False Teaching: Mary died a virgin. Biblical Proof Mary had children.

[Ghada]

I'm not sure where you got your translation of Matt. 1:25, but it is clearly faulty. You, or someone else, added the word "only."

I give the word 'only', as a simple definition of common grammar. Until, means only until.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

We need to be linguists to translate languages of the Bible accurately, but not linguists to know what the Bible is talking about from translations.

Even so, the Bible wasn't written in English, nor was it written within our cultural norms.

You mean, those undisciplined amateur translators compared to you? They didn't 'know' about keeping translations in context of the time, as well as also considering the use of the word by other writers of the day?

Or, are you saying God is not able to ensure His words are accurately translated, as well as accurately written in the first place?

The word until used back in Jesus' day, did not imply that something happened after.

It doesn't take a linguist to know that 'until' meant 'only until' 2000 years ago as it does today.

You're not arguing the linguistic art, but simple grammar. You are only pointing out that 'until' always means 'only until', but may not always mean 'until afterward'.

What you are trying to suggest, is that the verse can possibly be translated as having no sex until death after giving birth, vs having no sex only until giving birth.

an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.”

We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

Which is why the context of death shows 'until' is unnecessarily confusing, rather than unto death.

Another example in the OT is Gen 3:

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

And so, we see until and unto are interchangeable in the Bible, only in context of death. That removes it from any lingual argument to being doctrinal.

Unless Mary died in childbirth, there is no reasonable reading to say they had no sex unto death after giving birth.

I notice you don't even try to give one. Why not? Until you do, then you're not really making any valid lingual argument at all, are you?

Do you just raise unnecessary questions about words, in order to confuse the issue?

Paul calls it doting about words unto strife and confusion, which ought never be done in ministering and teaching to the churches of God. (1 Tim 6)

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

I'm not sure where you got your translation of Matt. 1:25, but it is clearly faulty. You, or someone else, added the word "only."

Even so, the Bible wasn't written in English, nor was it written within our cultural norms. The word until used back in Jesus' day, did not imply that something happened after. The word until here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

Ok... here are some things for you or anyone to explain....

James.

And before you cite everything you can from this being a cousin to a son from another marriage of Joseph, ergo half brother... THINK. Where in the bible itself does it mention by name anyone who is called someone's brother without having blood ties. It is often said that is what they did. Is it biblical?

Who was James, the brother of Jesus, in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

Who was James, the brother of Jesus, in the Bible? How is understanding the life of James, the brother of Jesus valuable to our spiritual growth?

www.gotquestions.org

James was a son of Mary and Joseph and therefore a half-brother to Jesus and brother to Joseph, Simon, Judas, and their sisters (Matthew 13:55). In the Gospels, James is mentioned a couple of times, but at that time he misunderstood Jesus’ ministry and was not a believer (John 7:2-5). James becomes one of the earliest witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7). He then stays in Jerusalem and forms part of the group of believers who pray in the upper room (Acts 1:14). From that time forward, James’ status within the Jerusalem church begins to grow.

Epistle of James - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

JAMES 1:1 identifies the author as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" who is writing to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad". The epistle is traditionally attributed to James the brother of Jesus (James the Just),[3][4] and the audience is generally considered to be Jewish Christians, who were dispersed outside Israel.

Who Was James, Jesus' Brother? What the Bible Tells Us About Him

James is always named first when Jesus’ brothers are listed, which in his day likely meant that he was the eldest of the four. The Bible tells us a lot about the life of Jesus' brother. James’ life, ministry, and writings impacted the formation of the Church and continue to transform hearts and...

www.biblestudytools.com

Who Was James, Jesus' Brother?​

UPDATEDJuly 05, 2023
Jesus came from a big family. Matthew 13:55-56 names Jesus’ brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas and mentions sisters (plural), so He had at least six siblings.

James is always named first when Jesus’ brothers are listed, which in his day likely meant that he was the eldest of the four. Known as James the Just and Old Camel Knees, James led the church at Jerusalem until his violent death in AD 62.

Even after more than two years of miracles, James is a skeptic. It would, after all, be rather hard to swallow the idea that the brother you had grown up with was really the Son of God.

