Mary ever-virgin?

[scylla]

I came here ready to post another bit supporting this, but there is so much already posted, I will take the advice of everyone and wait until he has had sufficient time to properly respond to the posts.

If anyone is interested, I would look at the historical understanding of this and commentary by St Jerome.
cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm

This is where he responds to Helvidius on this claim in about 383AD and this is resolved until modern interpretations of the Bible said differently.

But please address the other posts before you address St Jerome and the historical understanding of this.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[aimekuelmc]

puzzleannie:

this was the plot line of All My Children, with Phillip, Erika and Chuck, interesting, but do not see how it relates to this discussion.

My point, of course, was at the end of the post. But I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear for you:

aimekuelmc:

A very poor human view, but I believe Joseph didn’t consumate the marriage with Mary because of his great love for God. He knew the child in Mary’s womb was God. At that time in history, people knew God, and His great holiness. People also had a great love for God. Sadly, that isn’t the case today.

If the woman you were about to marry was pregnant
with God (since Jesus is FULLY God),
the Great I AM, :bowdown:
the Eternal Word, :bowdown:
the King of Kings, :bowdown:
and Lord of Lords, :bowdown:
the Creator of Heaven and Earth, :bowdown:
and Creator of YOU, :bowdown:

how would you react?

 

[mikeabele]

…still waiting…

[/quote]

It might be this weekend, but my brother is getting married so I will be very busy. Please be patient, I want to make sure I touch on each and every issue.

Thanks,
Mike

 

[RyanL]

Roger. Copy all.

I appreciate the sincere thought and reflection on this - it’s a very important issue to Catholics, Orthodox, and many others.

Congratulations to your brother, and good luck with the new in-laws! I will pray for you! HA!

RyanL

 

[mikeabele]

** The Third Apostle James**?

However this presents a number of difficulties.

a) Why is this “third James” **never **mentioned in the gospel accounts?

Oh but he is, he’s mentioned with Mary’s other children, he wasn’t a believer until after the resurrection.

b) Why would the Apostles take a non-apostle as their leader in Jerusalem?

Any answer would be conjecture, the Bible only tells us that he is, and that he is the Lord’s brother(we know half-brother since obviously Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father).

b) Why is the 3rd James’s elevation to Apostle not mentioned in scripture?

He is not an apostle.

c) Why did Jesus give Mary as Mother to John, if this “third James” existed?

I can think of two possibilities: a) They were too young to care for her, since the oldest one could have only been around 18. b) They were unbelievers and the Lord wished a believer to care for her.

I certainly if I was leaving this world and had the choice between my three blood brothers(if they weren’t believers) and a close believer, would pick the close believer. This whole argument is basically from silence. It nowhere states emphatically or implicitly of Mary’s virginity.

d) What happened to the “second” James, son of Alphaeus after the resurrection?

We know that James, the son of Zebedee was killed in Acts 12:2. We do not have the deaths of all the apostles recorded, it is speculation to say what happened to him.

If we imagine a “third James”, then James the Apostle, son of Alphaeus disappears from history mysteriously at exactly the same time the supposed “third James”, just as mysteriously appears.

Are you sure? James is recorded in the Gospel’s, and not being a believer or an apostle of Christ. Viola, the third James.

Is it not obvious that it is James the Apostle, Cousin of Jesus, who is the Apostle and “brother of the Lord” of the early church in Jerusalem?

No because His brothers(4 of them named) did not believe in Him, until after the resurrection.

The “Third James” hypothesis doesn’t hold water.

So you want to say that the 2nd James, son of Alpheus is also brother of Joses, Juda, and Simon and is an unbeliever? That my friend is what doesn’t hold water.

 

[mikeabele]

I figured it would be helpful to draw a family tree from what I could piece together of James specifically. Here goes…

1. James, an apostle, son of Zebedee, brother of John
   Matt 4:21, Matt 10:2, Matt 17:1, Mark 1:19, Mark 1:29, Mark 3:17, Mark 5:37, Mark 9:2, Mark 10:35, Mark 10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 5:10, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2(killed)
   

                                    Zebedee
                      James(apostle)        John

2. James, an apostle, son of Alphaeus, brother of Levi(Mark 2:14)
   Matt 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 12:17
   

