Virgin Mary Had Other Children After Jesus

  • 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!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,249
5,326
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
sola scriptura....ok....the phrase Virgin Mary does not appear in the scriptures.
The clinical definition of virgin was never strictly implied.
The closest Hebrew word for clinical virginity was convoluted too, because the Old Testament used it to described a woman that was raped.
The Greek definition for virgin is young woman....young maiden....implication....young woman that has not delivered a child. Very old debate.

The Church's desire to portray Miriam as a virgin after conception, after delivery, and all her life was the growing belief that sex was evil. You can check history on this and eventually leads to the doctrine of Original Sin. Because of all this they could not accept the idea of
1. Miriam being conceived by sex....so voilà! Immaculate conception was conceived
2. Miriam conceiving by God's seed.
3. Baby Yeshua passing through the evil genitals.
4. Miriam doing anything as evil as having sex.

The concept of perpetual virginity did not come until centuries later, and it was slowly accepted and intensified so that anything to do with sex and pleasure become kin to satanic. This can be verified with the writings of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and several other ECF's. Eventually even sex between a husband and a wife was considered sinful if it was done for any other reason but to have children. It gets to the point that even famine beauty is seen as sinister. In a male dominant religion where sex is seen as dirty, nasty, and sinful....women are the tempter of good men and are in league with the devil.....ergo the Witch Hunts.

The concept that celibacy has anything to do with being right with God or even good has dogged the Catholic Church for centuries, and is at the root of their problems today.

Even though St. Jerome obviously preferred the company of women, (Because the company he kept and most of his followers were women.) He still had this to say about the status of women: “….it is contrary to the order of nature, or of law, that women should speak in the assembly of men……and man should be commanded to love his wife, whereas the wife should fear her husband.” and he also said “Nothing is so unclean as a woman in her periods; what she touches she causes to become unclean.” Written by St. Jerome

“Because Eve caused the fall of Man she and all women were cursed to painfully deliver children between urine and feces.” Written by St. Jerome

“He who ardently loves his own wife in an adulterer.” Written by St. Jerome

On the topic of sexual desire...“Who can control this when its appetite is aroused? No one! In the very movement of this appetite, then, it has no ‘mode’ that responds to the decisions of the will. But when those who delight in this pleasure are not moved to it at their own will, whether they confine themselves to lawful or transgress to a unlawful pleasures; but sometimes this lust importunes them in spite of themselves, and sometimes fails them when they desire to feel it, so that though lust rages in the mind, it stirs not in the body Written by St. Augustine

“This diabolical excitement of the genitals…” (As St. Augustine refers to the act of sex.) …is evidence of Adam’s original sin which is now transmitted “from the mother’s womb,” tainting all human beings with sin, and leaving them incapable of choosing good over evil, or determining their own destiny.” Written by St. Augustine

“We must conclude, that a husband is meant to rule over his wife as the spirit rules over the flesh. and “the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh.” Written by St. Augustine

”..marriage is a crime against God, because it changed the state of virginity that God gave every man and woman at birth....Marriage was prostitution of the members of Christ, and married people ought to blush at the state in which they live.” Written by St. Ambrose

In the year 553 A.D. At a Council of bishops in Macon, religious leaders debate and voted on whether or not females had souls. By a narrow margin the Bishops decide that females have souls. Like it was their choice.

Penitential regulation laid down in the 7th century by Theodore, Bishop of Canterbury, forbade menstruating women to take communion or even enter the church. At the French Synod of Meraux, menstruating women were specifically forbidden to come to church

We move forward to the year 940 A.D. A well-respected religious leader named Odo, who was the leader of the Monks of Cluny, wrote, “To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure.” And considered “….the beauty of a woman the greatest of snares.”




 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stan B

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
sola scriptura....ok....the phrase Virgin Mary does not appear in the scriptures.
The clinical definition of virgin was never strictly implied.
The closest Hebrew word for clinical virginity was convoluted too, because the Old Testament used it to described a woman that was raped.
The Greek definition for virgin is young woman....young maiden....implication....young woman that has not delivered a child. Very old debate.