James - Bible Odyssey

Underlying the English James is the Greek Iakobos, which itself approximates the Hebrew Ya’aqov, or “Jacob.” It became conventional in English Bible

biblehub.bibleodyssey.org

Underlying the English James is the Greek Iakobos, which itself approximates the Hebrew Ya’aqov, or “Jacob.” It became conventional in English Bible translations to render this name differently in different contexts in order to differentiate the “Christian” James from the “Jewish” Jacob, much as with Jesus and Joshua.
Jacob was a common Jewish name in the first century. So it is not surprising that various Jameses appear in the New Testament, including two apostles—one identified as brother of John and son of Zebedee, and the other as son of Alphaeus (Matt 10:2-4)—and the father of a third (Jude, in Luke 6:16). Historically, the most important James of the New Testament is the one identified as the brother of Jesus, sometimes called James the Just.
Was James the Just an actual brother of Jesus?
It is assumed as a matter of course in the New Testament that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Mark 3:31, John 7:1-10, Acts 1:14, 1Cor 9:5), one of whom was named James (Matt 13:55, Mark 6:3).
As this James rose to prominence, it became conventional to distinguish him from others with reference to his still more famous brother. It is clear from the letters of Paul that this began already during James’s lifetime (Gal 1:19). Long after his death, James continued to be identified in this way by writers such as Hegesippus, Eusebius, Jerome, Pseudo-Clement, and even the first-century Jewish historian Josephus (assuming the reference in Jewish Antiquities 20.197-203 is not an interpolation, as has sometimes been suggested). After his death, reportedly at the hands of an interim Judean authority around 62 C.E., this James was also frequently identified by the epithet “the Just” and, more enigmatically, “Oblias” (Hegesippus in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.7).
It is only when church doctrine became concerned with the sexuality of Mary as a theological problem in its own right that some began to insist that Jesus could not have had siblings. Different theories were generated to explain references to them in scripture and tradition. Some speculated that they were children of Joseph from a previous marriage, making James only a stepbrother of Jesus. According to a still later theory, brother in this case meant cousin—an explanation that had the added bonus of allowing for the virginity of Joseph as well.
Such theories, of course, are not impossible. But that does not mean they are in any way historically likely. The most natural reading of the evidence is that James was called brother of Jesus in the same sense that John was called brother of the apostle James, and Andrew called brother of Simon Peter (Mark 1:16, Mark 1:19).

James the Lord's brother: whose son was he?

James the Lord's brother: whose son was he? - University of Michigan​

And because the sons of Mary were the brothers of Jesus, our Lord is called "the brother of James" (Mark, vi. 3), and James is called " the Lord's brother" (Gal. i. 19); that is, mnutually brothers to each other. These two men, Jesus and James, are called brothers, because they were the sons of the same....

And then there is the ... JAMES OSSUARY

James Ossuary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The James Ossuary is a 1st-century limestone box that was used for containing the bones of the dead. An Aramaic inscription meaning "Jacob (James), son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" is cut into one side of the box. The ossuary attracted scholarly attention due to its apparent association with the Christian holy family.[1]



The James ossuary was on display at the Royal Ontario Museum from November 15, 2002 to January 5, 2003.

 

[Ghada]

And before you cite everything you can from this being a cousin to a son from another marriage of Joseph, ergo half brother...

Which is not possible from plain words of the Bible. It only comes from 'lingual' manipulation. It's the same thing as saying, the word was a god...

He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

THINK. Where in the bible itself does it mention by name anyone who is called someone's brother without having blood ties. It is often said that is what they did. Is it biblical?

This is a good and sound manner of Bible dispute. Someone wants to make a different claim about something obvious in the Bible, then they must show where in the Bible such a claim is made by God.

You are perfectly correct: there is no use of the word brother and sister in the Bible, that is not by blood, but rather is 'really' only talking of 'cousins' or 'nephews'. Even David and Jonathan never called themselves brothers.

Once someone introduces abnormality into the Bible, such as 'brother means cousin', then all brothers and sisters can be interpreted as cousins. Once any part of the Bible is corrupted, all the Bible is opened to corruption.

The greatest insult to God's intelligence that false teachers make, is trying to act like God doesn't know how to say what He really means. They don't take His words seriously. He's more like some kind of 'big white cloud' in sky, or the Great Spirit sending smoke signals to be interpreted as we wish.

The only Bible for brothers and sisters without natural blood ties, is the body of Christ by His spiritual blood tie.

Once people start being ludicrous about normal words, such as 'brother' really means cousin, then they purposely confuse things in order to teach something else of their own making.

