Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[elvisman]

Where is the evidence that Joseph had other children? There is none in Scripture. The only evidence is that some members of the early Christian church believe he had other children from a previous marriage which is only speculation. So until you provide evidence that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage, your arguement won’t work.

I must say you make a good point on this but the Scriptures were written long after Jesus assended to heaven and by those who believed that Jesus was the Son of God. They also knew that Jesus was not the son of Joseph which is evident when telling the story of his birth.

Yes and you have already seen what the word “adelphoi” means. If you look at what you wrote Literally or figuratively, near or remote. This would mean they could be blood brothers and sisters or they may not be blood brothers and sisters.

Now the church says that the brothers and sisters were from Joseph’s previous marriage. The Church also says the brothers and sisters were cousins.
Which is it? Can the church make up its mind on this?

**This is an almost ****comical ****response. You are demanding proof that Joseph had other children - yet, when the same is demanded of YOU to provide the same about Mary, you become incensed. You also demand that others respond to your posts - but you refuse to the same.

**You have ****NOT ****proven that any of these Adelphoi were HER **children.
**You also do not have a grasp of the meaning of Adelphos/Adelphe. I pointed this out to you back in Post 81 but you ignored it. **
I’ll post it again:
**It is generally accepted by Protestant scholars that the apostle James the Less was the “Brother of the Lord”. Here’s why that *****doesn’t ***work.

The mother of James, son of Zebedee was at the foot of the cross with Mary, Mother of Jesus.

Mary’s sister (Adelphe)**** was also at the foot of the cross. She was the wife of Alphaeus (Clopas) and the mother of James the Less. Not only have you run out of James’s - your theory about Adelphos/Adelphe meaning literal uterine siblings dies along with this fact and here’s why:**
The gospels call her Mary’s sister (Adelphe).** Mary (Jesus’s mother) could NOT have had a uterine sister also named “Mary”. It is against Jewish custom to name your child after a living relative.**

You lose, Kevin. The weight of Scripture, history AND** Jewish tradition are ALL against you.**

**Don’t run, Kevin - just answer the post . . . **

 

[mark_a]

Now the church says that the brothers and sisters were from Joseph’s previous marriage. The Church also says the brothers and sisters were cousins.
Which is it? Can the church make up its mind on this?

Hi Rev,

The Church does not need to “make up it’s mind” every time a question comes up. The west traditionally thought that Jesus’ brothers were cousins and the east traditionally thought they were steps. The Church is fine with either. Dissenters are the only ones who have a problem with either tradition.

 

[rev_kevin]

**This is an almost ****comical ****response. You are demanding proof that Joseph had other children - yet, when the same is demanded of YOU to provide the same about Mary, you become incensed. You also demand that others respond to *your ***posts - but you refuse to the same.

**You have ****NOT ****proven that any of these Adelphoi were HER **children.
You also do not have a grasp of the meaning of Adelphos/Adelphe. I pointed this out to you back in Post 81 but you ignored it.
I’ll post it again:
It is generally accepted by Protestant scholars that the apostle James the Less was the “Brother of the Lord”. Here’s why that ***doesn’t ***work.

The mother of James, son of Zebedee was at the foot of the cross with Mary, Mother of Jesus.

Mary’s sister (Adelphe)**** was also at the foot of the cross. She was the wife of Alphaeus (Clopas)** and the mother of James the Less. Not only have you run out of James’s** - your theory about Adelphos/Adelphe meaning literal uterine** siblings dies** along with this fact and here’s why:**
The gospels call her Mary’s sister (Adelphe).** Mary (Jesus’s mother) could NOT** have had a uterine sister also named “Mary”. It is against** Jewish custom to name your child after a living** relative.

You lose, Kevin. The weight of Scripture, history AND** Jewish tradition are ALL** against you.

Don’t run, Kevin - just answer the post . . .

I don’t run and you know it so don’t give me that load…
You did not answer the question about Joseph.
I have answered the question about Mary, you and the others won’t accept it just like I won’t accept that she remained a virgin all her life and that she didn’t have other children.

