Protestants honest question about Mary

[Hisalone]

What specific verses say she didn’t remain a virgin?

Jon

You know which of the verses do yet you will “attempt” to explain them away and ignore the obvious. We have been down this road many times before.

 

[elvisman]

What specific verses say she didn’t remain a virgin?

Jon

You know which of the verses do yet you will “attempt” to explain them away and ignore the obvious. We have been down this road many times before.

What specific quotes say that she had other children?
No Protestant has ever been able to answer this question.

In the Septuagint, the normal Greek words for “brother(s) “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used much more liberally than the normal meaning. It was applied to cousins, uncles, nephews and kinsmen alike. The Aramaic word, “ach”, encompasses the meanings for brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman. The attempt by some Protestants to apply one word for all of these meanings in 21st century English is ludicrous. Just as languages differ – so do the meanings of different words.**
There is another problem for Protestants who try to prove that Mary had other children and list the names given in the bible. They give the names of these adelphoi, James, Joseph (Joses), Jude (Judas), and list the passages that mention these adelphoi, (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

James is elsewhere described as the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3), which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas.
What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?
Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".**
Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").
Finally, John 19:25 tells us, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

A comparison of these accounts of the crucifixion shows the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.
Another Protestant “proof” against the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the word “until”. Matt. 1:25 says: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Did Mary have other children after Jesus? As we have examined – the Bible does not support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.**
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death."
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?

**Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): “For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ **
**Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool? **

The problem here is that the anti-Catholic attempts to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

Game. Set. MATCH.

 

[JonNC]

**What specific **quotes say that she had other children?
No Protestant has ever been able to answer this question.

In the Septuagint, the normal Greek words for “brother(s) “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used much more liberally than the normal meaning. It was applied to cousins, uncles, nephews and kinsmen alike. The Aramaic word, “ach”, encompasses the meanings for* brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman*. The attempt by some Protestants to apply one word for all of these meanings in 21st century English is ludicrous. Just as languages differ – so do the meanings of different words.
There is another problem for Protestants who try to prove that Mary had other children and list the names given in the bible. They give the names of these adelphoi, James, Joseph (Joses), Jude (Judas), and list the passages that mention these adelphoi, (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

James is elsewhere described as the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3), which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas.
What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?
Matt. 27:56 says,* “…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph*, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”.
Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").
Finally, John 19:25 tells us, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

A comparison of these accounts of the crucifixion shows the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.
Another Protestant “proof” against the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the word “until”. Matt. 1:25 says: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Did Mary have other children after Jesus? As we have examined – the Bible does not support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until**”.
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.”
Are we to assume that Michal had children after** she died*?*

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): “For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?

Game. Set. MATCH.

Those are the arguments Hisalone is referring to, I believe.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You know which of the verses do yet you will “attempt” to explain them away and ignore the obvious. We have been down this road many times before.

Yes, I believe we have. As I said to another poster, you can believe whatever you want concerning Mary, and I’ll not condemn it. It is adiaphora. By the same token, I tend to agree with Martin Luther, the other reformers, and virtually all of Christianity prior to the 1600’s on this issue.

Jon

 

[lil_flower_luv]

You know which of the verses do yet you will “attempt” to explain them away and ignore the obvious. We have been down this road many times before.

Yes, we have been down this road many times…which is why I will say I think it is you who is ignoring the obvious, friend. Even if I wasn’t Catholic, I would still believe in the Church’s teaching of Mary. It makes sense.
Hope you enjoy elvisman’s post!

+JMJ+
Therese

 

[sckcd]

I’m sure you’ve heard the argument regarding the use of the word “until” or “till”.
Ex: “My grandfather quit smoking at the age of 60, and did not light up a cigarette again until he died at 85.” So goes the argument that this doesn’t mean he lit up after he died.
But again, marion beliefs are adiaphora, at least that seems to be the Lutheran belief.

Jon

Using “until” like that does not even make any sense. That’s really bending the meaning and reaching, IMO. But to each their own, huh? I agree to disagree.

 

[JonNC]

Using “until” like that does not even make any sense. That’s really bending the meaning and reaching, IMO. But to each their own, huh? I agree to disagree.

That’s agreeable!

Using until in this way was not all that unusual years ago. I’m no language expert, so I can’t say how Greek and/or Latin expresses these things. No matter which English language Bible one uses, it is, as its core, a translation.

Jon

 

[elvisman]

Those are the arguments Hisalone is referring to, I believe.

Jon

Again - Prove it wrong.
If Hisalone is so sure of it being wrong - certainly, he can present an intelligent case against it.

It’s easy to say, “Bunk”.
It’s quite another to prove something.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN]There is a Catholic Mary not found in Scripture[/SIGN]; therefore whatever esteem you place on her is your own business AISI (as i see it).