 

[marks]

According to Paul, the wife has a duty to the husband, and the husband has a duty to the wife, and these should only be set aside for specific periods of time, lest they sin.

Joseph knew her not until Jesus was born. That's the "specific period of time".

There is no reason to think that Mary and Joseph then disobeyed God's intent for marriage.

Much love!

 

[Ghada]

According to Paul, the wife has a duty to the husband, and the husband has a duty to the wife, and these should only be set aside for specific periods of time, lest they sin.

Joseph knew her not until Jesus was born. That's the "specific period of time".

There is no reason to think that Mary and Joseph then disobeyed God's intent for marriage.

Much love!

Great point about God's marriage in the Bible having certain duties, and what makes a Bible marriage.

Men and women that only live together are not married Biblically. Legally with man, yes, but not lawfully with God.

The Bible speaks of Joseph the husband and Mary the wife, when they had come together with Jesus in the womb. However, if they never consummated the marriage bed, then God would not have continued calling them husband and wife.

They would not have been married Biblically, because they were not one flesh. And so, it must be argued they were not 'really' husband and wife, even as they did not have 'real' sons and daughters.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Great point about God's marriage in the Bible having certain duties, and what makes a Bible marriage.

Men and women that only live together are not married Biblically. Legally with man, yes, but not lawfully with God.

The Bible speaks of Joseph the husband and Mary the wife, when they had come together with Jesus in the womb. However, if they never consummated the marriage bed, then God would not have continued calling them husband and wife.

They would not have been married Biblically, because they were not one flesh. And so, it must be argued they were not 'really' husband and wife, even as they did not have 'real' sons and daughters.

But you do not know if they did or did not consummate the marriage.

The bible does not tell us, nor should it. The Bible speaks of Joseph the husband and Mary the wife.... as you say... If they were proper husband and wife, as I personally believe, that does not for a minute take away her splendor as having been chosen and "following through" what she did so you and I and all of us here are in the position we are this day.

Nor anything away from Joseph either.

 

[Ghada]

But you do not know if they did or did not consummate the marriage.

Saying they knew not each other, until she gave birth to Jesus. Is plain speaking enough. Saying 'until' would be misleading, if he did not.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

It's good to be able to quote the Bible verbatim to teach something from God. But demanding it in order to teach what is obvious, would rid the Bible of much teaching and revelation from God to us.

Many times the obvious from one verse is found in other verses. Such as the brethren and sisters of Jesus.

Trying to argue they didn't know each other after Jesus was born, is much more unrealistic by grammar and sentence structure alone, than just taking it with common sense, that they did not know each other, until after Jesus was born.

Paul calls it confusion by doting about words to bring up unnecesary questions, that only produce strife in the churches.

Afterall, how much strife has come just because someone wants to glorify the mother with the Son, and so want to argue about what 'until' means. That's as messed up as arguing about what is 'is'. Or what a HUMAN man is.

The bible does not tell us, nor should it.

God does not have to overkill telling us things in ever passage of the Bible. He doesn't have to say something specific at that time, when He's already said enough about it.

Such as:

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 till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. And afterward Joseph knew his wife... (as soon as possible!)

Ok, as soon as possible may not be the case. But know doubt as soon as practical.

The Bible speaks of Joseph the husband and Mary the wife.... as you say... If they were proper husband and wife, as I personally believe, that does not for a minute take away her splendor as having been chosen and "following through" what she did

Splendor? What she did? I mean, what would she 'do' while the Spirit overshadowed here to conceive Jesus of her flesh? I would think being still might help, though perhaps not necessary. However, I suppose the Spirit could have prepared the body for the Son, while she was cooking and cleaning...

Maybe if she felt something stirring within here womb, she might well have started praying and praising God for keeping His promise.

so you and I and all of us here are in the position we are this day.

Well, now let's not magnify Mary too much. Afterall, there may have been other faithful Jewish girls of the house of David, if Mary had not believed. The Bible not speaking of it specifically, does not mean others weren't approached first.

However, God knowing the hearts, He probably chose right the first time.

Nor anything away from Joseph either.

Nope. Plainly by the brothers and sisters of the Lord, he did a right manly job as husband.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Well, now let's not magnify Mary too much. Afterall, there may have been other faithful Jewish girls of the house of David, if Mary had not believed. The Bible not speaking of it specifically, does not mean others weren't approached first.