And you have not proven they were not his brothers and sisters. You know just as well as I know that the word adelphos has several meaning. Here they are incase you forgot.
DEFINITION
ADELPHOS

1. A brother, whether born of the same 2 parents or only of the same father or mother.
2. Having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people or countryman.
3. Any fellow or man.
4. A fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection.
5. Ann associate in employment or office.
6. Brethren in Christ.
   A) His brothers by blood.
   B) All men.
   C) Apostles.
   D) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place.
   TRANSLATED WORDS
   KJV (346) Brethren, 226; Brother, 113; Brothers, 6; Brother’s way, 1;
   NAS (173) Believing husband, 1; Brethren, 13; Brother. 111; Brother’s, 8; Brothers, 40;
   WORD ORIGIN
   From (1) (as a connective particle) and DELPHUS (the womb).

James the Just.

You have no right to say “don’t run” I have posted more posts on this thread then you have and answered most of the posts. Sorry if I don’t see the need to answer every single post. I notice you don’t answer every single post. So once again don’t give me your line of …

I asked one person to answer my post and that was because he asked me to answer his. But I see you don’t say anything to him probably because he is Catholic and heaven for bid you say anything to them like you do us non-Catholics.

By the way I’m not in this to win anything.

 

[rev_kevin]

Hi Rev,

The Church does not need to “make up it’s mind” every time a question comes up. The west traditionally thought that Jesus’ brothers were cousins and the east traditionally thought they were steps. The Church is fine with either. Dissenters are the only ones who have a problem with either tradition.

The Church is fine with either or the 2 but won’t accept that they were his blood brothers because that would not make Mary a perpetual virgin and heaven for bid we can’t have that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Church is fine with either or the 2 but won’t accept that they were his blood brothers because that would not make Mary a perpetual virgin and heaven for bid we can’t have that.

Hey Kevin,

The Church goes on tradition, as well as scriptures, that have been passed down to it throughout history.

You provided an extensive translation of the term Adelphos that offers 6 distinct definitions and 3 sub-definitions. Only one refers to ‘brothers by blood’, another refers to siblings of the same parents or of one parent. You seem to choose the one that fits your view. I don’t mean any disrespect by that statement. I am only trying to point out how similar it appears to be of the accusation you place against Catholics/Catholic Church. I could also change the wording of your last sentence to make it come out like this, ‘you chose the one that fits your view that they were not blood brothers because that would mean Catholics are right and heaven forbid…’

 

[rev_kevin]

I am glad you have come around to what was being said to you. In context of scripture Jesus could not have had brothers or sisters.

As I said you have to have knowledge of the culture. It would be unthinkable of a younger relative to address an older as they do in Mark 3:21. What it shows is that Jesus was younger.

Yes he could have had brothers and sisters. You are taking things out of context, as you would tell me.

Jesus’ family came to take charge of him, they were looking out for him because they thought Jesus had went over the edge as a religious fanatic. They were concerned about him. This passage don’t say who in the family it was, could have been his brothers, could have been some other relative (s) and could have been his friends.

The KJV says “and when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.”

The NIV says “when his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, He is out of his mind.”

You are assuming it was his brothers but it don’t say that.

 

[rev_kevin]

Hey Kevin,

The Church goes on tradition, as well as scriptures, that have been passed down to it throughout history.

You provided an extensive translation of the term Adelphos that offers 6 distinct definitions and 3 sub-definitions. Only one refers to ‘brothers by blood’, another refers to siblings of the same parents or of one parent. You seem to choose the one that fits your view. I don’t mean any disrespect by that statement. I am only trying to point out how similar it appears to be of the accusation you place against Catholics/Catholic Church. I could also change the wording of your last sentence to make it come out like this, ‘you chose the one that fits your view that they were not blood brothers because that would mean Catholics are right and heaven forbid…’

You know I don’t put too much in tradition but if you chose to thats fine.

Now I never said there wasn’t more that one meaning, you chose what you believe fits your view and I chose to believe what fits my view. It could mean any of the ones on the list.
If the CC is correct then they are. If I’m right then I am.

Correction there are 2 that refers to blood brothers, 1 and 6a. I see no word cousin.