Not found in scripture. Who is the Mary then that scripture refers to that says Blessed are you among women and Blessed is the fruit of they womb Jesus. So if she is the Mary Catholic’s only found, who do Protestatants claim the Mother of God is?

 

[DerekD]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Not found in scripture. Who is the Mary then that scripture refers to that says Blessed are you among women and Blessed is the fruit of they womb Jesus. So if she is the Mary Catholic’s only found, who do Protestants claim the Mother of God is?

The Mary in the Bible was not a perpetual virgin, she and Joseph had both sons and daughters as Scripture clearly teaches and in more than a single verse. Mary was immaculately conceived; no where to be found explicitly or otherwise. There is no mention of Mary ascending into heaven. The old spin that these were cousins is silly at best since there is a specific word for cousin in the Greek. The other silly argument I have heard before is “brother” can be like brothers in Christ, but that doesn’t fly either since Jesus was heading to a festival and the Bible says his brothers did not believe in Him; so we know brothers can’t refer to the context of Christians.

Folks like that ElivsMan and others can simply explain away and say that is that, but which is so obvious and the history of Marilogy was and continues to evolve over time; and still doesn’t change the facts represented in Scripture. Shows me that some here pick and chose what they want to believe concerning the word of God.

It is blasphemy against God to capitalize “mother” and to call her co-mediatrix among other heretical characteristics assigned to her, but that is your prerogative to invent a “goddess” that does not exist.

 

[DerekD]

Until I see a Bible verse that says she remained one, then I will assume that as a married woman she consummated her marriage, like any other married person. Do you have a verse that says so or not?

Of course they do not, but they can twist a passage or two; like anyone that takes a position in Scripture that is not from God. Frankly, it is hard to believe this is even an issue since it is not vague in the Bible at all. Mary herself called her Son her Savior nad God would not tell Joseph to mary Mary if He did not expect them to fulfill their vowels; that is plain nonsense and aganst the very nature of God.

 

[crazzeto]

Using “until” like that does not even make any sense. That’s really bending the meaning and reaching, IMO. But to each their own, huh? I agree to disagree.

26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

If Jesus’s so called brothers (uteran) existed, why did Jesus just smack them upside the head? If Jesus had sisters (wed), why wouldn’t the virgin mary live with them? If Jesus had unwed sisters, why is it he doesn’t care enough about them to prevent them from living a cursed life?

You see in Jewish culture, Mary would have been viewed as Cursed woman. Jews understood you couldn’t get to Heaven (before Christ), so the sign of whether or not you were blessed was what kind of life you got here on earth. If you were rich, with a lot of land, big house etc you were blessed. The kind of person that would inherit the kingdom if such a thing were possible. If you were a woman, who’s husband was dead, then your only son dies, by being hung on a tree no less (the most cursed kind of death in that culture) then you were an abomination. No one would give you alms, you would be living on the streets if you were lucky, if you weren’t lucky they might stone you.

So here Christ is, entrusting care of Mary to John. If Jesus had other siblings, why was he doing this? One must conclude that, based on this (and other already pointed out passages) Jesus didn’t have any brothers and sisters. Well if Jesus didn’t have any brothers and sisters, then why not? If the Virgin Mary hadn’t stayed one all her life? It just makes no sense, unless Mary was a life long Virgin.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I still don’t see how that proves she remained a virgin. Maybe she did, but maybe she didn’t. I think the [SIGN]whole concept is left open ended. When [/SIGN]she said she did not know a man, at that time she did not. But who is to say that later she didn’t? Would she be less holy if she did later have children with Joseph in the convenant of her marriage? I personally don’t see why it’s such an issue that she is a virgin or not.

actually that is not true. Jesus left us the Church and the Church has what we call Tradition. That is oral teachings by the Apostles. Thats how we know. Answer me this, what do you feel is the difference between what was written in the bible that the Apostels taught, and what was passed on by wor of mouth to the Church that the Apostles taught? If the Apostles believed it to be true, and the early fathers of the Church believed it to be true. What would be the big difference?

 

[rinnie]

The Mary in the Bible was not a perpetual virgin, she and Joseph had both sons and daughters as Scripture clearly teaches and in more than a single verse. [SIGN]Mary was immaculately conceived; no where to be found explicitly or otherwise. There [/SIGN]is no mention of Mary ascending into heaven. The old spin that these were cousins is silly at best since there is a specific word for cousin in the Greek. The other silly argument I have heard before is “brother” can be like brothers in Christ, but that doesn’t fly either since Jesus was heading to a festival and the Bible says his brothers did not believe in Him; so we know brothers can’t refer to the context of Christians.