                                      Alphaeus
                       James(apostle)     Levi

3. James, brother of Juda, Joses, Simon, unnamed sisters, not sons of Alphaeus, Mary is mentioned as mother(same Mary as Jesus’ mother)
   Matt 13:55, Mark 6:3, James 1:1, Jude 1
   

                                   Mary
                    Jesus   James   Juda   Joses   Simon
                             At least 2-3 sisters

4. James the Less, brother of Joses
   Matt 27:56, Mark 15:40
5. James mentioned alone, son of Mary
   Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10
6. James brother of Judas
   Luke 6:16

I believe 3, 4, 5, and 6 are the same person. It is possible that “James the Less” was a fourth James, I could agree either way since it is not abundantly clear. In either case, Mary’s children are easily identified. You will note that the James that is Mary’s child has no “brother” Levi like the James, son of Alphaeus.

 

[mikeabele]

I had something hit me, like a light bulb coming on. We all know this verse:

John 3:16 (NABWRNT)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

There are also these verses:

John 1:14 (NABWRNT)
14 And the Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 (NABWRNT)
18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.

John 3:18 (NABWRNT)
18 Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Hebrews 11:17 (NABWRNT)
17 By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer his only son,

1 John 4:9 (NABWRNT)
9 In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him.

So the Scripture contains language that would distinguish an only son from a son that would have had other brothers and/or sisters.

Let’s look at Mary’s situation:

Matthew 1:25 (NABWRNT)
25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Luke 2:7 (NABWRNT)
7 and she gave birth to her** firstborn son**. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Now lets look at firstborn, and how it is used:

Romans 8:29 (NABWRNT)
29 For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Colossians 1:15 (NABWRNT)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Colossians 1:18 (NABWRNT)
18 He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,that in all things he himself might be preeminent.

Hebrews 12:23 (NABWRNT)
23 and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect,

Revelation 1:5 (NABWRNT)
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,

All the above listed usages are plural in nature. So for Mary to have a firstborn son, means that he was first, and there would be more to follow.

There is only one mention of firstborn where it is not crystal clear that it is more than one.

Hebrews 11:28 (NABWRNT)
28 By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them.

So I know from 5 verses specifically that firstborn means oldest of other children. There is only one verse that does not emphatically state it but only implicitly.

Truly if the Holy Spirit had wanted us to believe Mary remained a virgin He could have made it abundantly clear and unmistakable.

 

[RyanL]

Mike,
Welcome back! I trust all went well at the wedding. I hope and pray you are well, and may God smile upon you, my brother in Christ.

mikeabele:

All the above listed usages are plural in nature. So for Mary to have a firstborn son, means that he was first, and there would be more to follow.

There is only one mention of firstborn where it is not crystal clear that it is more than one.

AHHH…the “firstborn” argument. Let’s make some sense out of this. Your argument, I believe, is that “firstborn” means “more than one”. That would indeed be a damaging point, if it were true. As it is not, we don’t have much to worry about here.
From CA:

"But this is a misunderstanding of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2, Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the ‘first-born’ son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the ‘first-born’? Hardly.

“The first male child of a marriage was termed the ‘first-born’ even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt. The inscription refers to a woman who died during the birth of her ‘first-born.’”

The inscription under discussion is not Egyptian in language. It is not about an Egyptian woman. It was found near the site of an ancient Jewish colony in Upper Egypt.

It is a Jewish epitaph or gravestone inscription, dated the second day of the month Mechir (January 25), A.D. 5 and discovered at Tell el Jehudijeh (the Mound of the Jews), the ancient city of Leontopolis. Leontopolis was a Jewish settlement near the southern border of Egypt, the site of a Jewish temple built in 130 B.C.

The inscription was published and analyzed by Lietzmann in the Zeitschrift fër die neuetestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 22, 1923, p. 283. The language is Hellenistic Greek. The deceased woman’s name was Arsinoe (a charming Greek name meaning “woman with uplifted mind”). She had a hard life, says the inscription, and died giving birth to her “firstborn” child (prototokou teknou).