The Church's desire to portray Miriam as a virgin after conception, after delivery, and all her life was the growing belief that sex was evil. You can check history on this and eventually leads to the doctrine of Original Sin. Because of all this they could not accept the idea of
1. Miriam conceiving by God's seed.
2. Baby Yeshua passing through the evil genitals.
3. Miriam doing anything as evil as having sex.

The concept of perpetual virginity did not come until centuries later, and it was slowly accepted and intensified so that anything to do with sex and pleasure become kin to satanic. This can be verified with the writings of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and several other ECF's. Eventually even sex between a husband and a wife was considered sinful if it was done for any other reason but to have children. It gets to the point that even famine beauty is seen as sinister. In a male dominant religion where sex is seen as dirty, nasty, and sinful....women are the tempter of good men and are in league with the devil.....ergo the Witch Hunts.

The concept that celibacy has anything to do with being right with God or even good has dogged the Catholic Church for centuries, and is at the root of their problems today.

Even though St. Jerome obviously preferred the company of women, (Because the company he kept and most of his followers were women.) He still had this to say about the status of women: “….it is contrary to the order of nature, or of law, that women should speak in the assembly of men……and man should be commanded to love his wife, whereas the wife should fear her husband.” and he also said “Nothing is so unclean as a woman in her periods; what she touches she causes to become unclean.” Written by St. Jerome

“Because Eve caused the fall of Man she and all women were cursed to painfully deliver children between urine and feces.” Written by St. Jerome

“He who ardently loves his own wife in an adulterer.” Written by St. Jerome

On the topic of sexual desire...“Who can control this when its appetite is aroused? No one! In the very movement of this appetite, then, it has no ‘mode’ that responds to the decisions of the will. But when those who delight in this pleasure are not moved to it at their own will, whether they confine themselves to lawful or transgress to a unlawful pleasures; but sometimes this lust importunes them in spite of themselves, and sometimes fails them when they desire to feel it, so that though lust rages in the mind, it stirs not in the body Written by St. Augustine

“This diabolical excitement of the genitals…” (As St. Augustine refers to the act of sex.) …is evidence of Adam’s original sin which is now transmitted “from the mother’s womb,” tainting all human beings with sin, and leaving them incapable of choosing good over evil, or determining their own destiny.” Written by St. Augustine

“We must conclude, that a husband is meant to rule over his wife as the spirit rules over the flesh. and “the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh.” Written by St. Augustine

”..marriage is a crime against God, because it changed the state of virginity that God gave every man and woman at birth....Marriage was prostitution of the members of Christ, and married people ought to blush at the state in which they live.” Written by St. Ambrose

In the year 553 A.D. At a Council of bishops in Macon, religious leaders debate and voted on whether or not females had souls. By a narrow margin the Bishops decide that females have souls. Like it was their choice.

Penitential regulation laid down in the 7th century by Theodore, Bishop of Canterbury, forbade menstruating women to take communion or even enter the church. At the French Synod of Meraux, menstruating women were specifically forbidden to come to church

We move forward to the year 940 A.D. A well-respected religious leader named Odo, who was the leader of the Monks of Cluny, wrote, “To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure.” And considered “….the beauty of a woman the greatest of snares.”
What a load of crap. No ECF references, no sources of alleged councils. It looks like standard SDA fiction.

"...So you are equally concerned, I imagine, when Paul (in 1 Corinthians 7) praises those who are voluntarily celibate for the sake of undistracted devotion to the kingdom (i.e., those who lived as he did). I guess he, too, thinks sex is sinful because of that advice. Jesus must agree that it is sinful as well, since He talked approvingly about those who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom (Matthew 19).

Why anyone would conclude that heroic virginity or celibacy according to the evangelical counsels and St. Paul’s advice is somehow anti-sex is beyond me. It’s like saying, “I prefer and ‘choose’ apples over oranges; therefore I am anti-oranges.” Huh? The reductio ad absurdum shows the fallacy in the original assertion.

