Did Jesus have brothers? Article dealing with the question of whether Mary was always "the Virgin Mary."

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
holytext said:
The most natural reading is to conclude that he kept her a virgin until Jesus was born; that is, she wasn’t a virgin after Jesus was born because she and Joseph had sexual relations.
Click to expand...
Not according to any Christians up “until” well after the Reformation (1900’s?). This novel idea that Mary bore other children was rebuked by the Reformers, themselves, because it was so far off base from “the most natural reading [of the Scriptures]”. See for yourself (about 3/4 down through these short quotes, assorted by topic):


Why should anyone toss out the historical understanding of the Scriptures, from the first to 16th (and beyond) centuries and adopt this new tradition of man that tries to twist God’s Word into something it’s not?
 
This topic has been done to death on CAF. I don’t really care about Protestant views on Mary. No Roman Catholic should even bother engaging in such debates.
 
prayerrider said:
This topic has been done to death on CAF. I don’t really care about Protestant views on Mary. No Roman Catholic should even bother engaging in such debates.
Click to expand...
The reason some of us do is 1) for the benefit to the other party of seeing why we believe such, so that they don’t continue to think we’re just a bunch of brainwashed fools; 2) for the benefit of sharing information so that both parties can deepen their knowledge base; 3) for the benefit of 3rd parties who are just observing, without commenting, so that they can make informed decisions based on BOTH points of view, and not just based on the Protestant view; 4) any other number of reasons that people give for engaging in debate.
😉
 
Why do some Protestants insist on sexualizing Mary? As if there haven’t been many thousands of consecrated virgins (occasionally even married ones) throughout history–none of whom were remotely as holy as Mary?
Anyway the user you are responding to has been suspended. Good. Anyone who denigrates Mary should be summarily banned.
 
Last edited:
Yes I know, I’ve done it myself, gone round and round. But it’s like arguing with a post. It’s sad really, how some can’t accept who Mary really is. They have to carnalize her, thereby insulting her Son as well.
 
prayerrider said:
Anyway the user you are responding to has been suspended.
Click to expand...
Already?!?! Wow, @holytext, that was fast.
prayerrider said:
Why do some Protestants insist on sexualizing Mary? As if there haven’t been many thousands of consecrated virgins ocassionally even married ones) throughout history–none of whom were remotely as holy as Mary?
Click to expand...
Beats me. It’s like the notion of perpetual virginity has become something completely unconscionable, unless it’s someone other than the Mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. 🤔
 
Mary is a favorite target of fundamentalists. They make up their own “theology” as they go, using proof texting as “evidence.”
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure what the record shortest time between joining and getting suspended is. I think it’s a lot less than 20 hours.
 
ahs said:
sharing
Click to expand...
I suppose there is value in debating Mary-bashers in that it can help one clarify one’s own, right understanding–an orthodox Catholic understanding–of who Mary is. I’ve never seen any fundamentalists accept the truth, though. They’re too hung up on their myopic view of Scripture and their low Christology. Not to mention listening to Reverend Billy Bob rail against Mary from the pulpit.
 
prayerrider said:
I’ve never seen any fundamentalists accept the truth, though.
Click to expand...
This is my experience too. It is more likely that they want to debate you to provoke you to anger and name calling. They get a kick out of a Catholic losing his cool.
 
prayerrider said:
Not to mention listening to Reverend Billy Bob rail against Mary from the pulpit.
Click to expand...
I was once send a video link by a non-Catholic co-worker about Mary. I expected the usual anti-Catholic banter and 30 minutes of “Mary was just a plain lady…” type stuff. But, it was deliciously NOT that. The guy actually is “anti-Catholic”, but his sermon on Mary was actually VERY good. I kept wondering how in the world he could call us Mary-worshipers and simultaneously express (unintentionally) his Catholic view of how Mary should be treated by ALL Christians.

Here’s the link to my review of the video; but really, watch that video if you have time someday. (It’s linked in my article.)

 
I believe Mary was a virgin her whole life because my pastor and my Bishop and my Pope tell this to me.

While the word ἕως (heos) could mean multiple things, the meaning that we as the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church announce to the world is that it means she had no relations prior to Jesus’s birth; it speaks nothing about the time after his birth. This is the meaning guaranteed by the Holy Spirit which inspires the Tradition and Magisterium of the church to correctly interpret Scripture.

