach Him who understood all truth, and comprehended all mysteries. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 326.3

[E.] “... His brothers had spoken to Him in a tone of authority, prescribing the course He should pursue. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 451.2

[F.] “... When urged by His brothers to present Himself publicly as the Messiah, His answer was, “My time is not yet come.” John 7:6. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 485.2

Thus the Spirit of Prophecy, just eliminated these “brothers” from being born of Mary.

The Spirit of Prophecy declares in just as explicit a manner, that the brothers and sisters of Jesus, were the sons and daughters of Joseph, whom was older than Mary, and thus were brothers and sisters by the marriage to Mary, and are never called the sons and/or daughters of Mary, in either Scripture, or Spirit of Prophecy, but always those of Joseph alone, and thus they “passed” as brothers of Jesus, or were “called” such:

[A.] “... His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 86.2 or A Call To Stand Apart, p. 9.3

[B.] “... The sons of Joseph, who passed as brothers of Jesus ...” - The Spirit of Prophecy Volume 2, p. 337.2

[C.] “... His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called ...” - From Heaven With Love, p. 52.2

[D.] “... -5. Relatives Dimly Understood Christ’s Mission—[John 7:1-5 quoted.] The brethren here referred to were the sons of Joseph ...” - S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 5, p. 1135.10

[E.] “... Satan was constantly suggesting to His brethren, the sons of Joseph ...” - The Upward Look, p. 54.6

[F.] “... The sons and daughters of Joseph knew this ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 90.1 or Daughters of God, p. 53.1 or From Heaven With Love, p. 55.1

etc, for more see - Ellen G. White Writings and Ellen G. White Writings

All of this, would point to God, lovingly, preserving from Mary and us, from the utter and total confusion it would have been, for the people of that day and of now, in considering any further children of Mary, as being also God, or Messiah, or Saviour, or etc, or thinking that some flesh/blood line was more pure or holy than another, or of entrusting the future of the religion of Christianity to a blood line of Mary, instead of the spiritual line of Christ. Think, briefly, for a moment, of how that would have been, if Mary had other children, or that were around, or still existed, once Christ ascended. Would they have looked Heavenward, or to flesh and blood, knowing the heart of men? The Wisdom of God is indeed Wise.

A lesson we can learn, from these things, is that we ought to remain focused upon Christ Jesus, rather than upon trivial things, though truthful they may be, and to be followers of Christ, as James, a brother of Christ, came to be [James 1:1]. Satan will always attempt to cause unnecessary and harmful division amongst the people of God, to get them to sin, to lose their focus of mission from Christ Jesus, etc.

If others, choose not to accept any of these things [for people are free to choose], and reject, and/or explain away the Scriptural accounts, or the Testimony of Jesus, which reveal the “proof” of them, -- have compassion upon them, and treat them kindly as brother or sister, not desiring to stir up strife over it, but praying for them and yourself, and us, that we may finally, and all, be of the same mind, which mind is in Christ Jesus.

The powerful lesson is, that Christ is no respecter of persons [Acts 10:34], neither of blood/flesh [Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11], but if we accept Him, then we are truly His real “brothers” and “sisters” [Matthew 12:49-50; Mark 3:34-35; Luke 8:21]. He can bring us from Enmity to Him, into Enmity with Sin! Amen!

For further studies in the Word of God and Spirit of Prophecy, you may enjoy -


May this answer increase your fervor for the study of God's Holy Word, for the joy of the manifold evidences He has left which confirm His Word in the earth, and may it bless you, and stoke the fires of love to God-ward in your heart and life.
 

April_Rose

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2020
8,520
7,827
113
35
Ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Because of Prophecy, God said the mother needed a virgin and Mary the Blessed Mother was always a virgin :)





Please don't take this the wrong way or anything but I take it that you're a Catholic. :D



I don't really deal in 'what if' scenarios. They are too much like fantasies, in my opinion, and distract from reality and actual history, to which I love so much. Sacred history is something to cherish, for it is the unfolding of God's prophecies, God's words, God's sentence.

The reality is, that every woman who was faithful to God, and believe in the promise of Genesis 3:15,22, desired to be the woman who would give birth to the promised seed. See Eve, Genesis 4:1 to begin with.

100% of girls/women start out that way. Nothing unusual about that part.

Yes.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.​

The phrase "her seed", implies there is no 'male' (of mankind) involved.

Isa_7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.​

Mat_1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Luk_1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.​

She is a type of the church, and thus God was to marry a 'virgin'. Israel (peoples) is as a 'virgin' all through scripture.





I know what firstborn means lol and I meant why was Mary a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. The question has already been answered though and you have repeat posts on here btw. :)
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,675
3,595
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You didn't address the awesome logic I used in Galatians 1:19, which is clear that Jesus had a brother, that is evidence to my point and contrary to yours. Why point out two descriptions for James? He was apostle (which is also religious brother) and brother (literal brother to Christ). Or did you find some other "non-literal" meaning for the word brother here?

Galatians 1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

So yeah, I'm not entirely a literalist, but I find it intelligent to first take things literal, and if that doesn't work try the other stuff. I'll just disagree with you here :) Cheers.
"Awesome" logic?

Paul referred to the Apostle James (the Less) as the "brother (adelphos) of the Lord" (Gal.1:19). I don't know WHERE you get that he was a uterine brother of Jesus, given the overwhelming Scriptural evidence I gave you that the Apostle James (the Less) is the son of Alphaeaus/Clopas and Mary, "adelphe" (relative) of the mother of Jesus (Mary).

I suggest you RE-read post #84 and all of the related verses . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,675
3,595
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OK, you can ignore my post #98 then, but for the interpretation your pushing here it is a far stretch to say the least! This is why wikipedia pointed out that people with your interpretation are ignoring the evidence.
I haven't "ignored" anything.

YOU need to explain to me why it would be a problem for Paul to refer to James the Less as the "brother" (adelphos) of the Lord if he WAS IN FACT related to Jesus.
As I showed you in post #84 - the word "adelphos" is LIBERALLY used in the NT for MANY thigs, including uterine sibling, half-brother, step brother, cousin, uncle, friend, neighbor, fellow countryman, fellow believer, etc.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,967
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Check Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 Marymog. I'm surprised you are unfamiliar with these scriptures.

In the light of these scriptures your assertion 'It was the men who broke away from the Reformers that started your myth' only reveals your unfamiliarity with not only the scriptures but Reformation history.
Thank you QT.

I am surprised that you are surprised...:rolleyes:

If you can show me in Scripture where it says that Mary had other children I will join your denomination.

The teaching that Mary had other children was not held by the reformers. It was the reformers of the reformers that started teaching that myth. Your unfamiliarity with your own Christian history and the men you follow is surprising to me.;)

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2016/12/14/john-calvin-on-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

December 2017 - Biblical Evidence for Catholicismmartin-luthers-belief-marys-perpetual-virginity.html

5 Protestants Who Surprisingly Defended Mary's Perpetual Virginity |-protestant-leaders-defended-perpetual-virginity-mary/#:~:text=Huldrych%20Zwingli%20was%20a%20Swiss%20Reformer%20during%20the,the%20topic%20of%20Mary%E2%80%99s%20perpetual%20virgin%2C%20he%20wrote%3A

Class dismissed.....Historical Mary