Marys Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Toten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you read Matthew 13:55~56 it will tell that Mary doesn’t Perpetual Virgin. Because she gave birth to James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas and daughters after Jesus Christ.

Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Matthew 13:56
 
COGI said:
If you read Matthew 13:55~56 it will tell that Mary doesn’t Perpetual Virgin. Because she gave birth to James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas and daughters after Jesus Christ.

Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Matthew 13:56
Click to expand...
OK. So why didn’t James or Joses or Simon or Judas or any of her daughters take her into their home when Jesus died?

More importantly, much more importantly, why did her sons allow her to go off and live in the home of an unrelated man, and not just any unrelated man, but a man who was a leader in the very “cult” that had resulted in the execution of their own brother? Why would these Jewish sons allow their mother to live in the home of a leader of a blasphemous, anti-Jewish cult (which is how the unconverted Jews saw it)? Why would they allow their mother to go and live with a very agent of the devil?

That’s like imagining a Muslim widow going off to live in the home of an unrelated Jewish man, and her sons being OK with it.

Frankly, COGI, your late-arriving tradition of men which denies Mary’s perpetual virginity can’t hold up when examined in light of Mary’s living with John for the rest of her days.
 
COGI said:
If you read Matthew 13:55~56 it will tell that Mary doesn’t Perpetual Virgin. Because she gave birth to James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas and daughters after Jesus Christ.

Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Matthew 13:56
Click to expand...
Strange lapse. You are incorrect when you say Matthew 13:55-56 says Mary had any other children. One very possible answer would be children of Joseph from a former marriage. nowhere does it say younger brothers or sisters does it? The brothers and sisters could have been older couldn’t they? They could have been cousins. They could have been kinsmen. Another point, and I’m so glad you brought this up, “is this not the carpenters son?” Well is it the carpenter (Joseph) son? Absolutely, and in the exact same way the brothers and sisters are, through Joseph and not Mary.
Now where exactly does it say these “brothers and sisters” are children of Mary? It doesn’t!
The ONLY person identified in Scripture as the son of Mary is, Jesus. No other person is identified as the son of Mary, ever, anywhere.
 
VociMike said:
OK. So why didn’t James or Joses or Simon or Judas or any of her daughters take her into their home when Jesus died?

More importantly, much more importantly, why did her sons allow her to go off and live in the home of an unrelated man, and not just any unrelated man, but a man who was a leader in the very “cult” that had resulted in the execution of their own brother? Why would these Jewish sons allow their mother to live in the home of a leader of a blasphemous, anti-Jewish cult (which is how the unconverted Jews saw it)? Why would they allow their mother to go and live with a very agent of the devil?

That’s like imagining a Muslim widow going off to live in the home of an unrelated Jewish man, and her sons being OK with it.

Frankly, COGI, your late-arriving tradition of men which denies Mary’s perpetual virginity can’t hold up when examined in light of Mary’s living with John for the rest of her days.
Click to expand...
Sacred Tradition and Scripture do not record the reaction of James, Joses, Simon, or Judas whether they be half-brothers, step-brothers, or cousins. They could have been furious.

Sacred Tradition and Scripture do not record the location of James, Joses, Simon, or Judas at this time in the life of Jesus.
They might not have known until after his resurrection.

Undoubtedly a close knit Jewish family would not have looked on favorably to their mother, step-mother, or Aunt living with John. This we can agree. We do know that James is on the list of people who saw Jesus Christ after he rose from the dead.

We can speculate that seeing the risen Christ would be enough to subside the anger of slighted brothers, step-brothers, or cousins.
History does record that James became a Bishop in Jerusalem and in the second century Roman authorities sought out the grandchildren of Jude and so one can safely assume he converted as well.

BH
 
BrianH said:
Sacred Tradition and Scripture do not record the reaction of James, Joses, Simon, or Judas whether they be half-brothers, step-brothers, or cousins. They could have been furious.

Sacred Tradition and Scripture do not record the location of James, Joses, Simon, or Judas at this time in the life of Jesus.
They might not have known until after his resurrection.

Undoubtedly a close knit Jewish family would not have looked on favorably to their mother, step-mother, or Aunt living with John. This we can agree. We do know that James is on the list of people who saw Jesus Christ after he rose from the dead.

We can speculate that seeing the risen Christ would be enough to subside the anger of slighted brothers, step-brothers, or cousins.
History does record that James became a Bishop in Jerusalem and in the second century Roman authorities sought out the grandchildren of Jude and so one can safely assume he converted as well.
Click to expand...
None of this accounts for the fact that Mary stayed with John for the rest of her days. None of this accounts for the fact that Jesus was, according to this tale, prying his own mother from her other children in a time of great loss and even danger.
 
