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

[bbyrd009]

We cannot "wish away" the fact that there were THREE Mary's at the Crucifixion and ONE of them is named as the mother of these "brethren" - and it's NOT Mary, mother of Jesus.

"at the crucifixion" is what i don't get--we are nowhere near the crucifixion in Matt 13:55, which plainly states that Mary was their mother and Jesus' mother too, so in essence what i am hearing you saying is that you have a verse which makes another verse into a lie, which i don't believe wadr.

It is Mary, mother of Jesus, according to Matthew, unless a literary device is being used there, and i don't see any language around v55 to indicate any dialectic--sometimes a sigh is just a sigh, or whatever.

Is it possible for you to quote this verse at the crucifixion you are talking about? i keep expecting to see it, and i keep not seeing it. Preferably not buried in a page somewhere, ty. But tbh you cannot "wish away" that Matthew plainly described Jesus' mother Mary having other children imo

 

[bbyrd009]

Matt. 27:56 simply shows WHOSE mother those "brothers" of Jesus was

56Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

so you say, but those are pretty common names anyway, and as has already been pointed out i bet, there is quite a bit of disagreement in this v as to whether 3 women are being described, or 2. You wanna live and die on this, and disregard Matthew's much plainer statement then go ahead if you want to, but i mean really? I'll look at these other excuses before my mind completely shuts down, but to me this is why imo our cultures should not even be mixed--you want to worship women and participate in fertility rites, and i can only come across as condemning of that.

 

[bbyrd009]

Mark 15:40

ya, any way you cut it imo, you are seeking to make Matthew 13:55 into a lie, when if you just accepted the truth you would not have to go through these contortions

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus's mother in Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40, they are mentioned again - but as the sons of ANOTHER Mary.

as far as you know those are completely different people, and 49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! must also be ignored in order to make Mary into something that she is not, and was never meant to be.

So wadr your Mary bait and switch thing is irrelevant to Christ anyway, by His own Mouth

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nobody's listening to you.
No one ever did.
We just like to hear you rant.

Hmmmm - another impotent non-answer from you.
Not surprised at all . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

as far as you know those are completely different people, and 49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! must also be ignored in order to make Mary into something that she is not, and was never meant to be.

So wadr your Mary bait and switch thing is irrelevant to Christ anyway, by His own Mouth

How does the fact that the Greek word used here is "Adelphoi"?? Jesus didn't speak Greek - He spoke Aramaic.

Guess what?? The Aramaic word for "brother" (Ach) is ALSO a broadly defined word that means uterine brother, step-brother-half-brother, cousin, uncle, fellow believer, fellow countryman, etc.

I have already proven to you that the "Brother of the Lord" (James the Less) is the son of the other Mary standing near the cross.

 

[BreadOfLife]

ya, any way you cut it imo, you are seeking to make Matthew 13:55 into a lie, when if you just accepted the truth you would not have to go through these contortions

You have to go through more contortions to arrive at the idea that Mary had other children.
Scripture simply doesn't provide for this.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

How does the fact that the Greek word used here is "Adelphoi"?? Jesus didn't speak Greek - He spoke Aramaic.

Guess what?? The Aramaic word for "brother" (Ach) is ALSO a broadly defined word that means uterine brother, step-brother-half-brother, cousin, uncle, fellow believer, fellow countryman, etc.

I have already proven to you that the "Brother of the Lord" (James the Less) is the son of the other Mary standing near the cross.

That's all Greek to me.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

You have to go through more contortions to arrive at the idea that Mary had other children.
Scripture simply doesn't provide for this.

Who cares if Mary had other kids or not.
Only a roman catholic who wants to hold her up as an eternal virgin
What verses tell us that she was an eternal virgin?

 

[BreadOfLife]

"at the crucifixion" is what i don't get--we are nowhere near the crucifixion in Matt 13:55, which plainly states that Mary was their mother and Jesus' mother too, so in essence what i am hearing you saying is that you have a verse which makes another verse into a lie, which i don't believe wadr.

It is Mary, mother of Jesus, according to Matthew, unless a literary device is being used there, and i don't see any language around v55 to indicate any dialectic--sometimes a sigh is just a sigh, or whatever.

Is it possible for you to quote this verse at the crucifixion you are talking about? i keep expecting to see it, and i keep not seeing it. Preferably not buried in a page somewhere, ty. But tbh you cannot "wish away" that Matthew plainly described Jesus' mother Mary having other children imo

No - it does NOT say that Mary is their mother.
It says that she is the mother of JESUS - and nobody else.

As I have explained to you ad nauseam - the reason we need to look at the women standing near the cross is because these so-called "brethren" of Jesus are named as the children of the OTHER Mary - Mary's relative, the wife of Clopas (Alphaeus).