What’s more, during the Passover in Exodus, your logic would hold that any non-believer who had only *one *son would have been safe, as God only took the lives of the “firstborn” - the son wouldn’t be the firstborn unless there were other children. Luck them, right? Wrong.

mikeabele:

So I know from 5 verses specifically that firstborn means oldest of other children. …

You are seriously misreading these texts. In all of the texts you have cited, Jesus is understood as being our brother! We call God the Father because He is our Father, just as He was Christ’s. If we share a Father, Christ is our brother. Re-read with this understanding, and you should see the truth of the matter. I would also add that if Christ is our brother and God is our Father, Mary would thus become our mother - thankfully, the Bible backs me up on this in Rev 12:17.

mikeabele:

Truly if the Holy Spirit had wanted us to believe Mary remained a virgin He could have made it abundantly clear and unmistakable.

He did. He likewise made the concept of the Trinity abundantly clear, it’s just not explicitly spelled out. To use your logic, the Holy Spirit didn’t want us to know about the Trinity!

I am still looking forward to a response on the 8 arguments I summarized earlier.

May Mary take you as her own child, as one who keeps the commandments and bears witness to her Son!

RyanL

 

[mikeabele]

RyanL:

Mike,
Welcome back! I trust all went well at the wedding. I hope and pray you are well, and may God smile upon you, my brother in Christ.

It was a joyous occasion. Although an outdoor wedding in a tuxedo I would not recommend.

RyanL:

AHHH…the “firstborn” argument. Let’s make some sense out of this. Your argument, I believe, is that “firstborn” means “more than one”.

I covered all the NT references using the same word(firstborn) used to describe Jesus’ birth. In all other references other than Jesus but one for sure, the word does not mean “one that opens womb”, but “first of others”. I said incorrectly that it would mean oldest, I thought I re-read my post but must have forgot to edit that.

Don’t you think it odd, that the Bible specifically states Jesus is only begotten of the Father, but of Mary He is only known as firstborn, a term that is almost unanimous in its meaning of more than one. I also notice that you are silent on the response to the “third james” post. Did you see the light?

Mike

 

[mikeabele]

RyanL:

Now, as far as I can tell, these are the arguments provided:

1. Brother does not mean “full uterine brother with same father”. It can (and does) mean many familial relationships within the Bible - Biblical citations given. You have acknowledged that you do not believe “brother” means “brother” within this very context.
2. None of the “brothers” are refered to as “children of Mary”, which is a title applied to Jesus and no one else.

In Greek, the language of the New Testament, the word for brother/ brethren is adelphos {ad-el-fos’}; for sisters, it’s *adelphe {ad-el-fay’}. *The word for cousin/kinfolk is *suggenes {soong-ghen-ace’}. *To think or believe that the inspired writers of Scripture were unfamiliar with these terms and therefore subject to misusing them, is to question the very integrity of the Holy Spirit who directed their efforts. And that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church does in the following entry from the 1994 Catechism.

Against this doctrine (Mary’s lifetime virginity) 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. (¶500, Page 126, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994)

What the Roman Catholic Church has “always understood,” and what the Scriptures clearly say are as far apart in this case as Rome is from the South Pole. When the word adelphos is used in the Gospels in reference to a specific name or names, **it always means blood brother(s). There are no exceptions. **That is how we know that Simon Peter was Andrew’s brother; (Matt 4:18) that John was the brother of James; (Matt 4:21) that Herod had a brother, Philip; (Matt 14:3) that Judas (not Iscariot) was the brother of another James; (Luke 6:16) that Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha; (John 11:2) that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3) For the Vatican to suggest that two of Christ’s named brothers were the sons of another Mary without accounting for the other two named sons is absurd. To imply that the Holy Spirit didn’t “get it right” is blasphemy, and Jesus had some choice words regarding those who blaspheme His Holy Spirit. (Cf. Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10)

RyanL:

1. Jesus, who knew these “brothers” of His would repent and follow Him within 3 days, still gave His mother to the apostle John at the foot of the cross - a gross violation of Levitical Law, which Christ *never *broke (as that would be a sin).

Jesus honored His mother(one of the 10 Commandments) and fulfilled the Law by giving His mother into the care of a beloved believer. This verse is also grossly misused to say that Mary is “our Mother”. This could not be farther from the truth, Mary is given into the care of John, not the church. Jesus says of John specifically “behold your mother”, other disciples were present but not addressed only John.

RyanL:

1. The apostle James, who is called “the Lord’s brother”, is elsewhere described as being the son of Zebedee. Zebedee is not Mary’s husband. Biblical citations given.

This was already covered in posts about James, see above. James the son of Zebedee died in Acts 12:2. James, brother of Jesus, was not an apostle.

