Some Questions About Mary

[April_Rose]

Well, it's been explained to you a few different ways, so if you still don't understand, I can't help you.
I "dumbed it down" as much as I could . . .

It's alright, you did your best to at least. :)

 

[historyb]

Hmm,.. that's interesting. I thought that that was solely a Catholic belief.

Nope, Many Traditional Christians like Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, and others believe the Blessed Mother (Mary) was ever virgin and it was a belief in the early Church. Martin Luther who started Protestantism believed that the Blessed Mother was ever virgin.:)

 

[n2thelight]

I repeat: nowhere does the Bible say that Mary had other children.

Why is it important to you that she didn't?
If you can't see it ,you not reading the Word with understanding.

Been in a lot of threads that talked about this ,start a new one and we can go again ,however as I said ,this is taking away from the OP

 

[n2thelight]

Hey n2thelight,

How will it change the OP?

The OP says "The Bible states that she had other children though". Sooooo the OP went there, why can't @Mungo ???

Curious Mary

Gotcha ,but the meat of the OP was in the form of a question

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why is it important to you that she didn't?

Okay - let's answer this question - which directly relates to the OP.

First of all - the Word of God is FULL of Types and Fulfillments. The NT Fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT Types - without exception.
Moses - Jesus
Israel/Judaism - Christ's Church
Peter - Eliakim
The same is true of Type and Fulfillment regarding Mary.

Whereas the symbols of God’s word were contained in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, Mary actually carried God himself - the Word - in her womb in the New Testament. And, whereas the OT Ark had to be made of pure materials and blessed and undefiled by man's touch, how much more pure and undefiled would the vessel that actually carried God have to be?

The following comparison chart illustrates the OT type, the Ark of the Covenant with the NT fulfillments of that type, Mary:

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 in the hill country of Judea 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 in the hill country of Judea 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 - 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). Mary, 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).

This is NOT coincidence.
God does NOT deal in mere coincidences - but in TYPE and FULFILLMENT because His plan is perfect.

 

[Raccoon1010]

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.

You don't see the logic? Then I really can't help you understand. It's a logic thing. But you're loosely using the term brother here instead of taking it literally. I didn't see any evidence that suggested that James was not the literal brother of Jesus. Where did you point that out? I think you're saying that James was a relative and that term could be used as brother? So where does the scripture say that?

 

[BreadOfLife]

You don't see the logic? Then I really can't help you understand. It's a logic thing. But you're loosely using the term brother here instead of taking it literally. I didn't see any evidence that suggested that James was not the literal brother of Jesus. Where did you point that out? I think you're saying that James was a relative and that term could be used as brother? So where does the scripture say that?

I already showed you - and THIS is why I suggested that you RE-read post #84.

The Scriptures are CRYSTAL CLEAR that James the Less (Apostle) is the son of Mary, the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus and "Adelphe" (relative) of Mary, mother of Jesus (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, Luke 6:15, John 19:25).

Which part of that didn't you understand?

 

[historyb]

You don't see the logic? Then I really can't help you understand. It's a logic thing. But you're loosely using the term brother here instead of taking it literally. I didn't see any evidence that suggested that James was not the literal brother of Jesus. Where did you point that out? I think you're saying that James was a relative and that term could be used as brother? So where does the scripture say that?

The original language wasn't English, so just because the translators chose a word does not means it carries the same idea as the original language.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The original language wasn't English, so just because the translators chose a word does not means it carries the same idea as the original language.

Yup - and therein lies the problem with anti-Catholics.

They attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I've asked these questions before on various forums and have received various answers (that I can't really remember) but I really want to know what you guys think.
1. What if Mary had said that she didn't want to give birth to Jesus?

Being Kecharitomene (Luke 1:28) - it's probably unlikely that she would have refused.

 

[n2thelight]

Okay - let's answer this question - which directly relates to the OP.

First of all - the Word of God is FULL of Types and Fulfillments. The NT Fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT Types - without exception.
Moses - Jesus
Israel/Judaism - Christ's Church
Peter - Eliakim
The same is true of Type and Fulfillment regarding Mary.

Whereas the symbols of God’s word were contained in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, Mary actually carried God himself - the Word - in her womb in the New Testament. And, whereas the OT Ark had to be made of pure materials and blessed and undefiled by man's touch, how much more pure and undefiled would the vessel that actually carried God have to be?

The following comparison chart illustrates the OT type, the Ark of the Covenant with the NT fulfillments of that type, Mary:

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 in the hill country of Judea 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 in the hill country of Judea 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 - 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). Mary, 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).