I find it astounding that you can't wrap your mind around this . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

56Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

so you say, but those are pretty common names anyway, and as has already been pointed out i bet, there is quite a bit of disagreement in this v as to whether 3 women are being described, or 2. You wanna live and die on this, and disregard Matthew's much plainer statement then go ahead if you want to, but i mean really? I'll look at these other excuses before my mind completely shuts down, but to me this is why imo our cultures should not even be mixed--you want to worship women and participate in fertility rites, and i can only come across as condemning of that.

And this is just another big fat lie.
We don't worship Mary and you know it so stop being dishonest.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

And this is just another big fat lie.
We don't worship Mary and you know it so stop being dishonest.

Then who do you worship?

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's all Greek to me.

Judging by all of your posts so far - that doesn't surprise me.
This should make you think - not spout off desperately inane one-liners.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Then who do you worship?

God and God alone.
Who do YOU worship??

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

God and God alone.
Who do YOU worship??

If you worship God and God alone, then why do you spend all day every day talking about Mary?
It sounds like you worship Mary to me.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Who cares if Mary had other kids or not.
Only a roman catholic who wants to hold her up as an eternal virgin
What verses tell us that she was an eternal virgin?

Mary’s question to the Angel Gabriel is very telling about her intention to remain a virgin:

Luke 1:34: Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?” She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had NO intention of having marital relations.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you worship God and God alone, then why do you spend all day every day talking about Mary?
It sounds like you worship Mary to me.

Nope - just defending my Lord's mom against some pretty filthy accusations.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Catholic Church doesn't have an "official" position on most verses of Scripture.
The Church, in its wisdom does, however, takes the different Gospel accounts in CONTEXT.

When comparing the different accounts of the "brethren" of Jesus and the places where they are named - it also takes the accounts of the women standing near the cross into consideration. We cannot "wish away" the fact that there were THREE Mary's at the Crucifixion and ONE of them is named as the mother of these "brethren" - and it's NOT Mary, mother of Jesus.

THIS Mary is related to the mother of Jesus because she is called her "Adelphe". She cannot be her uterine sister, however, because her name is ALSO Mary. Her children are called the "Adelphoi" of Jesus.

Interesting post.
You said the Catholic Church has NO POSITION, officially, on most verses.

How could this be if the church does a lot of teaching as you often state?

How could this be if Don Angelo does a bible study every Friday evening?
The only one, BTW, in a region of about 10,000 or more persons.

Are you not contradicting yourself??

If the CC does not have an official position, how does it do bible study?

And anyway, I know that they DO have an official position on every verse because I had to make sure I was teaching what the CC believes.

 

[GodsGrace]

Mary’s question to the Angel Gabriel is very telling about her intention to remain a virgin:

Luke 1:34: Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?” She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had NO intention of having marital relations.

The above is so wrong that I won't even comment.
And what about Mathew 1:25?

SHE WAS NOT STATING AN INTENTION.
She was stating that she had never been with a man.
This was before she and Joseph were married.

 

[GodsGrace]

Sounds like we are in agreement. The only evidence we have is that Jesus 'brothers' were Joseph's children, not Mary's. Some question it's (Proto. of James) authenticity. You seem to lean towards the some that question, I lean the other way.

Which makes my statement true: "It would be dishonest to say that the belief is not backed up by 2,000 years of Christian history".

I have made the assertion that Christianity has been teaching perpetual virginity for 2,000 years. I asked you: Can you show me that Christianity HAS NOT been teaching Mary's perpetual virginity for 2,000 years? I don't see anywhere in your above statement disproving my assertion.

I refuse to accept Matthew 13:55? Really? I have made it clear they are his brothers and their father is Joseph. That is the entire point of this discussion.

Love, Mary

Mary,
"Leaning" does not make a statement true.
There must be hard and fast evidence.

If the Prot of James could be proven authentic, it would say a lot.
But there are so many doubts by those who should know.

Even the CC says that Jesus might have had brothers but that they would have been children of Joseph. He did die, probably, before Jesus' ministry. He might have been up to 20 yrs the elder of Mary.

It seems to me we go from one extreme to the other with Mary.
The CC wants to make her into an almost co-redemptrix, and some language makes her to be one already. Protestants, OTOH, give her very little respect and tend to treat her as just another person.

IMHO, both views are incorrect.
This is not something I'm willing to argue ad infinitum.
I do know from Catholic belief that Mary also did not suffer any birth pains and remained virgin even after childbirth. God can do anything He wants, but I fail to see the necessity of this and the bible does not make it clear to me that she did not have a normal married life.

There's not much more to say.