"How can this be, since I have no relations with man?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanRyan1088
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is an article I have. Hope it helps…
Part 1:

The Bible gives us many ways whereby we can clearly identify the Messiah. One of these ways is called a “sign” and is specifically linked to his miraculous birth. In the Book of Isaiah we read:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a **virgin **shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isa. 7:14, KJV).
Along with many other Scriptures, that passage clearly points us to the Lord Jesus, the Anointed One, who was born of a “virgin”. But even among those who agree that Mary was a virgin, at that point in time, there arises a controversy, that being: Did she stay a virgin after Jesus was born? Let’s go to the Scriptures to find the answer:
And Joseph, having risen from the sleep, did as the messenger of the Lord directed him, and received his wife, and did not KNOW her TILL she brought forth her son – the first-born, and he called his name Jesus (Matt. 1:24,25, Young’s Literal).
The Greek word translated “know” in that verse is ginosko. It is also used at Lk. 1:34, where it carries the same meaning:
And Mary said unto the messenger, “How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?” (Young’s Literal).
Mary couldn’t understand how she could possibly give birth without first coming to “know” her husband, that is, having sexual union. This is the meaning here and in Matt. 1:25 of ginosko. Such did not happen between Joseph and Mary “till” Jesus was born (Matt. 1:25).

Please note: Had the Holy Spirit wanted to convey the thought that Mary was a perpetual virgin her whole life through, He could have stopped Matt. 1:25 before the words: “TILL she brought forth her son.” Then the sentence would have taught Mary was a perpetual virgin by reading: “Joseph … did not know her” or as the NIV would have read: “But he had no union with her.” This, however, is NOT how the Biblical record reads!

That verse states, by implication, that there was a point in time that Joseph and Mary had sexual union, that is, after Jesus was born. This is in perfect agreement with Isa. 7:14, and the other passages on this topic, yet to be cited in this article.
Let’s move on to a clear supportive text from Luke’s Gospel:
“And she gave birth to her FIRSTBORN, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7, NIV).
The word “firstborn” is used elsewhere for the oldest of the children. Many examples in Scripture could be cited to prove this. The following are but two:
Joseph named his firstborn Manasseh and said, “It is because God has made me forget all my trouble and all my father’s household.” The second son he named Ephraim and said, “It is because God has made me fruitful in the land of my suffering” (Gen. 41:51,52).
The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn, Jehoiakim the second son, Zedekiah the third, Shallum the fourth (1 Chron. 3:15).
Jesus was not called Mary’s “only-born” but instead Mary’s “firstborn,” thereby suggesting Mary had other children, which is indeed the case. A more clear indication of this occurred when Jesus, as a full grown man, came to his hometown (Nazareth) and began to teach. People from there, who apparently knew his family, stated the following in disbelief:
Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” They asked. "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" (Matt. 13:54-56).
 
Part 2:

According to that text, Mary had at least four other sons, besides Jesus, and at least two daughters. Some argue that the word “brothers,” found in this passage, merely means relatives such as cousins. If that is the true intended meaning, then **one must wonder why the Greek word meaning “cousin” (anepsios) was not used there as it was in Col. 4:10:
**My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.
Again, in contrast to Col. 4:10, a different Greek word is used in Matt. 13:55 – adelphos. This Greek word translated “brothers” comes from the word, delphus, which means womb.

Furthermore, we should also focus our attention in upon the word “sisters” in Matt. 13:56. The Greek word for “sisters” is adelphe. It is also found in the following:
Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity (1 Tim 5:1,2).
As in Matt. 13:56, the usage of adelphe in 1 Tim. 5:2 means natural sister born as to the same mother. The context from verse 1 shows the meaning to be the natural family. This is how the same Greek word must be understood in Matt. 13:56, since spiritual sister can’t fit the context.
Mary had 7 or more children: Jesus the firstborn (or oldest) and at least 6 others, with at least 2 or more being daughters. But there is even more truth on this subject found in the Old Testament book of Psalms, where it is stated in the first person singular, as being spoken of by Jesus.