Except... tracking the pedigree of Joseph leads back there also...and I doubt too many Jewish girls would have been getting married to a man whose pedigree tracked back, just on a different course.

 

[Ghada]

Except... tracking the pedigree of Joseph leads back there also...and I doubt too many Jewish girls would have been getting married to a man whose pedigree tracked back, just on a different course.

True. But out of the few that qualify, no doubt the Spirit searched the hearts, and chose Mary is suitable for God's purpose.

It doesn't make her splendorous, just faithful. Being faithful is not miraculous, but simply the standard of God.

 

[Ghada]

While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

So, it looks like Jesus' aunt and cousins showed up...

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

So, it looks like Jesus' aunt and nephews showed up...

 

[Ghada]

View attachment 38070

And Judah and his brethren came to Joseph's house; for he was yet there: and they fell before him on the ground.

Judah and his cousins. Jacob had only one son. Judah out of which Jesus Christ would spring.

 

[Sigma]

Saying they knew not each other, until she gave birth to Jesus. Is plain speaking enough. Saying 'until' would be misleading, if he did not.

You and others insert the word "after" after the word "until" in the verse Matt. 1:25, which isn't in the original language used, nor in any of the English translations you cite, in order to say that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse after Jesus's birth. You all are CHANGING THE VERSE, and thus are CHANGING THE MEANING OF IT, TO FORCE WHAT YOU'D RATHER BELIEVE.

In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period (pre-birth of Jesus) where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him, not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin. He's not indicating whether Joseph and Mary did or didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of Jesus.

Here's the context of Matt. 1:20-25 that you're essentially arguing:

"Following Matthew speaking about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, (Matt. 1:20-24), he ends with the random tidbit: 'And Joseph had sex after the birth of the Savior..." (Matt. 1:25).

While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

So, it looks like Jesus' aunt and cousins showed up...

"While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him." (Matt. 12:46-47)

"Then His mother and His brothers came..." (Mk. 3:3-32)

Now His mother and brothers came to Him..." (Lk. 8:19-20)

In Matt. 12:46-47, Mk. 3:31-32, and Lk. 8:19-20, the Koine Greek word used is "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), translated to "brothers" in English, and it has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "a near kinsman, or relative," e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, uncle, or aunt, etc., and in the plural it regularly refers to men and women.

If you claim Jesus's brothers in Matt. 12:46-47, Mk. 3:31-32, and Lk. 8:19-20 were Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) from Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and that they were His siblings, then you need to provide evidence that shows that type of kinship applies in Matt. 12:46-47, Mk. 3:31-32, and Lk. 8:19-20; and that the brothers here were specifically some or all of Jesus's male brothers named in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and which ones?

However, I know you can't, because in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings?, I provided evidence that confirms they were brothers, as in "a near kinsman, or relative," and shows the type of kinship was cousins. And, in Matt. 12:46, Mk. 3:31, and Lk. 8:19, Jesus's brothers who arrived with His mother to speak with Him were two of His four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus. (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. II,, ch. 268, pp. 430-436)

 

[Sigma]

Except... tracking the pedigree of Joseph leads back there also...and I doubt too many Jewish girls would have been getting married to a man whose pedigree tracked back, just on a different course.

The Law prescribed that each man be given a woman of his own stock (Lev. 21:14). Therefore, at the request of the High Priest, many men of the race of David gathered in the Temple, and out of them all He appointed Joseph of Jacob of Bethlehem, a Nazirite (Hebrew who had taken special vows of abstinence, see Num. 6), as Mary's spouse. When Joseph and Mary met for the first time, each expressed their vows, and these are their words:

Joseph said to Mary, "I am a Nazirite," and Mary replied, "Also I am all of the Lord, Joseph. I do not know whether the High Priest told you..."

"He only told me that You are good and pure, that You wish to inform me of a vow, and that I must be good to you. Speak, Mary. Your Joseph wants You to be happy in all Your desires. I do not love You my with body. I love You with my soul, holy girl given to me by God! Please see in me a father and a brother, in addition to a husband. And open Your heart to me as to a father and rely on me as on a brother..."

"Since My childhood I have consecrated Myself to the Lord. I know this is not the custom in Israel. But I heard a voice requesting My virginity as a sacrifice of love for the coming of the Messiah. Israel has been waiting for Him for such a long time!... It is not too much to forgo the joy of being a mother for that!"