Folks like that ElivsMan and others can simply explain away and say that is that, but which is so obvious and the history of Marilogy was and continues to evolve over time; and still doesn’t change the facts represented in Scripture. Shows me that some here pick and chose what they want to believe concerning the word of God.

It is blasphemy against God to capitalize “mother” and to call her co-mediatrix among other heretical characteristics assigned to her, but that is your prerogative to invent a “goddess” that does not exist.

Okay answer me this. Do you believe that Jesus was born into original sin. Yes or No? If Mary was not saved from Original sin at birth then she would have had to have been born into original sin.

Now if Mary was born into original sin the Jesus would have had to be born into it also from his Mother. So hows it gonna be here? Was Mary saved from Original sin a conception or not?

 

[sckcd]

Okay answer me this. Do you believe that Jesus was born into original sin. Yes or No? If Mary was not saved from Original sin at birth then she would have had to have been born into original sin.

Now if Mary was born into original sin the Jesus would have had to be born into it also from his Mother. So hows it gonna be here? Was Mary saved from Original sin a conception or not?

I don’t really buy into the original sin thing, so I guess your whole point is moot. I believe that humans are born and will without a doubt sin, but are sinless as babies. But that’s a whole new thread, huh?

 

[elvisman]

The Mary in the Bible was not a perpetual virgin, she and Joseph had both sons and daughters as Scripture clearly teaches and in more than a single verse. Mary was immaculately conceived; no where to be found explicitly or otherwise. There is no mention of Mary ascending into heaven. The old spin that these were cousins is silly at best since there is a specific word for cousin in the Greek. The other silly argument I have heard before is “brother” can be like brothers in Christ, but that doesn’t fly either since Jesus was heading to a festival and the Bible says his brothers did not believe in Him; so we know brothers can’t refer to the context of Christians.

Folks like that ElivsMan and others can simply explain away and say that is that, but which is so obvious and the history of Marilogy was and continues to evolve over time; and still doesn’t change the facts represented in Scripture. Shows me that some here pick and chose what they want to believe concerning the word of God.

It is blasphemy against God to capitalize “mother” and to call her co-mediatrix among other heretical characteristics assigned to her, but that is your prerogative to invent a “goddess” that does not exist.

**I’ve alread proven in post #62 that it cannot be proven by Ccripture that Mary had other children. ****If you have other verses to back up your claim - please present them. **Otherwise, I suggest you use less offensive language when referring to the Catholic position on Mary.

We do not consider her to be a “goddess”. that is an anti-Catholic invention.

 

[rinnie]

I don’t really buy into the original sin thing, so I guess your whole point is moot. I believe that humans are born and will without a doubt sin, but are sinless as babies. But that’s a whole new thread, huh?

Then I guess you do not buy into Baptism either for the forgiveness of sins. And I guess you do not feel a baby needs to be baptised either then? I mean what for what sin can be forgiven right? And I guess you do not buy into Jesus being the New Adam. For the old Adam brought sin into the world for all, which you reject, and Jesus took away sin.

 

[sckcd]

Then I guess you do not buy into Baptism either for the forgiveness of sins. And I guess you do not feel a baby needs to be baptised either then? I mean what for what sin can be forgiven right? And I guess you do not buy into Jesus being the New Adam. For the old Adam brought sin into the world for all, which you reject, and Jesus took away sin.

I believe in baptism, but I think you need to sin first. And I don’t think an infant has the capacity to sin.

 

[rinnie]

I believe in baptism, but I think you need to sin first. And I don’t think an infant has the capacity to sin.

Wow! Where did you get that teaching? I know better then to ask for scripture on that one, because its impossible.

According to the teachngs of the Church all are born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin.

We get it through scripture. I guess you disagree with St Paul also then. He said one mans disbedience many were made sinners.

 

[ccolley2]

Neither do Catholics, it should be stated. No creature is of equal status to Jesus, because no creature (even Mary) is capable of, in and of them selves, bestowing God’s grace upon any other creature. All creatures, including Mary, get grace from God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) for specific purposes. In the case of Mary, she is able, in a way, to act as a mechinism distributing Gods grace. If Grace is like water, then Mary could be thought of sort of as a sprinkler. The sprinkler can’t get the water on it’s own and start distributing it on a lawn, it receives the water (Grace) from a source such as your local water utility (God) and then distributes it.

Does this answer your last question (you didn’t know you were asking lol) about Mary?

What about her propetual virginity?

There is nothing in the scriptures that says that she wasn’t a perpetual virgin. Once again…When Christ was on the Cross he did what any good Jewish, ONLY SON of Mary would do…he gave her to John to take into his home. Because if he had had brothers it would not have been necessary to give her to anyone because they would have already been taking care of her once Jesus was arrested.

May the peace of Christ be with you!
CC