"My Own Mother’s Sons"

I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother’s sons; for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me (Psa. 69:8,9).
That is a Messianic Psalm, that is, it has application to Messiah Jesus. This is clear since this Psalm is quoted in the New Testament (Jn. 2:17) and shown there to apply to the Lord. The point is: Jesus became "an alien to MY OWN MOTHER’S SONS." This alienation is clearly evident at John 7:3-5. Before we look at that passage, please note that Scripture explicitly declares that Jesus’ mother (Mary) had other “sons” (Psalm 69:8)! This verse alone is an irrefutable and devastating blow to the idea that the blessed Mary remained a virgin throughout her lifetime. Remember, Joseph had no sexual union with Mary** “till”** Jesus, Mary’s **“firstborn,” **came into this world.

In Jn. 7:3-5, we read:
Jesus’ brothers said to him, “You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” **For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
**This passage clearly shows the context cannot allow for an interpretation of spiritual “brother,” since the same “did not believe in him”! This disbelief in Jesus from his own “brothers,” at that point in time, is shown elsewhere:
Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for THEY SAID, “HE IS OUT OF HIS MIND.” . . . Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother” (Mark 3:20,21,31-35).
 
Part 3:

Yes, you read Scripture right. Even Mary, and her other sons, at one point during Jesus’ ministry, thought Jesus was “out of his mind”! This, however, doesn’t mean that they didn’t afterwards come to believe on Jesus and get filled with the Holy Spirit, for they were in the Upper Room on the day of Pentecost with the other 120:
They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers (Acts 1:14).
There is additional proof that Jesus’ half-brothers came to faith in him. This is shown in 1 Cor. 9:5:
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?
There we learn that the Lord’s half-brothers were married, as was Cephas (another name for Peter, Jn. 1:42). These husband-wife couples traveled together, as they served God.

Furthermore, regarding Jude and James, who were named in Matt. 13:55 as Jesus’ “brothers,” we read the following:
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James. To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ (Jude 1).
Notice: The writer of the epistle of Jude was also “a brother (adelphos) to James,” but most importantly he was a servant of Jesus Christ. So he clearly came to his spiritual senses.
Furthermore, James, the Lord’s brother, is mentioned by Paul in Gal. 1:19:
I saw none of the other apostles – only James, the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:19 NIV).
This is an important verse for two reasons: (1) It shows that James not only came to faith in Jesus, but became an apostle. (2) Besides becoming an apostle, he was also “the Lord’s brother.” The phrase “the Lord’s brother,” used here, can’t possibly be limited to mean his spiritual brother, since it is already understood that Jesus’ apostles are members of his spiritual family. James was both an apostle and half-brother of Jesus.
So according to Scripture, Mary did not remain a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus. This basic Biblical truth is in direct conflict with what millions of people have been taught, but nonetheless, it is God’s word on this subject not any man’s. The following is but one quote about Mary’s perpetual virginity from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“Mary ‘remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (p. 128, bold emphasis mine).
Dear reader, that quote was from the Catholic theologian, Augustine (who also was the original source of modern-day Calvinism). The following is another important quote which shows how Roman Catholicism counters Matt. 13:55:
“Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. **In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus,’ are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression” **(Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 126, bold emphasis mine).
 
Part 4:
Friend, examine Matt. 13:54-56 for yourself, which shows the subjects as being from Jesus’ hometown, thereby enabling them to identify His own mother Mary and His natural brothers and sisters. That passage is clear about this:
Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
**That passage can’t possibly be referring to “the other Mary,” as some want us to believe, but Jesus’ own mother! ****

Moreover, trying to sweep all of the New Testament passages away by stating that the phrase “brothers of Jesus” is merely an “Old Testament expression” is to ignore all the other verses which show Joseph and Mary had sexual union, but not until, Jesus was born. Matt. 1:25 couldn’t be more clear, especially when considered with Psa. 69:8, which explicitly shows Mary had other children. **
Friend, what you will continue to believe about Mary’s perpetual virginity is left entirely up to you. You have read what Scripture declares and what the present-day position from Roman Catholicism declares. But know this, you can’t believe both declarations, since they are antithetical to each other. **One must be in error.
**
 
40.png
RomanRyan1088:
Quote from the bibile

The angel declares, “Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son…”

To which Mary replies, “How can this be, since I have no relations with man?”

