H
hellopeople
Guest
The reason why it is so important is because the Church verified its truth so Mary did have other kids, the church would be wrong, and apparently the devil has won
- Status
J
John_Lazarus
Guest
What’s wrong with the word, other than your dislike of it?
You have brothers and sisters – they are your siblings.
You have sons and daughters – they are your children.
You have a mother and a father – they are your parents.
All of them together – they are your family.
I see no problem in using collective nouns.
T
tml3625
Guest
Can you please tell me how the church verified this truth?The reason why it is so important is because the Church verified its truth so Mary did have other kids, the church would be wrong, and apparently the devil has won
T
tml3625
Guest
What does “I’ll wait for you on the corner until 7:00” mean to you. To me and most of the world, it means “I’ll wait for you on the corner until 7:00”. If you go to the corner at 7:20 you will not find me waiting. Thus the word “until” does imply a change will occur after the “until” event transpires. Tell someone that you didn’t eat chicken until after you were married. To most in the world, this statement means that you didn’t eat chicken before you were married and waited until after you were married to eat chicken.
“I’ll stay with you until 7:00” means just that. At 7:00 I’m leaving.
Mary knew Joseph not until after Jesus was born also means just that. She did not have relations with Joseph until after Jesus was born. Why do you consider that a problem? Relations are not something to be ashamed of.
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
Huh?
I
inkaneer
Guest
He is not a member of any Eastern Orthodox Church. He is a fundie evangelical who thinks his 19th century tradition of man is what truth is. Thus the word “ORTHODOX” in upper case letters. In fact,not only is he not a member of any Eastern Orthodoix Church, he is not even a good sola scripturist. He’s probably here because his minister gave a sermon telling then they should witness to Catholics.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Realy you have not proved your point. To say, “I’ll wait for you on the corner until 7:00” means you will wait until at least 7:00 but you may wait longer if I don’t show up. Now if you said, “I’ll wait for you on the corner until 7:00 then I’m leaving” then you got a different situation all together. But in Mt 1:25 Matthew does not say that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born does he? The only thing Matthew says Joseph did was name the baby, Jesus. Here it is:
“but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” Mt 1:25 RSV
“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” Mt 1:25 KJV
Now if Mt 1:25 said, “but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus and thereafter they had other children.” Then we would agree with you. In your second example of the chicken you made a fundamental change by using the word ‘after’. But Matthew does not use the word 'after". That word makes all the difference. See the below examples:
“but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” Mt 1:25 RSV
versus “but knew her not until AFTER she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” Mt 1:25 RSV
“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” Mt 1:25 KJV
“And knew her not till AFTER she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” Mt 1:25 KJV
Do you see how the word 'AFYTER" changes the whole statement??
BUT, unfortunately [unfortunately for you that is] Matthew does not say that. Just another case of people who claim to be sola scripturists and who claim that the Bible is their authority do violence to the Holy word of God.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
First of all, Paul did not dream his encounter with Jesus. It knocks him and his travelling companions to the ground - apparently you are too lazy to look up the passage, or you would have known that Paul was not “laying down by the side of the road” resting or sleeping - he had just been knocked down. "At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining round me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ Acts 26:13-14
How many dreams do you know of that knock not only you down, but people around you also?
You’re basing your misreading on the translation of one word. The Navarre Bible explains, "The New Vulgate translate it as “Et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit filium”, folling the Greek. Literally, donec means “until”. This participle (in Greek, heos) simply points out something that has happened prior to this point in time (in this case, the virginal conception of Jesus); it is not saying anything about a future situation. We find the same word in John 9:18, where we are told that the Pharisees did not believe in the miraculous cure of the man blind from birth “until” they spoke to his parents; however, they did not believe in the miracle after that, either. The Church teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary "a virgin before she gave birth, when she gave birth, and after she gave birth; in a unique and unrepeatable way, she is a virgin in mind, soul, and body forever: (St. John Damascene)
Really, there is no record of a tradition that Jesus had no siblings?
St. Athanasius - “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to His essence, deny also that He took true human flesh from the Ever-Virgin Mary.”
Didymus the Blind - “It helps us to understand the terms first-born and only-begotten when the Evangelist tells us that Mary remained a virgin “until she brought forth her first-born son”; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all other, marry anyone, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin.”
St. Epiphanius of Salamis - “for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.”