This is NOT coincidence.
God does NOT deal in mere coincidences - but in TYPE and FULFILLMENT because His plan is perfect.

Okay ,see my initial response was to the question of the OP ,not the side bar, so if you want to discuss if Mary remained a virgin ,start a new thread..

 

[Raccoon1010]

I already showed you - and THIS is why I suggested that you RE-read post #84.

The Scriptures are CRYSTAL CLEAR that James the Less (Apostle) is the son of Mary, the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus and "Adelphe" (relative) of Mary, mother of Jesus (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, Luke 6:15, John 19:25).

Which part of that didn't you understand?

OK I see your point. So then this leads me to the question of this: Why does God require Mary to remain a virgin? Why not bless her and her husband with children after Jesus is born? What in your belief says God does not want to bless them in that way?

 

[n2thelight]

Here's a fairly easy explanation of the facts about the "Brethren" (Adelphoi) of Jesus.

FIRST of all - the Greek word for "Brother" (Adelphos(oi)) is used liberally in Scripture for MANY things such as uterine sibling, half-brother, step brother, cousin, uncle, friend, neighbor, fellow countryman, fellow believer, etc.
As a matter of fact - there are 244 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
- 41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
- 47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
- 256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

SECONDLY - nowhere are ANY of these named "brethren" of the Lord said to be the children of HIS mother, Mary.
As @soul already explained - they are the children of the other Mary standing near the cross with HIS mother Mary (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25). This Mary is said to be the "sister" (Adelphe) of Jesus's mother and the wife of Clopas. Now - "Clopas" is a Greek rendering of the Aramaic "Alphaeus". Alphaeus/Clopas is said to be the FATHER of these "named" brethren" of Jesus (James, Joses, Judas, etc.).

So - the question for anti-Catholics is:
WHERE do you get the idea that Mary (Jesus's Mother) had "other" children - when the weight of Scripture and language goes completely against this idea.??

Joseph had intimate relations with Mary after Jesus was born. He was her husband, what else would you expect?!

Matthew 1:24-25, Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not (this means he did not have relations with her) TILL SHE HAD BROUGHT FORTH HER FIRSTBORN SON: and he called his name JESUS.

Jesus' unbelieving neighbors were stupefied by His power because they knew His whole family--His mother, Joseph, His SISTERS, and His BROTHERS. When these unbelievers referred to Jesus' brothers and sisters they were in no wise be referring to His disciples. It is obvious that they were talking about His physical family who they all knew and grew up with.

Mark 6:3 Is not this [referring to Jesus] 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.

John's gospel records a fulfilled prophesy from the book of Psalms--in it, Jesus tells us He has brothers and sisters.

John 2:17, And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psalms 69:8-9 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER'S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Why was He an alien to His mother's children? Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him.

John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

The apostle Paul saw the Lord Jesus' half-brother James.

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

The Catholic religion says the word translated "brother" should be "cousin". Wrong again. The word "cousin" is clearly found in the Scripture and it means--you've got it--cousin!

Luke 1:36 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 1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

 

[n2thelight]

Told ya ,the whole essence of the thread would be lost .

Again I ask ,why does it matter ?

So since we here let's open another can of worms, is she(Mary)the queen of Heaven?

 

[n2thelight]

Oh, guessing Joseph remained a virgin as well.

 

[n2thelight]

Heck let's keep going ,do we pray to her?

 

[Pearl]

Hmm,.. that's interesting. I thought that that was solely a Catholic belief.

And also orthodox I think.

 

[Mungo]

i wish there was a dislike button. Catholics will persist on trusting the false doctrines of their religion over the words of the bible which they manipulate to 'prove' their false claims.

No Catholic Doctrine (properly understood) contradicts the Bible (properly interpreted).

How many of your priests and higher clery are born-again believers?

ALL Catholics are born again as per the Bible.

 

[Pearl]

No Catholic Doctrine (properly understood) contradicts the Bible (properly interpreted).



ALL Catholics are born again as per the Bible.

Oh right. So each and every Catholic person throughout the world has recognised that they are sinners, made that one-off personal commitment to Jesus and received the Holy Spirit into their lives. I don't think so. There are Catholics in my own family who are not born-again. It's just another of the Catholic church's lies to keep their people oppressed.

 

[Mungo]

If we keep in mind that the Reformers were former Catholics, it is not hard to see why they would retain many Catholic ideas.

Considering the incredible hostility which these men harboured toward Rome, that is highly unlikely.

But the Bible is perfectly clear that Mary was not a "perpetual virgin".

On the contrary there is plenty of Biblical evidence that Mary was a perpetual virgin.