I don’t understand how this has to do with her remaining a virgin. Yea she had no relation with a man YET. She was engaged to Joseph, so therefore she was just being a good Jewish girl and remaining a virgin until marriage. I’m Catholic, and i have seen many people use this passage when refering to Mary being a virgin, So could someone please explain this to me, because im not getting it.
Click to expand...
The main point to notice is that the angels statement is that she Will conceive a child. Future tense. This basically means that she was saying that she took a vow of virginity here.
 
homer, you’re not telling us anything we haven’t seen before. All those issues have been addressed over and over again for literally centuries.

dream wanderer
 
Dear Homer,
I am a convert and had to answer these same questions. Here are the answers I found.

Before we begin I would like to discuss interpretation with you. Even though Protestants tend to say, “We take the Bible literally” that is in fact not always true. Nor should it be since the Bible has passages that are poetic in nature and not meant to be taken absolutely literally. The truth of the matter is, that Protestants and Catholics both take some passages of scripture literally and other passages are deemed to be poetic and are not taken literally. As attested by all the many points on which our faiths agree, there is much agreement upon which passages are literal and which are not literal. However, there are no concrete indicators, in the Bible alone, to guide us infallibly, as to which are literal and which are not literal. That is one big reason why the Bible must be interpreted.
  1. When Protestants interpret a passage literally and Catholics interpret the same passage non literally, who is right? Who decides? How can we decide?
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
  1. Sometimes both agree a passage is poetic/symbolic but interpret the symbols differently Who is right?
Revelation 121-6
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Is the woman Mary, Israel or both?
  1. The other main reason the Bible must be interpreted is because the Bible is such a complex document combining so many types of writing and human authors inspired by the HS, that it is extremely difficult to hold, in mind, all of the information necessary in order to accurately interpret difficult passages. And when one just reads
difficult passages in the context of the chapter or even the whole book, mistakes can be made that will contradict other passages of scripture. For instance:
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God–not because of works, lest any man should boast.
James 2:24
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

These are thorny issues as you know and not easily solved by the average Church going Christian.
 
  1. And then there are other interpretation difficulties embedded in the fact that our English Bibles are fallible translations of infallible writings in Hebrew and Greek written by men influenced by cultural norms that we, removed by thousands of years, know nothing about unless we study deeply the cultures of those times so we know what they meant. Can you imangine people 2000 years from now trying to interpret our idiom phrase, “Hit the road Jack” when divorced from the culture.
    4001AD
    “Hey, look at this fragment I found. It says. “…then his girlfriend said angrily, ‘Hit the road Jack’…I wonder what it means?”
    “Well, one thing we know is Jack was the name of a man who was being spoken to, because it says in my book here that ‘Jack’ was a man’s nickname”
    “OK, I will agree with you there, but what did he have to hit the road with?”
    “I am not sure, but I also wonder how many times he was supposed to hit the road.”
    “I am sure he was only supposed to hit the road once or the speaker would have included how many times like, ‘Hit the road three times, Jack”
    “Ok, that makes sense. So we know the speaker was talking to a male named Jack and that he was expected to hit the road once. But, I wonder why? Or if he was supposed to hit it with his hand or with a stick or something?..And so we have the passages:
Matthew 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.
Matthew 13:55 Matthew 13 Matthew 13:54-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