 

[rev_kevin]

You put a lot on the scriptures. That is demanding all proof come through them. Where in scriptures does it say scriptures are the final authority? I know it’s off topic, but merely trying to make a quick point here.

It does not matter when the scriptures relayed the story, it was written in a present tense so that we know what was said, at that time. At that time those in the synagogue (Mark 6:2) did not know that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, conceived through the Holy Spirit. As I have already mentioned, the implications for Mary would have been great in those times, in that culture, had they thought Mary conceived prior to her marriage with Joseph.

Once again I give you the translation for adelphos. I am including the term it compares it to as H1. We can see it can be used literally or figuratively.You said it, literally or figuratively. Meaning it could go either way. You chose figuratively, I chose literally, it all has to do with context.

To automatically assume it is literal then are we to assume that Joseph was the son of David?Like I have said, it needs to be put in context

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.

I’m not sure how you get that the Church ‘now’ states Joseph could have had children prior to his marriage to Mary. You are the one who brought up Jerome who, in 383, stated, ‘But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature.’ The Church knows the term was used literally and figuratively. The Church also knows the legend of Joseph’s other children. Not all legends are true, take for example the legend of big foot, true or false?

I provided a copy of what Origen said about Mary’s perpetual virginity, dated 248AD. That was only some 148 years after John had written Revelation, the last book of the New Testament. This was approximately 112 years prior to the canon of the New Testament being defined. During all that time, the men of the Church had access to many writings, not to mention the much more recent transfer of oral teachings/traditions that went along with the Church. Just as St. Paul wrote about those teaching errors the Church throughout it’s history has been disputing people teaching errors. Paul did not end it and it has existed through to present times.

Anyone who does not teach what the CC teaches is teaching errors. I don’t think so.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You know I don’t put too much in tradition but if you chose to thats fine.

Now I never said there wasn’t more that one meaning, you chose what you believe fits your view and I chose to believe what fits my view. It could mean any of the ones on the list.
If the CC is correct then they are. If I’m right then I am.

Correction there are 2 that refers to blood brothers, 1 and 6a. I see no word cousin.

I’m not really into ‘nit picking’, but I considered 6a to be a sub-definition. If you check my post again, you’ll see I posted both of them. As for ‘cousin’, look at number 2.

I think too many people think of family then through the modern eye. The culture was very different. Families traveled together, in caravans. Think when Jesus was a child and Mary discovered Jesus was not with them and they returned to Jerusalem to find him in the temple. Read the passage Luke 2 and see what I mean. Do you think it possible that Joseph and Mary walked away, leaving Jerusalem, and then just realized they had forgotten Jesus?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Anyone who does not teach what the CC teaches is teaching errors. I don’t think so.

Was the bigfoot legend passed down to us through the Church Christ established? Don’t you think the bigfoot remark is a bit snide?

l really don’t understand why someone who professes it has no impact on one’s salvation, one way or the other, to continue joining these type discussions only to tell Catholics they are wrong. Why is that so important? Some Protestants are quick to tell Catholics that the Church is a body of believers and that the foot cannot tell the hand it is not needed. Those same people have no qualms about telling Catholics their teachings are not needed, or of no truthful value. Why?

 

[rev_kevin]

Was the bigfoot legend passed down to us through the Church Christ established? Don’t you think the bigfoot remark is a bit snide?

l really don’t understand why someone who professes it has no impact on one’s salvation, one way or the other, to continue joining these type discussions only to tell Catholics they are wrong. Why is that so important? Some Protestants are quick to tell Catholics that the Church is a body of believers and that the foot cannot tell the hand it is not needed. Those same people have no qualms about telling Catholics their teachings are not needed, or of no truthful value. Why?

The big foot remark was to make a point that legends are not always true, the are just legends.

When does one have to be in a discussion because they don’t think it impacts their salvation. I didn’t know that was a requirement to ba on here.

I said I don’t believe that Mary stayed a virgin all her life, which is my belief. I didn’t say the CC was wrong nor did I say they were right. I/we asked for evidence to back up your belief just like you ask me/us for evidence to back up our/my belief. Do you know that we/I are told all the time that our/my teachings are not needed or that they have no truthful value. All the time.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The big foot remark was to make a point that legends are not always true, the are just legends.