St. Ephiphanius of Salamis (again) - “Was there ever anyone of any breeding who dared to speak the name of Holy Mary, and being questioned, did not immediately add, ‘the Virgin?’ For by such added names the positive proofs of merit are apparent. And to Holy Mary, Virgin is invariably added, for that Holy Woman remains undefiled.”
St. Jerome - “We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this in order to condemn marriage: for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage… You say that Mary did not reamin a virgin. As for myself, I calaim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock.”
St. Augustine of Hippo - “Let us rejoice, brethren; let the nations exult and be glad. It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought Him forth, made visible for us, but whom, when He was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual.”
St. Augustine of Hippo (again) - “Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband.”
Leporius - “We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the Ever-Virgin Mary, was born God.”
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
continued …
St. Cyril of Alexandria - “Jesus did not first come into being as a simple man, before the union and communion of God in him; but thw Word Himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for Himself His own Temple from the substance of the Virgin, and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly He was true God. Therefore He kept His Mother a Virgin even after her child-bearing, which was done for none of the other saints.”
St. Peter Chrysologus - “A Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remains.”
St. Leo I - “His origin is different but His nature is the same. Human usage and custom was lacking, but by divine power it was brought about that a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained.”
St. Gregory of Tours - “But Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who is believed to be a virgin both before and after she bore Him, has, as we said above, been translated into paradise, amide the singing of the angelic choirs, whither the Lord preceded her.”
St. Sophronius of Jerusalem - At the same time, however, there were the sublime and preeminent indications of His divinity … such as His being conceived without seed, the exultation of John in the womb, the undespoiling birth, the immaculate virginity which was unblemished before the birth, during the birth, and after the birth."
St. John Damascene - “And just as He that was conceived kept her that conceived a Virgin still, he that was born kept her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. The conception was through the sense of hearing; but the birth was through the usual channel by which children come, even if some do prattle of His birth being through the side of the Mother of God. Certainly it was not impossible for Him to come by this gate without injuring its seal in any way. Thus the Ever-Virgin remains after birth a Virgil still, never having consorted with man until death … For how were it possible that she, who had borne God, and had come to know that miracle from her experience of subsequent events, should receive the embrace of a man? Perish the thought.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria - “Jesus did not first come into being as a simple man, before the union and communion of God in him; but thw Word Himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for Himself His own Temple from the substance of the Virgin, and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly He was true God. Therefore He kept His Mother a Virgin even after her child-bearing, which was done for none of the other saints.”
St. Peter Chrysologus - “A Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remains.”
St. Leo I - “His origin is different but His nature is the same. Human usage and custom was lacking, but by divine power it was brought about that a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained.”
St. Gregory of Tours - “But Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who is believed to be a virgin both before and after she bore Him, has, as we said above, been translated into paradise, amide the singing of the angelic choirs, whither the Lord preceded her.”
St. Sophronius of Jerusalem - At the same time, however, there were the sublime and preeminent indications of His divinity … such as His being conceived without seed, the exultation of John in the womb, the undespoiling birth, the immaculate virginity which was unblemished before the birth, during the birth, and after the birth."
St. John Damascene - “And just as He that was conceived kept her that conceived a Virgin still, he that was born kept her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. The conception was through the sense of hearing; but the birth was through the usual channel by which children come, even if some do prattle of His birth being through the side of the Mother of God. Certainly it was not impossible for Him to come by this gate without injuring its seal in any way. Thus the Ever-Virgin remains after birth a Virgil still, never having consorted with man until death … For how were it possible that she, who had borne God, and had come to know that miracle from her experience of subsequent events, should receive the embrace of a man? Perish the thought.”
H
hellopeople
Guest
I believe it was in 1850 that they issued a decree solidifying the perpetual virginity of Mary.
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
I
inkaneer
Guest
And lets not forget the quotes from these guys on Mary’s perpetual Vurginity. First Martin Luther:
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
“. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”
Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
“. . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther’s Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)
“Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther’s Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)
“Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees.” (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)
John Calvin on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
CONTINUED NEXT POST…
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
“. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”
Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
“. . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther’s Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)
“Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther’s Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)
“Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees.” (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)
John Calvin on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
CONTINUED NEXT POST…
I
inkaneer
Guest
CONTINUING…
Huldreich Zwingli on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Heinrich Bullinger on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism) on the perpetual Virginity of Mary:
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
{“Letter to a Roman Catholic” / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}
So even the protestant “reformers” up through the 18th century believed in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Then came the “know nothings”, the fundie evangelicals who, true to their nickname, denied all knowledge of what was believed before. They then tried to reinvent the wheel. It is almost laughable.