Mary wasn’t a normal Jewish wife. She was miraculously impregnated by the Holy Spirit, and gave birth to Jesus: God the Son, without having had sexual relations (most Protestants still accept the Virgin Birth, I think). Consecrated virginity is far less notable than those two events, which Protestants (excepting liberal ones who are scarcely historic Protestants at all) all agree with.

It’s always tough to convince anyone of anything, but I think that if a person doesn’t have a built-in bias against it and is willing to follow biblical data to wherever it leads, there is a fair chance of persuading a person like that.

The bias is the killer. When a person is convinced that we believe in the PVM because we hate sex (that this accounts for the very origin of it), and other nonsense notions like that, then forget it: the Bible is helpless to convince such a person, with their preconceived false ideas.
Virgin Birth & Perpetual Virginity: "Anti-Sex"?
 
Last edited:

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,249
5,326
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What a load of crap.
In this case crap can be verified.....don't argue with me. Everything is the truth and the people are historical persons and their writings still exist in volumes. So go put your head in the sand....and scream.....I am not in Kansas any more!
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
From vague memory from what I read somewhere, some Catholic theologian came up with the doctrine that although Mary and Joseph were truly married and shared the marriage bed with all the bells and whistles, and had more children between them, after Joseph died, God somehow by a miracle, restored Mary's virginity so she could become the perpetual virgin.

It suggests that when a logical answer is given, a "new revelation" from God suddenly appears purporting a miracle that makes the logical answer obsolete. All the pope has to do is to sit in the chair of Peter and announce the new revelation as a new doctrine of the church, and this is accepted as extra Biblical truth.

But then the pope is not the only one who comes up with this sort of thing. There is a branch of the Charismatic movement that comes up with "new" extra-Biblical revelations that become that faction's Charismatic doctrine.

Joseph Smith got his "revelations" from a set of golden plates given to him by an angel, and he had to put his face into his hat to peer into his version of a crystal ball to translate them.

Harold Hill got his "Think and Grow Rich" teaching from an imaginary committee of great minds, which became real to him and dictated the teaching to him.

Norman Vincent Peale was heavily into the occult, and his "Power of Positive Thinking" was dictated to him by an occult entity.

Carl Rogers got authorisation from his dearly departed wife to have a relationship with another woman and "be happy", from consulting a Ouija board.

In my opinion all these "revelations" originate from the same source.
thanks for the reply, Yes I have hear these conjectures before, but rebuke them all, I'm staying with the scriptures. but they are good reads, as you said hold fast to what is good". sometimes things these like these conjectures may hold some truth to expose them.

I'm looking at another angle on the Lord's brother, as to what smeone said. but by scripture.

be blessed.

PICJAG.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stan B

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
" James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, to whom He gave the name Boanerges, that is, “Sons of Thunder” Mark 3:17
thanks for the reply, yes, but may I make a suggestion, what if John here is James brother, but not Zebedee son. read that scripture again maybe twice.

why say,"James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James", and not, "James and John the sons of Zebedee", or, "James the son of Zebedee and John my sons". no, which leaves me to believe that John here is not Zebedee natural blood son, but YES James brother.

this leads me to think that John who has been describe as the beloved disciple who was at the cross when Jesus surrendered Mary's care unto.

before you respond, Read Gill's commentary on John 19:25 especially on"and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas", which was an interesting read.

and while you're at it check out how the Name Cleophas and or Alphaeus read in the verse, here's the Greek.
G2832 Κλωπᾶς Klopas (klo-pas') n/p.
1. (meaning) a brother (or close friend) of one's father.
2. (person) Clopas (Achab), an Israelite.
[of Chaldee origin (corresponding to H256)]
KJV: Cleophas

now the corresponding root of this word is also interesting, from the hebrew H256, which reads,
H256 אַחאָב 'Ach'ab (ach-awɓ') n/p.
אֶחָב 'Echab (ech- awɓ') [by contraction in Jeremiah 29:22]
1. (meaning) brother (i.e. friend) of (his) father.
2. Achab, the name of a king of Israel and of a prophet at Babylon.
[from H251 and H1]

Look at that and tell me what you think

Thanks in advance.