When does one have to be in a discussion because they don’t think it impacts their salvation. I didn’t know that was a requirement to ba on here.

I said I don’t believe that Mary stayed a virgin all her life, which is my belief. I didn’t say the CC was wrong nor did I say they were right. I/we asked for evidence to back up your belief just like you ask me/us for evidence to back up our/my belief. Do you know that we/I are told all the time that our/my teachings are not needed or that they have no truthful value. All the time.

So, because ‘some’ have said your teachings are not needed, or that they have no truthful value, it justifies doing the same to others? I thought we were to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

This is why I took so long off from these forums. Any redeeming value is lost when there is a ‘one up manship’ going on and charity leaves the discussion and is replaced with snide remarks.

We have clearly shown how our beliefs are derived from scripture, as well as tradition, even if you disagree with the interpretation.

 

[mark_a]

The Church is fine with either or the 2 but won’t accept that they were his blood brothers because that would not make Mary a perpetual virgin and heaven for bid we can’t have that.

Right. Doctrine cannot contradict itself.

 

[rev_kevin]

I’m not really into ‘nit picking’, but I considered 6a to be a sub-definition. If you check my post again, you’ll see I posted both of them. As for ‘cousin’, look at number 2.

I think too many people think of family then through the modern eye. The culture was very different. Families traveled together, in caravans. Think when Jesus was a child and Mary discovered Jesus was not with them and they returned to Jerusalem to find him in the temple. Read the passage Luke 2 and see what I mean. Do you think it possible that Joseph and Mary walked away, leaving Jerusalem, and then just realized they had forgotten Jesus?

Ok I’ll give you this one because they often traviled i caravans for protection. It was customary fo rthe women and children to travel at the front of the caravan and the men to bring up the rear and Jesus could have been with either group.

 

[rev_kevin]

So, because ‘some’ have said your teachings are not needed, or that they have no truthful value, it justifies doing the same to others? I thought we were to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

This is why I took so long off from these forums. Any redeeming value is lost when there is a ‘one up manship’ going on and charity leaves the discussion and is replaced with snide remarks.

We have clearly shown how our beliefs are derived from scripture, as well as tradition, even if you disagree with the interpretation.

No it don’t justify doing the same to others. I just wanted you to say that it is don’t on both sides. The way you worded it was that we, non-Catholics, are the only ones doing it.

Yes I am guilty of snide remarks from time to time and I like all of us should be more Christian like in these discussions. Now if you don’t answer a post because you don’t like what is said or you just don’t see the need to answer it then they say its because he can’t answer it or some other kind of unkind remark. Some know how to push buttons. And yes we should maybe take time off to collect our thoughts and calm down. Good advice.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ok lets make this simple. A sibling is a brother or sister; that is, any person who shares at least one of the same parents.
A blood relative that comes from the same set of parents.

Now Joseph was not the father of Jesus, so that knocks him out. The only person that leaves is Mary. Now Jesus was the son of Mary and not of Joseph. If Joseph had other children from a previous marriage, which there is no proof of, Joseph’s children would not be Jesus’ siblings. So in order for Jesus to have siblings they would have to have come from Mary.

Jesus is the son of Joseph, from the perspective of other people. He was always called the carpenter’s son. If they were living with Joseph whilst Joseph is not the father of Jesus, Mary would have been stoned.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG;7433843:

rev kevin;7433744:

I have given you Scripture that says these are Jesus’ brothers. You just don’t want to accept it. Now where does it say in Scripture that Mary stayed a virgin all her life. It don’t.

John quotes Psalm 69 in Reference to Jesus, 2 other times.

John 2:17
His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."

John 15:25
25But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: 'They hated me without a cause.'

It is clear then that Psalm 69 is a prophecy about Jesus. I color match those prophecy. The scripture in between states my mother’s son

4 More in number than the hairs of my head
are those who hate me without cause;
mighty are those who would destroy me,
those who attack me with lies.
What I did not steal
must I now restore?
5O God, you know my folly;
the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you.

6Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
O Lord GOD of hosts;
let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
O God of Israel.
7For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach,
that dishonor has covered my face.
8I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
9For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.

(I am sure though a devote catholic will say I am not authoritative, and verse 8 is not about Jesus, just the ones around it) .

John 7:5
For not even his brothers believed in him.

Can be seen as fulfilling verse 8.

I see a lot of “filling in the blanks to conform to my own personal interpretation” here.

 

[gus]

What???
I don’t reject the Divinity of Christ, What does that have to do with Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?
Anyone who denies the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is the Anti-Christ??? Are you for real???

Please think about this
If Mary’s pregnecy was truly caused by the the Holy spirt
an her womb bore the Man-God
Than Joseph as a devout first century Jew would no sooner enter Mary than he would the Holy of Holies in the Temple
To a true Christain nothing is more important than Christ’s diviinity
I don’t have to tell how this most basic tenet is under attack today.
Those people are clearly identified as the anti-christ
Its the Church that’s being faithfull to John warning

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Rev Kevin,
Considering my last remark was somewhat snide allow me to apologize, I just found it odd because it seemed like you were answering all posts and mine seemed ignored. I got snippy. Didn’t follow St. Peter’s advice. My apologies.

No it don’t justify doing the same to others. I just wanted you to say that it is don’t on both sides. The way you worded it was that we, non-Catholics, are the only ones doing it.

Yes I am guilty of snide remarks from time to time and I like all of us should be more Christian like in these discussions. Now if you don’t answer a post because you don’t like what is said or you just don’t see the need to answer it then they say its because he can’t answer it or some other kind of unkind remark. Some know how to push buttons. And yes we should maybe take time off to collect our thoughts and calm down. Good advice.

 

[elvisman]

I don’t run and you know it so don’t give me that load…
You did not answer the question about Joseph.
I have answered the question about Mary, you and the others won’t accept it just like I won’t accept that she remained a virgin all her life and that she didn’t have other children.

And you have not proven they were not his brothers and sisters. You know just as well as I know that the word adelphos has several meaning. Here they are incase you forgot.
DEFINITION
ADELPHOS

1. A brother, whether born of the same 2 parents or only of the same father or mother.
2. Having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people or countryman.
3. Any fellow or man.
4. A fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection.
5. Ann associate in employment or office.
6. Brethren in Christ.
   A) His brothers by blood.
   B) All men.
   C) Apostles.
   D) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place.
   TRANSLATED WORDS
   KJV (346) Brethren, 226; Brother, 113; Brothers, 6; Brother’s way, 1;
   NAS (173) Believing husband, 1; Brethren, 13; Brother. 111; Brother’s, 8; Brothers, 40;
   WORD ORIGIN
   From (1) (as a connective particle) and DELPHUS (the womb).

James the Just.

You have no right to say “don’t run” I have posted more posts on this thread then you have and answered most of the posts. Sorry if I don’t see the need to answer every single post. I notice you don’t answer every single post. So once again don’t give me your line of …

I asked one person to answer my post and that was because he asked me to answer his. But I see you don’t say anything to him probably because he is Catholic and heaven for bid you say anything to them like you do us non-Catholics.

By the way I’m not in this to win anything.

No need to get into a huff, friend . . .**

---

You STILL have not proven that ANY of the “adelphoi” of Jesus were MARY’s children. In fact, it has been shown to you several times that these “adelphoi” were, in fact, the children of MARY’s “Adelphe”.

SHOW me where the Bible tells us that these were Virgin Mary’s children. Unless you can do this, Kevin - your claims against Mary’s perpetual virginity are moot.

As for the question about Joseph - it’s just silly. You demand proof about Joseph’s other children, yet you refuse to give the same proof about Mary. The Testimony of the Church Fathers is unanimous about Mary’s perpetual virginity. The same cannot be said about many doctrinal issues, but on this it is unanimous.**

Since the idea of Mary having other children is NOWHERE in Scripture - I’ll make it easy on you. Can you find me some proof about Mary having other children from the Early Church Fathers?]