Huldreich Zwingli on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Heinrich Bullinger on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism) on the perpetual Virginity of Mary:
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
{“Letter to a Roman Catholic” / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}
So even the protestant “reformers” up through the 18th century believed in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Then came the “know nothings”, the fundie evangelicals who, true to their nickname, denied all knowledge of what was believed before. They then tried to reinvent the wheel. It is almost laughable.
Z
Zoin
Guest
If we will read the bible. Jesus has siblings. It didn’t say that Mary stayed a virgin after Jesus was born. We should consult only the bible to avoid contradictions. 
K
kepha1
Guest
No, Zion, the bible does not say Jesus had siblings. The bible says Jesus had cousins.If we will read the bible. Jesus has siblings. It didn’t say that Mary stayed a virgin after Jesus was born. We should consult only the bible to avoid contradictions.
There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).
Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).
No Word for Cousin
Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”
There is more poof here.
And here
The claim that Jesus had biological brothers means that there was nothing sacred about the vessel that God chose for the Incarnation. And if Mary is just some divine rent-a-womb to be passed around to bear other children, this makes Jesus look cheap. If Mary is nobody special then there is nothing special about her only born Child.
According to Mosaic law, any women having sex with someone other than their husband was to be stoned to death. Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. You can argue all day those words are not in the Bible, but then you have to argue that Joseph, or some human, is Jesus’ father. Since Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit (by conceiving Jesus) her true husband is God, but God found a way to give a “just man” to Mary and her Baby to provide for and protect, which he did. Mary nor Joseph met the criteria for being stoned to death.
The post-18th century fragmented prot cults have invented a doctrine of demons.
I urge you to repent of falling for this LIE, and “consult the Bible” in the context of the faith community that wrote it.
H
hellopeople
Guest
My response in bold…
Mary and Joseph did not meet the criteria for being stoned because they didn’t advertise that Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son. As for the last line there, you are just bashing protestants for no reason…and quite offensively. Seems very Catholic of you
K
kepha1
Guest
Hellopeople, you have no argument. Whatever happened after that wouldn’t change those two facts is wrong because it is incomprehensible. What God makes holy STAYS HOLY.
18 centuries go by and along comes evangelical cults with an opinion and you accept this doctrine of demons as infallible and everyone else before, including the early reformers, were wrong?
Not all Protestants buy into this SATANIC LIE, and if you find the truth to be offensive, it’s not my problem.
18 centuries go by and along comes evangelical cults with an opinion and you accept this doctrine of demons as infallible and everyone else before, including the early reformers, were wrong?
Not all Protestants buy into this SATANIC LIE, and if you find the truth to be offensive, it’s not my problem.
H
hellopeople
Guest
In terms of salvation, believing if Jesus had siblings or not is not going to be a deal maker or deal breaker. Frankly, it doesn’t really matter what you believe. I don’t see how it could be a satanic lie.
As for something that is holy STAY HOLY, why would Mary not have more children. In fact, I was just told in another thread that it would be a sin if I stopped having more children with my wife for no serious reason…so why must you stay celibate to be holy? She would not have sinned if she had more children because she had a valid marriage.
In terms of the belief coming to be only after the 18th century…there have been a lot of beliefs that have only come up in the last few hundred years. It doesn’t make them any less valid at all. In fact, I would say that they would be more valid than most of what was said before just because of how we historically analyze things now.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
We’ve been through all of this. She was a temple virgin. They were common in that time and culture. The girls were often married off to older men who would care for them while not violating their oath of celibacy.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Why? The bible, itself, commands us to adhere to the traditions that are passed down to us and the tradition that Mary remained ever Virgin pre-dates the canonization of the bible.We should consult only the bible to avoid contradictions.
N
NHInsider
Guest
There is no general requirement for celibacy to be holy, there is a belief that one of the reasons Joseph would not have pressed for his “conjugal rights” was because he knew that Mary had been espoused to the Holy Spirit (an immortal Spouse) and therefore any man who had a sexual relationship with her would be committing adultery. (And this belief, while reasonable, is not* de fide*).
As to your situation, I haven’t read the thread you mention, but I can assure you that if you and your wife choose to take mutual vows of celibacy you will not be committing sin. What is not approved is a decision to continue a sexual relationship while blocking the possibility of that relationship being fruitful.
- Status