Cont…

 

[mikeabele]

RyanL:

1. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant

This is an opinion and is not stated in Scripture. If it was it would have no bearing on Mary being a virgin after the birth of Jesus since He was no longer in her womb.

RyanL:

1. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and as such was forbidden to Joseph to know. Biblical citations given.

This is also an opinion, nowhere in the angel’s declaration of Mary being impregnated by the Holy Ghost was Joseph told not to know/touch his wife, but to take her.

RyanL:

1. “Until” does not necessissarily imply change - infact, sometimes change would be impossible following “until”. Biblical citations given.

Two phrases in those Scripture verses, when added to the phrase, “before they came together,” create a very rocky road to lifetime virginity for Roman Catholic apologists. The phrase “knew her not till” is translated from the Greek words, 1) ginosko{ghin-oce’-ko}, 2) ouk {ook}, and 3) *heos *{heh’-oce}. Ginosko, here translated “knew,” is a “Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.” (Strong’s Lexicon #1097) The word ouk, here translated “not,” is clearly a negative denoting the act had not taken place. But heos, here translated “till,” is confirmation that the act did, in fact, take place after the child was delivered. To obviate in advance claims that the word “till” does not confirm that Mary and Joseph engaged in normal marital relations following Christ’s birth, the child Jesus is referred to in God’s Word as, *“her firstborn son:” *(Matt 1:25)

RyanL:

1. Mary was concecrated to God, and in being so concecrated, she took a vow of celebacy. This is asserted as the only way to make sense of her response, “how can this be, since I know not man?” As no one who was planning on having a ‘regular’ marriage would question the statement, “You will have kids,” it makes no sense for her to do so without a vow being in place.

This again is an opinion and not biblical fact. Mary nowhere makes such a declaration. It is a case of forming a conclusion then reading that conclusion into Scripture. All but points 5 and 6 above are answered in the following link I posted before the 8 points were posted. You would save time and space on this forum if you simply read this:

justforcatholics.org/a105.htm

God bless
Mike

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Luke 1:34

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:34;&version=8;

 

[mikeabele]

FuzzyBunny116:

Luke 1:34

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:34;&version=8;

Mary was a virgin at that point, and also pregnant. It defys the natural laws, and so her question is one of awe and wonder not a statement of a supposed vow of lifetime virginity. Why would a lifetime virgin be betrothed?, the Mary you portray seems to have played a cruel trick on Joseph.

Matt 1

19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Joseph certainly had nothing to fear about consumating their marriage after Christ was born.

 

[Church_Militant]

1

. In Greek, the language of the New Testament, the word for brother/ brethren is adelphos {ad-el-fos’}; for sisters, it’s *adelphe {ad-el-fay’}. *The word for cousin/kinfolk is *suggenes {soong-ghen-ace’}. *To think or believe that the inspired writers of Scripture were unfamiliar with these terms and therefore subject to misusing them, is to question the very integrity of the Holy Spirit who directed their efforts. And that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church does in the following entry from the 1994 Catechism.

Against this doctrine (Mary’s lifetime virginity) 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. (¶500, Page 126, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994)

2. What the Roman Catholic Church has “always understood,” and what the Scriptures clearly say are as far apart in this case as Rome is from the South Pole. When the word adelphos is used in the Gospels in reference to a specific name or names, **it always means blood brother(s). There are no exceptions. **That is how we know that Simon Peter was Andrew’s brother; (Matt 4:18) that John was the brother of James; (Matt 4:21) that Herod had a brother, Philip; (Matt 14:3) that Judas (not Iscariot) was the brother of another James; (Luke 6:16) that Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha; (John 11:2) that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3) For the Vatican to suggest that two of Christ’s named brothers were the sons of another Mary without accounting for the other two named sons is absurd. To imply that the Holy Spirit didn’t “get it right” is blasphemy, and Jesus had some choice words regarding those who blaspheme His Holy Spirit. (Cf. Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10)

3.Jesus honored His mother(one of the 10 Commandments) and fulfilled the Law by giving His mother into the care of a beloved believer. This verse is also grossly misused to say that Mary is “our Mother”. This could not be farther from the truth, Mary is given into the care of John, not the church. Jesus says of John specifically “behold your mother”, other disciples were present but not addressed only John.