The Catholic Bibles all translate adelphoi “brothers” not “kinsmen” as you wondered in your letter, in these types of verses. The reason for this is a translation tradition; both for Catholic and Protestant translators; because in the Septuagint (the Jewish translation of OT Hebrew into Greek 250-125 BC) the Hebrew word achim (brothers ) was always translated asadelphoi (Greek word for brothers) This was done even though the Greek does have words for cousin etc. and even when the OT was obviously refering to a kinsman and not a sibling. In Hebrew it was ‘brothers’ (achim) so it was translated straight across to ‘brothers’ (adelphoi.) in Greek. Because “brothers” can mean either literal sibling-type brothers or in all cultures and languages “brothers” can also mean “kinsmen” or"related by faith or race" New Testament writers continued this tradition of using the generalization “brother” (adelphos) to indicate a relationship of some sort. Exactly what that relationship was was dependent upon the reader’s prior knowledge or discernment from context. There are exceptions in the NT by Paul and Luke who both spoke Greek and do use the Greek word, sungenis, which means cousin.
Genesis 13:8
And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren. (KJV)

So Abram said to Lot, "Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers. (NIV)

So Abram said to Lot, ""Please let there be no strife between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are brothers. (NASB)

Then Abram said to Lot, "Let there be no strife between you and me, and between your herdsmen and my herdsmen; for we are kinsmen. (RSV)

This is the Hebrew word achim that literally means brother. But, because of the way it was used, it can legitimately be translated brother or kinsman depending upon the context. We know that Lot was not Abraham’s sibling. So even though three of the above translations translate achim as “brothers/brethren” , “kinsman” is a better translation to convey more accurately the relationship. But achim literally means ‘brother’. This shows how the word was used in Hebrew to mean kinsman and not always sibling.
 
Following are examples of how adelphoi is used in other NT passages to mean people other than siblings. It is the exact same Greek word as used in the Mt. passages above.

Romans 1:13 I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.
Romans 7:1 Do you not know, brethren–for I am speaking to those who know the law–that the law is binding on a person only during his life?
Romans 7:4 Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Romans 8:12 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh–
Romans 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.
Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.
Romans 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in,
Romans 12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Romans 15:14 I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.
Romans 15:30 I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf,
Romans 16:14 Greet Asyn’critus, Phlegon, Hermes, Pat’robas, Hermas, and the brethren who are with them.
Romans 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.
Despite all of this, the Protestant interpretation of Mt. 12:46 to mean that Jesus had siblings so Mary could not have been ever Virgin, contrary to the Catholic Church, is an accurate and legitimate interpretation or understanding or conclusion to draw from these words, from scripture alone. But the CC church says, "Brothers" does NOT mean siblings of Jesus. It means kinsmen. This is also an accurate and legitimate interpretation or understanding or conclusion to draw from these words alone. Who is right? The Bible alone will not tell us. We must go outside the Bible. When did Christians start saying that Jesus had siblings? Not until after the reformation. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed Mary was Ever Virgin. All Christians for 1500 years, since the death and resurrection of Jesus, believed that Jesus was the only son of Mary. First and second century writers attest to the fact that Jesus was an only child.
 
Luther: “It is and article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.”(Works of Luther vol. 11, PP 319-320)
Calvin: There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Matt 1:25 but knew her not until she had borne a son and he called his name Jesus.”) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This in not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.”(Sermon on Matthew 1:22 -25 published 1562)

Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” (Zwingli Opera, vol. 1 p 424)