Protestants, will always assert opinions contrary to the church they are protesting.

Since the church fathers assert that Matthew was originally in Aramaic rather than Greek it is easy to recognize that the word cousin and brother are the same word and translated loosely into Greek. English translators from the Greek like to transliterate rather than translate and therefore love the word brother rather than allow it to mean cousin as it should.

While I know Greek very well and could pick any one of multiple interpretations, the meaning of scripture is not a matter of private interpretation. The interpretation that has come to me via the Apostolic Authority of Catholic Tradition is the treasure hidden among the variety available. Other readings could be argued as valid interpretations, but the proof is in the Authority of the one delivering the interpretation.

John Martin
 
Last edited:
MATTHEW 1:20-25 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emman′u-el”

(which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
Click to expand...
holytext . . .
The most natural reading is to conclude that he kept her a virgin until Jesus was born; that is, she wasn’t a virgin after Jesus was born because she and Joseph had sexual relations.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

St. Joseph was told by the angel to take Mary, his WIFE, into his home.

Don’t men have “relations” with their wife even AFTER they are pregnant?

Yes of course.

Yet St. Joseph did NOT. This despite Heaven TELLING him to take Mary into his home.

St. Joseph “knew her not” at that time DESPITE Heaven telling him to take Mary into his home.

WHY do you think St. Joseph would “abstain”?

After all. There would be no sin for a man and his pregnant wife to have “relations” under “usual circumstances”. It is not “dirty” either.

(But I am going to argue here this is NOT “usual circumstances”.)

There is something very special going on here in Scripture, that you are missing.

If you can figure out WHY Joseph “knew her not” BEFORE Jesus was born, you will understand WHY “Joseph knew her not” AFTER Jesus was born too.

The “until” aspect says absolutely NOTHING about what occurs AFTER the “until” and I think it is inappropriate for you to ADD to Sacred Scripture something that is NOT in the passage.
 
Last edited:
holytext . . . .
  1. Second, there is biblical evidence that Jesus had siblings.
Click to expand...
There is NOT ONE passage in the Bible that says Jesus had “siblings”, at least “siblings” in a uterine sense.

Jesus had “brothers” but “brothers” in a Hebrew culture meant MANY things (first cousin, second cousin, third cousin, fellow tribesman, fellow Jew, uncle, nephew, etc. Not merely UTERINE siblings.)

I do not think it is spiritually appropriate for you to be ADDING to Sacred Scripture unless you have some other appropriate outside authoritative source at your disposal (Apostolic Tradition).

As for Jesus and “uterine siblings”?

He had NONE.

Nobody in Scripture described as a son or daughter of Mary in a physical sense (except Jesus).

Nobody in Scripture ever described as having Mary for their mother either (except Jesus) in this sense. Nobody.

holytext’s folly of pretending Psalm 69 does, turns Jesus into a sinner if you hold it in the tradition of men that holytext is attempting to pass off.
40.png
Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin" Sacred Scripture
mcq72 . . . “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, And an alien unto my mother’s children.” Psalm 69:8 This is speaking of Jesus here. Psalm 69 has many layers. If you reduce it down to being ONLY JESUS you will have a problem mcq72. You turn Jesus into a sinner. Why? Because just 3 verses earlier contextually, this same person being alluded to in Psalm 69:8 (and the SAME person in Psalm 69:5) committed “wrongs” and “folly”. PSALM 69:5a 5 O God, thou knowest my folly ; the wrong…
Click to expand...
.

The DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a tradition of men that makes void the word of God.
 
Last edited:
holytext . . . .
  1. Matt. 13:55-56 says, “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
Click to expand...
holytext.

Look again at the passage.
MATTHEW 13:53-57 53 And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, 54 and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s SON? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine.)

.

Now consider what the verse does NOT SAY . . . .
NOT MATTHEW 13:53-57 (but a phantom verse) 53 And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, 54 and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this ONE OF the carpenter’s SONS? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I just figured that out.

(holytext. Hopefully you are still “lurking” and will re-consider the inventions that you attempted to put forth.)
 
I’ve heard fundies deny that Mary is Mother of God, too.
I guess they don’t teach about Docetism in Bible college.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top