Mike,

1. You persistently refer to Matthew in Greek when most scholars know that it was written by him in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. The aramaic hasn’t got all these problems…
2. You allege something that is untrue. Who would know better? The church that has been there and guarded the very scriptures that you appeal to or a bunch of newbs who diverted from her teachings some 500 years ago?

If you wanna make such a statement then what you really should say is that what we Catholics and what the early church taught is in polar opposition to what you have interpretted these passages to mean.

You also could stand to mind your mouth in this discussion and not go accusing anyone of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit which I find offensive and an allegation without charity, especially since what you allege is nothing more than the fact that Catholics disagree with you.

1. You err by ignoring the whole12th chapter of Reveletions, in which the allusion is clearly to the Blessed Mother and she is in fact clearly called the children of the woman and “the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Verse 17) I also suggest that you read the last verse of chapter 11, since the chapter divisions are not inspired and especially in this case are somewhat arbitrary, resulting in a confused sequence.
   Pax vobiscum,

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Luke 1:31 “And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.”

Luke 1:35 “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.”

She isn’t pregnant yet. She was to be married so that someone could take care of her.

 

[mikeabele]

CM,
Church Militant:

Mike,

1. You persistently refer to Matthew in Greek when most scholars know that it was written by him in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. The aramaic hasn’t got all these problems…

Matthew being a Jew, appeals to Jews and uses the term firstborn. It doesn’t matter what language it is written in the meaning is clear, something you have ignored from my last posts. Also the greek form of brothers is always of a blood relationship when mentioned by name(s). So you would rather have the less precise aramaic? I guess that would help your traditions seem to ring true.

If you think Mathew is unclear, then look here:

Mark 3:31

• “There came then His Brethren and His Mother, and standing without, sent unto Him calling Him.”

Mark 6:3

• “Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his **sisters **here with us? And they were offended at him.”

John 2:12

• “After this He went down to Capernaum, **He, **and His Mother, and His Brethren, and His disciples: and they continued there not many days.”

John 7:3-5

• "His **brethren **therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
• For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
• For neither did his **brethren **believe in him."

Acts 1:14

• “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the **mother **of Jesus, and with his brethren.”

Galatians 1:19

• “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”

1. You allege something that is untrue. Who would know better? The church that has been there and guarded the very scriptures that you appeal to or a bunch of newbs who diverted from her teachings some 500 years ago?

Now this is silly and well beneath a thinking person’s standing. Just read the book of I Corinthians, they were first century Christians while Mary was still alive, yet they were full of errors. The age-old argument of older knows better is not correct. Since you are younger than 500 years old CM, would you consider yourself a newb as you put it? Careful your indignation is showing.

If you wanna make such a statement…

That paragraph was not my own, I meant to put quote brackets around it. Check it out yourself: contenderministries.org/Catholicism/maryvirginity.php

1. You err by ignoring the whole12th chapter of Reveletions,

It is Revelation, singular. The short answer is Rev 12 is about, pay attention I’ll say this slowly, I-S-R-A-E-L. See:

1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 6And** the woman fled into the wilderness**, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a** thousand two hundred and threescore days**.

Note Mary is of one tribe, Israel contains 12 tribes. Do the math.

Note also that 1260 days is 3 1/2 years. Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt, not the wilderness. When Herod sent out the death sentence for those of Jesus’ age, it was “two years old and under”(Matt 2:16). So while there is a woman mentioned, it is not Mary, otherwise the Scriptures are inconsistent to make your interpretation true. So who is right, the Word of God or you?

As you can see I did not ignore it, I’ve posted on it before. Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant verses to build a house of cards?

God bless
Mike

 

[RyanL]

mikeabele:

In Greek, the language of the New Testament, the word for brother/ brethren is *adelphos …*The word for cousin/kinfolk is *suggenes {soong-ghen-ace’}. *To think or believe that the inspired writers of Scripture were unfamiliar with these terms and therefore subject to misusing them, is …[charge of blaspheme deleted]…When the word adelphos is used in the Gospels in reference to a specific name or names, it always means blood brother(s). There are no exceptions. … For the Vatican to suggest that two of Christ’s named brothers were the sons of another Mary without accounting for the other two named sons is absurd…[spurious accusation of blasphemy also deleted]…