I have gone into all of this detail not because this is such an important issue to our faith. I have gone through this to detail the difficulty of interpretation. It is a very complex business. Much more complex for certain passages than a lot of people realize.
Code: 
Now, at last, I would like to talk about Psalm 69. You said "If you read the whole Psalm, it appears to be completely prophetic." If it were true that the whole Psalm could to be taken as prophetic of Jesus, then I would be stumped.  I would be forced to agree with you. Yes, there are several phrases that are considered prophetic, as you point out. However, I disagree that the whole Psalm is prophetically pertaining to Jesus. It was after all a Psalm of David and pertained to David and his feelings and experiences. We see in it an overlapping reality since it seems to apply to David in his time and to Jesus at a later time, Jesus, the “son of David”, “the root from the stump of Jesse”. But, there are many verses I do not think apply to Jesus. For instance:
Psalm 69:1-2 For the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me.
4-5 What I did not steal must I now restore? O God, thou knowest my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee.
v.14-15
rescue me from sinking in the mire; let me be delivered from my enemies and from the deep waters. Let not the flood sweep over me, or the deep swallow me up, or the pit close its mouth over me.
v.21
They gave me poison (gall) for food,
–How can these verses be applied to Jesus literally? I say literally, because you are taking, “My mother’s sons” literally.
–What part of His life are they referring to?
–Or do these passages only pertain literally to David?
–Or do they pertain literally to David but poetically to Jesus, at least vs. 1, 2, 14, & 15? Or poetically to both?
–Verse 5 could certainly pertain to David but it can’t pertain to Jesus at all?
–Did anyone ever give David gall in his food, literally? v21
–When was Jesus given gall in food? Wine, yes, literally.
I am not trying to be annoying and nit-picky. I am asking these questions because they are legitimate questions that highlight the difficulty of asserting Psalm 69 is
“completely prophetic" literally, in order to make a case for taking “My mother’s sons” as literally applying to Jesus. I happen to agree with you that in a poetic, general-sort-of-way most of the Psalm can be taken to apply to Jesus and His sufferings; but not all of it and not literally.
 
Dear Homer

Now, take a look below.
– We know Jesus said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” so,these verses only express David’s sentiments, right?
v 22-28 Let their own table before them become a snare; let their sacrificial feasts be a trap.Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see; and make their loins tremble continually. Pour out thy indignation upon them, and let thy burning anger overtake them. May their camp be a desolation, let no one dwell in their tents.For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten, and him whom thou hast wounded, they afflict still more. Add to them punishment upon punishment; may they have no acquittal from thee.Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; let them not be enrolled among the righteous.
Now, if we are unwilling to say that every verse in this Psalm applies literally and prophetically to Jesus: Who determines which words do and which words do not apply to Jesus? The NIV and Darby translations have “mother’s sons” and “Zeal for …” in same sentence all other translations I checked (NASB, RSV, Living, YLT amd KJV) have these words in different sentences. One may assert that “My mother’s sons” indicates that Jesus had brothers. And I can assert that that verse does not apply to Jesus, it only applies to David. Who is right? How can we know? We must go outside of the Bible to look for evidence that Jesus either had brothers or evidence that he did not have brothers. Because there are historical writings from the first centuries of the Church that tell us Jesus was an only child, one would need to produce early writings that contend that Jesus had brothers in order to convince me that that verse proves Jesus had brothers. And these writings would need to be orthodox Christian writers, not heretics that denied the full divinity of Jesus or the full humanity of Jesus. There are some of those.
I just discovered by looking at our Hebrew Interlinear, that “Mother” is not in the Hebrew. This is how it reads. “I am a stranger to my brothers and an alien to the sons of the God of Israel.” But every translation I have looked at, including two Catholic Bibles have, “Mother’s sons” not “sons of God of Israel”. This a mystery. I will try to get to the bottom of it. One or the other translation is probably based on an older or better manuscript of the original language. Meantime, read the preface in your Bible about your translation. It seems a lot of the word choice for translating into English is based on the Tradition of the KJV and other old English translations.

Hmmmmm…Maybe it would have been shorter to read Jerome’s reply to Helvidius.Hope this helps

Kyrie Eleison,
'Pam
 
As an Eastern Catholic, we use the ProtoEvangelim of St. James the Apostle for the history of Mary and the Holy Family. It was written by St. James and since the Bible is about Jesus was not selected by the Councils for it. It is an awesome book, I would highly reccomned you reading it. This is how we know her parents are Sts. Ann and Joachim. That is not in the Scriptures. If you gaze upon an icon of Mary often you will see a small spool of thread in her hand. That is becasue we know from this book that she made the veil in the Temple that was torn on Christ’s death on the Cross. Also, we know that she was around three years of age when she was taken to the temple by her parents…here is an excerpt from the work here

The Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Pani Rose

I imagine these will be good links worth reading and listening too. they are at the bottom of that link:

Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God In The Word of God, Scott Hahn

Mary, Our Jewish Mother - Audio, Rosalind Moss
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top