Joseph gazes at Her as if he wanted to read Her heart, then he takes Her tiny hands which are still holding the branch in blossom and he says: "I will join my sacrifice to Yours and we shall love the Eternal Father so much with our chastity that He will send His Saviour to the world earlier, and will allow us to see His Light shining in the world." (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, ch. 12, pp. 36-39)

 

[Ghada]

You and others insert the word "after" after the word "until" in the verse Matt. 1:25, which isn't in the original language used, nor in any of the English translations you cite, in order to say that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse after Jesus's birth. You all are CHANGING THE VERSE, and thus are CHANGING THE MEANING OF IT, TO FORCE WHAT YOU'D RATHER BELIEVE.

Giving the plain sense of the verse is not changing the meaning.

Till after she had given birth changes nothing grammatically nor doctrinally.

Till she had given birth nor after, changes grammar and doctrine.

The only time in the Bible, that 'until' does not mean until after, is when it ends in death.

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground;

Every other instance means until after, such as lie down until the morning.

Your effort with Joseph and Mary, would change this to remain lying down after the morning.

In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the long-awaited messianic prophecy finally coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period (pre-birth of Jesus) where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him, not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin.

Good teaching.

He's not indicating whether Joseph and Mary did or didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of Jesus.

Bad teaching.

Here's the context of Matt. 1:20-25 that you're essentially arguing:

This is called a debate tactic to put the evidence itself on the defensive.

I am not arguing anything, but only reading the verse with common sense.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

You're the on trying to argue something strange. And you must change the verse as well as go off into long-winded arguments to make it stick, which is always necessary in order not to just believe the simple reading.

"Following Matthew speaking about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, (Matt. 1:20-24), he ends with the random tidbit: 'And Joseph had sex after the birth of the Savior..." (Matt. 1:25).

True. There are many times in the Bible, when God does not bother to state the obvious just to please the naysayers.

The verse itself plainly teaches the husband and wife went on to have marital sex.

Your forced argument also includes an implied accusation against the husband and wife by having sex after Jesus' birth. The 'sacred womb' foolishness states plainly, that Joseph having sex with Mary is sinful and their marriage bed is dishonoring God.

It actually accuses Mary of being adulterously unfaithful to God, as though He were her Husband. Which is exactly what is idolatrously taught, that Mary is Queen and Mother to Christ the King and God the Father.

 

[amigo de christo]

Giving the plain sense of the verse is not changing the meaning.

Till after she had given birth changes nothing grammatically nor doctrinally.

Till she had given birth nor after, changes grammar and doctrine.

The only time in the Bible, that 'until' does not mean until after, is when it ends in death.

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground;

Every other instance means until after, such as lie down until the morning.

Your effort with Joseph and Mary, would change this to remain lying down after the morning.




Good teaching.


Bad teaching.


This is called a debate tactic to put the evidence itself on the defensive.

I am not arguing anything, but only reading the verse with common sense.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

You're the on trying to argue something strange. And you must change the verse as well as go off into long-winded arguments to make it stick, which is always necessary in order not to just believe the simple reading.


True. There are many times in the Bible, when God does not bother to state the obvious just to please the naysayers.

The verse itself plainly teaches the husband and wife went on to have marital sex.

Your forced argument also includes an implied accusation against the husband and wife by having sex after Jesus' birth. The 'sacred womb' foolishness states plainly, that Joseph having sex with Mary is sinful and their marriage bed is dishonoring God.

It actually accuses Mary of being adulterously unfaithful to God, as though He were her Husband. Which is exactly what is idolatrously taught, that Mary is Queen and Mother to Christ the King and God the Father.

HAD mary never known her husband , IT would have made that very clear . yet notice it says UNTIL
see if mary had been a virgin forever , and it was so dire to know this , HOW COME not one apostel in any letter
nor was it made mention of in acts , EVER ONCE made . OH , because as usual its RCC DOO Dogma .

 

[Sigma]

Your forced argument also includes an implied accusation against the husband and wife by having sex after Jesus' birth.

This is essentially your argument:

"The word "until" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born:"
"And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)

Therefore, according to your logic, you should also argue the following:

"The word "until" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:"
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

However, you won't because it's asinine. The word "ἕως" doesn't mean "until after" in 2 Sam. 6:23 and Matt. 1:25, because in each it's used to refer to a specific period. The period of the former is pre-death of Michal and the latter pre-birth of the Savior.