Greek, huh? Study much Koine Greek, have you? I’m still learning, but let’s see what we can do… It’s true that adelphos is used in the NT Greek as well as *anepsios *(cousin), and it’s also true that adelphos was used in the context of which you speak. The thing is, the NT writers spoke Greek and used the Greek OT (Septuagint) – as evidenced by the roughly 300 times the Septuagint is quoted verbatum (with the other ~50 times being paraphrases that could either be from the Hebrew or Greek). As a side note, that Septuagint had the seven books Protestants removed from the OT in the reformation – but that’s not the issue right now. Point is, in the OT the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins. If you want to zero in to “just the Gospels”, you are picking and choosing, in addition to assuming that it doesn’t mean what I assert (which you have yet to prove). I could likewise zero in to “just this” or “just that” to prove you wrong, but I believe it’s important to consider the whole Bible. To do otherwise is to discount parts of the Bible, which I’m not willing to do. This being the case, there are exceptions. You just don’t want to admit them, because it destroys your case. Again, if some of the people mentioned were step-brothers, anepsios would not be appropriate – only adelphos could satisfy the intended meaning. And, quite frankly, you have yet to provide a single solid reason as to why “half-brother” is preferable to “step-brother”, other than bias.

mikeabele:

Jesus honored His mother(one of the 10 Commandments) and fulfilled the Law by giving His mother into the care of a beloved believer. This verse is also grossly misused to say that Mary is “our Mother”. This could not be farther from the truth, Mary is given into the care of John, not the church. Jesus says of John specifically “behold your mother”, other disciples were present but not addressed only John.

1. Jesus knew His “brothers” would follow Him in 3 days. To deny this is to deny Jesus’ omniscience.
   1. A disagreement is not sufficient for Jesus to completely ignore Levitical law and commit a sin.
   2. This same John also wrote Rev 12:17. I think he understood what was going on.

mikeabele:

This was already covered in posts about James, see above. James the son of Zebedee died in Acts 12:2. James, brother of Jesus, was not an apostle.

Gal 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. Care to re-state?

mikeabele:

This is an opinion and is not stated in Scripture. If it was it would have no bearing on Mary being a virgin after the birth of Jesus since He was no longer in her womb.

You have not told me why this “opinion”, shared by John, the son of Mary and author of Revelations 11 and 12, is incorrect. I can say that it’s your opinion that Jesus is God, and then tell you that you’re wrong, but it doesn’t carry much weight if I don’t actually present information to the contrary.

mikeabele:

This is also an opinion, nowhere in the angel’s declaration of Mary being impregnated by the Holy Ghost was Joseph told not to know/touch his wife, but to take her.

Same comment.

 

[RyanL]

mikeabele:

Two phrases in those Scripture verses, when added to the phrase, “before they came together,” create a very rocky road to lifetime virginity for Roman Catholic apologists. The phrase “knew her not till” is translated from the Greek words, 1) ginosko{ghin-oce’-ko}, 2) ouk {ook}, and 3) *heos *{heh’-oce}. Ginosko, here translated “knew,” is a “Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.” (Strong’s Lexicon #1097) The word ouk, here translated “not,” is clearly a negative denoting the act had not taken place. But heos, here translated “till,” is confirmation that the act did, in fact, take place after the child was delivered. To obviate in advance claims that the word “till” does not confirm that Mary and Joseph engaged in normal marital relations following Christ’s birth, the child Jesus is referred to in God’s Word as, “*her firstborn son:” *(Matt 1:25)

More Greek? Let’s look at some more scripture with *heos *in them: in 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “heos” the day of her death. There’s that darn Septuagint again! As for the firstborn argument, I thought I destroyed that already…

mikeabele:

…You would save time and space on this forum if you simply read this:
justforcatholics.org/a105.htm

For the third time, I have read it and it is junk. You have not answered with fact, only opinion and accusations of blasphemy. Please answer with something you didn’t copy and paste from contenderministries.org/Catholicism/maryvirginity.php. Thanks,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

dang…wrote the above response before I saw where you referenced the web site you got your info from…sorry!

 

[RyanL]

You claim that Rev 12 is about Isreal (and quite mockingly so, I might add). Why? Isn’t the dragon a single person (Satan)? Isn’t the child a single person (Jesus)? Why are you inconsistant in claiming that the woman who gives birth to the child is other-than a single person (Mary)? What would lead you to this conclusion, to the exclusion of Mary?