VociMike said:
None of this accounts for the fact that Mary stayed with John for the rest of her days. None of this accounts for the fact that Jesus was, according to this tale, prying his own mother from her other children in a time of great loss and even danger.
Click to expand...
Sure. It does not give the details which no matter what the relation would have had to be very interesting.
But the facts are scant. John, the only one to even record this, writing 50-60 years later simply does not say.
Interestingly, John does not even mention these four men by name anywhere in his gospel like the synoptics do.
We do not know how ANYONE reacted. John does not say and outside of a brief mention in Acts, we know very little about what Mary did or did not do after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
 
BrianH said:
Sure. It does not give the details which no matter what the relation would have had to be very interesting.
But the facts are scant. John, the only one to even record this, writing 50-60 years later simply does not say.
Interestingly, John does not even mention these four men by name anywhere in his gospel like the synoptics do.
We do not know how ANYONE reacted. John does not say and outside of a brief mention in Acts, we know very little about what Mary did or did not do after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
The facts are clear. The Early Church Fathers believed that was Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The Church declared it. Remember Jesus said. Jesus said this to his disciples directly. You can also note that the previous Chapters in Matthew 16:18, Jesus gave Peter to bind and loose also. In this passage the other 11 Apostles received this.

Matthew 18:16-20:

If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

BrianH,

The Church declare this to be so like the Church did concerning the Trinity. The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary defines that Mary was always a virgin, even after giving birth to Christ-in fact, Christ’s birth sanctified his mother’s virginity.

The **Second Council of Constantinople **(5 May-2 June, 553 AD) stated in the Fourteen anathemas:
  1. If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.
The Church over rules you, BrianH.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
The facts are clear. The Early Church Fathers believed that was Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The Church declared it. Remember Jesus said.

Matthew 18:16-20:

If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

BrianH,

The Church declare this to be so like the Church did concerning the Trinity. The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary defines that Mary was always a virgin, even after giving birth to Christ-in fact, Christ’s birth sanctified his mother’s virginity.

The **Second Council of Constantinople **(5 May-2 June, 553 AD) stated in the Fourteen anathemas:
  1. If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.
The Church over rules you, BrianH.
Click to expand...
Well that is a conversation killer Manny. 😉
Yes, your church has infallibly declared and I am starting to learn it is a waste of time to discuss it.
I am slower than the average bear and so it has taken me awhile to come to this conclusion:o

I really was only commenting on the silence of scriptures and tradition concerning this matter of how the four men reacted, no matter if one thinks they are her children, step children, or nephews. VociMike is right about how they probably reacted. I would only say that Mary apparently had a rather peaceful rest of her life and so Christ knew what he was doing, one way or the other and probably over strong protest.
John simply does not talk about how anyone reacted and he is the only one to record this happening.
 
BrianH said:
Well that is a conversation killer Manny. 😉
Yes, your church has infallibly declared and I am starting to learn it is a waste of time to discuss it.
I am slower than the average bear and so it has taken me awhile to come to this conclusion:o
Click to expand...
It’s not just ‘my church,’ it’s Jesus Christ’s Church. I also like to note that the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is not in communion with Rome also affirm the Council of Constantinople.
I really was only commenting on the silence of scriptures and tradition concerning this matter of how the four men reacted, no matter if one thinks they are her children, step children, or nephews. VociMike is right about how they probably reacted. I would only say that Mary apparently had a rather peaceful rest of her life and so Christ knew what he was doing, one way or the other and probably over strong protest.
John simply does not talk about how anyone reacted and he is the only one to record this happening.
Click to expand...
Traditions holds them to be cousins of Jesus and nephews of Mary. Even though, some tradition claim that Joseph was widower before he married Mary and that Joseph may have other children. This does not contradict the belief that Mary remain a virgin.
 
there is no word of brother or cousin in Aramaic: Gen 14:14 Lot was called Abrahams brother, but is actually his nephew. Gen 11:27 Aran was the father of Lot.

If Jesus had brothers then why would he give his mother to someone other than his real brother Jn 19:26-27. It would have been a grave insult to pass on care to someone other than the father or the sons. Why not just leave her to her husband?

In Acts 1:14-15 they prayed together was the apostles (11) + mary (1) + women (?) + brothers (?) = 120. These were also called Jesus brothers, Mary would have had around 80 sons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top