In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin: pre-birth of the Savior. Again, Matthew referring to that specific period for that reason doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary did or didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior, and thus your claim this argument implies Joseph and Mary didn't have sexual intercourse post-birth of the Savior is false.

I'd suggest you provide another verse that supports your belief that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse, but I won't because I know you can't, as I also know Joseph and Mary decided to be mutually chaste in their marriage for God.

 

[Ghada]

"While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him." (Matt. 12:46-47)

"Then His mother and His brothers came..." (Mk. 3:3-32)

Now His mother and brothers came to Him..." (Lk. 8:19-20)

In Matt. 12:46-47, Mk. 3:31-32, and Lk. 8:19-20, the Koine Greek word used is "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), translated to "brothers" in English, and it has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "a near kinsman, or relative," e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, uncle, or aunt, etc., and in the plural it regularly refers to men and women.

This is just another argument, that has nothing to do with the first.

It's also an argument separating context from word definition alone. It also has nothing to do with how God uses certain words in the Bible.

And since context is set aside for word definitions alone, then doing it with 'brother' must also apply to 'mother'. The word mother is also defined by close and distant relations, such as an aunt or even neighbor becoming mother to another not born of her.

Therefore, Now His aunt and cousins came to Him...

The fact is that no book of doctrine can be interpreted by word definition alone, but must include context by the author. Separating definition from context is separating the author's teaching from the context. It changes the teaching arbitrarily by the personal will of the reader.

And so, for accurate teaching we must keep context when defining the word. And the only time God uses the word brother for someone not of the same mother, is when it is obvious:

If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold.

And then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

God never uses the word brother for anything else than family relation, when speaking of family relation.

God does the same when using the word mother:

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

If a non-familial definition of brother can be introduced into family context, then so can a non-familial mother.

and shows the type of kinship was cousins. And, in Matt. 12:46, Mk. 3:31, and Lk. 8:19, Jesus's brothers who arrived with His mother to speak with Him were two of His four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus.

You mean Jesus' cousins arrived with His aunt...

(The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. II,, ch. 268, pp. 430-436)

What?? You mean I've been trying to argue Bible with someone talking about some poem??

Oh well, at least it was an interesting exercise in making difference between the Bible and men's traditions and 'poems'.

 

[Ghada]

HAD mary never known her husband , IT would have made that very clear . yet notice it says UNTIL

It's an example of what people are willing to do in order to change simple Bible.

He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

see if mary had been a virgin forever , and it was so dire to know this

This is a great point. What's overlooked is that God never says anything about something so plainly important to some people's hearts and lives.

If it is important to know that Mary never had sex, then why not make that known? Especially since God is now made the Author of confusion, by writing of her as having children to be brothers and sisters to Jesus.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

And If Mary were indeed sharing in the heavenly glory of the Son and the Father, as Mother of God, then where is her shared glory written of in the Bible with God the Father and Son??

OH , because as usual its RCC DOO Dogma .

And Dogma Doo.

 

[Sigma]

If a non-familial definition of brother can be introduced into family context, then so can a non-familial mother.

"While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him." (Matt. 12:46-47)

"Then His mother and His brothers came..." (Mk. 3:3-32)

Now His mother and brothers came to Him..." (Lk. 8:19-20)

In Matt. 12:46-47, Mk. 3:31-32, and Lk. 8:19-20, the Koine Greek word used is "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), translated to "brothers" in English, and it has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "a near kinsman, or relative," e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, uncle, or aunt, etc., and in the plural it regularly refers to men and women.

We agree its familial definition "a near kinsman, or relative" applies in those verses, which isn't a "non-familial" definition as you claim. Now, if you claim Jesus's brothers in Matt. 12:46-47, Mk. 3:31-32, and Lk. 8:19-20 were Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) from Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and that they were His siblings, then you need to provide evidence that shows that type of kinship applies in Matt. 12:46-47, Mk. 3:31-32, and Lk. 8:19-20; and that the brothers here were specifically some or all of Jesus's male brothers named in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and which ones? You also have to provide evidence for Jesus's mother in these verses was an aunt of His.

However, I know you can't, because in my thread Were they Jesus's siblings?, I provided evidence that confirms they were brothers, as in "a near kinsman, or relative," and shows the type of kinship was cousins. And, in Matt. 12:46, Mk. 3:31, and Lk. 8:19, Jesus's brothers who arrived with His mother to speak with Him were two of His four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus. (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. II,, ch. 268, pp. 430-436)