PICJAG.
 

Stan B

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
1,967
983
113
81
Toronto
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
thanks for the reply, yes, but may I make a suggestion, what if John here is James brother, but not Zebedee son. read that scripture again maybe twice.

why say,"James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James", and not, "James and John the sons of Zebedee", or, "James the son of Zebedee and John my sons". no, which leaves me to believe that John here is not Zebedee natural blood son, but YES James brother.

this leads me to think that John who has been describe as the beloved disciple who was at the cross when Jesus surrendered Mary's care unto.

before you respond, Read Gill's commentary on John 19:25 especially on"and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas", which was an interesting read.

I read Gill's take on this

and while you're at it check out how the Name Cleophas and or Alphaeus read in the verse, here's the Greek.
G2832 Κλωπᾶς Klopas (klo-pas') n/p.
1. (meaning) a brother (or close friend) of one's father.
2. (person) Clopas (Achab), an Israelite.
[of Chaldee origin (corresponding to H256)]
KJV: Cleophas

now the corresponding root of this word is also interesting, from the hebrew H256, which reads,
H256 אַחאָב 'Ach'ab (ach-awɓ') n/p.
אֶחָב 'Echab (ech- awɓ') [by contraction in Jeremiah 29:22]
1. (meaning) brother (i.e. friend) of (his) father.
2. Achab, the name of a king of Israel and of a prophet at Babylon.
[from H251 and H1]

Look at that and tell me what you think

Thanks in advance.

PICJAG.
thanks for the reply, yes, but may I make a suggestion, what if John here is James brother, but not Zebedee son. read that scripture again maybe twice.

why say,"James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James", and not, "James and John the sons of Zebedee", or, "James the son of Zebedee and John my sons". no, which leaves me to believe that John here is not Zebedee natural blood son, but YES James brother.

this leads me to think that John who has been describe as the beloved disciple who was at the cross when Jesus surrendered Mary's care unto.

before you respond, Read Gill's commentary on John 19:25 especially on"and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas", which was an interesting read.

and while you're at it check out how the Name Cleophas and or Alphaeus read in the verse, here's the Greek.
G2832 Κλωπᾶς Klopas (klo-pas') n/p.
1. (meaning) a brother (or close friend) of one's father.
2. (person) Clopas (Achab), an Israelite.
[of Chaldee origin (corresponding to H256)]
KJV: Cleophas

now the corresponding root of this word is also interesting, from the hebrew H256, which reads,
H256 אַחאָב 'Ach'ab (ach-awɓ') n/p.
אֶחָב 'Echab (ech- awɓ') [by contraction in Jeremiah 29:22]
1. (meaning) brother (i.e. friend) of (his) father.
2. Achab, the name of a king of Israel and of a prophet at Babylon.
[from H251 and H1]

Look at that and tell me what you think

Thanks in advance.

PICJAG.

I read Gill's take on this, but I tend to stick with the simple history: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas lineup as revealed in Matt and Mark.

What astonishes me, is the list of names who were not present at the cross.
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
I read Gill's take on this, but I tend to stick with the simple history: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas lineup as revealed in Matt and Mark.

What astonishes me, is the list of names who were not present at the cross.
Only the Apostle John was there. All the other Apostles had hightailed it back to Galilee. That's why Jesus told Mary to tell the disciples and Peter that He will meet with them back in Galilee, because that's where He expected them to be. Actually, that's where Peter, James, and John went after Jesus' death, because they were out fishing when Jesus appeared on the beach to offer them breakfast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stan B

Stan B

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
1,967
983
113
81
Toronto
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
If they were Jesus' brothers they MUST have been Mary's children.
Right on the mark Pearl. That’s what the Bible says, and I am content with embracing what God has declared over the centuries.

Satan’s transparent plan hasn’t changed in 6000 years! Same ole’ nonsense! “Did God really say that??”

Yup God really said that, and I believe God!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pearl

Stan B

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
1,967
983
113
81
Toronto
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Oh? I just used 5th Grade English Comprehension. If I had given that verse to my elementary school children they would have instantly told me that they were Mary's children. But then the children wouldn't be reading something into the text that isn't there.
Paul, I think you are setting the bar far too high!

Going by, albeit, 30 year old statistics, 80% of Roman Catholics have an average of only grade one education, and live south of the equator. In recent years, in countries like Brazil, the Roman Catholic church is pretty much dead, as former parishioners are fleeing from Romanism to evangelical churches. In current news, even the former priests are joining them, to the point that there are so few priests left, that most Roman Catholic churches in Brazil only have a priest dropping in to visit each church once a month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Christensen

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Paul, I think you are setting the bar far too high!

Going by, albeit, 30 year old statistics, 80% of Roman Catholics have an average of only grade one education, and live south of the equator. In recent years, in countries like Brazil, the Roman Catholic church is pretty much dead, as former parishioners are fleeing from Romanism to evangelical churches. In current news, even the former priests are joining them, to the point that there are so few priests left, that most Roman Catholic churches in Brazil only have a priest dropping in to visit each church once a month.
Informative.
 

Stan B

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
1,967
983
113
81
Toronto
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Only the Apostle John was there. All the other Apostles had hightailed it back to Galilee. That's why Jesus told Mary to tell the disciples and Peter that He will meet with them back in Galilee, because that's where He expected them to be. Actually, that's where Peter, James, and John went after Jesus' death, because they were out fishing when Jesus appeared on the beach to offer them breakfast.
That must have been painful when his own brothers and sisters had abandoned Him and his mother, and he had to hand over care for his mother to his beloved disciple John. :-(
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
That must have been painful when his own brothers and sisters had abandoned Him and his mother, and he had to hand over care for his mother to his beloved disciple John. :-(
It seems that His brothers and sisters got converted later on after He had risen from the dead. He appeared to 400 people after His resurrection, although only 120 were in the upper room at Pentecost. So it is quite possible that His brothers and sisters were either one of the 400, or the 120. Jesus spent 40 days teaching the gospel between His resurrection and ascension, and we don't really know how many were involved. We naturally assume that there were only the 12, but that might be an assumption on our part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stan B

Stan B

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
1,967
983
113
81
Toronto
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It seems that His brothers and sisters got converted later on after He had risen from the dead. He appeared to 400 people after His resurrection, although only 120 were in the upper room at Pentecost. So it is quite possible that His brothers and sisters were either one of the 400, or the 120. Jesus spent 40 days teaching the gospel between His resurrection and ascension, and we don't really know how many were involved. We naturally assume that there were only the 12, but that might be an assumption on our part.
I don't believe Jesus spent His last 40 days 'teaching'. As with Thomas, all that was needed was to hold out His hands as a testimony to who He was.
 

Pearl

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Apr 9, 2019
11,550
17,543
113
Lancashire
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
You are grasping at straws.
Let me summarise. In post #27 I suggested there are three arguments put forth against Mary remaining a virgin:
1. The "until" dispute - Mt 1:25
2. The "brothers" (and "sisters") - e.g. Mt 13:56
3. The "first born" argument"

For 1 the word until (heos in greek) does not imply the action concerned changed after the "until point". It is wrong to infer that it did.

For 2 the word brother (adephos in greek) does not necessarily mean they had the same mother. There are several alternatives. It is wrong to assume that there is only one possibility.

For 3 the "first born" has a special meaning in the Jewish culture and does not mean "only born".
I don't understand. It sounds very convoluted.
 

Pearl

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Apr 9, 2019
11,550
17,543
113
Lancashire
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Right on the mark Pearl. That’s what the Bible says, and I am content with embracing what God has declared over the centuries.

Satan’s transparent plan hasn’t changed in 6000 years! Same ole’ nonsense! “Did God really say that??”

Yup God really said that, and I believe God!
I think some churches, like JWs and RCs try to make scripture fit their own beliefs rather than accept what it actually says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stan B
Status
Not open for further replies.