SPLIT: Did Jesus have brothers? The perpetual virginity debate.

[inkaneer]

Your scriptural reading still does not answer why Jesus told Mary to accept John as her son and ask John to accept Mary as his mother. Furthermore does it ever occur to you something strange? How can thousands of years of religious saints and scholars, despite their disagreements, all believe in Mary’s perpeptual virginity? This is accepted by not only Catholics and Orthodox, but even by the founder of the Reformation themselves. Do you think if the Greek does indeed indicate that Mary was not a perpeptual Virgin then the Greek fathers would have known? Don’t you think if Mary’s virginity can be disproved by the language of the New Testmament, then the Eastern Church shouldn’t have acknowledge her perpeptual virginity?

I said this before kin another thread very similar in nature to this one regarding the “the Lord’s brethern” In a world where cities would boast of having the body of this apostle or that apostle, this saint or that saint, in much the same fashion as cities today boast of winning the Superbowl or the World Series. There are three claims that are never made.

1. No one claims to have the Body of Jesus.
2. No one claims to have the body of Mary
3. No one claims to be a descended from Mary or descended from a brother or sister of Jesus. No one, in 2,000 years has ever made that these claims. What name, in a time when name dropping was rampant and even documented in the Bible [Jude 1:1], is there a name to drop bigger than the name of Jesus. Yet no one ever made the claim and for good reason. The early church did not just believe Mary remained a virgin, THEY KNEW. So for someone to claim that they were a brother of Jesus they would have been laughed at and no one would believe them.

 

[BrianH]

I said this before kin another thread very similar in nature to this one regarding the “the Lord’s brethern” In a world where cities would boast of having the body of this apostle or that apostle, this saint or that saint, in much the same fashion as cities today boast of winning the Superbowl or the World Series. There are three claims that are never made.

1. No one claims to have the Body of Jesus.
2. No one claims to have the body of Mary
3. No one claims to be a descended from Mary or descended from a brother or sister of
   Jesus. No one, in 2,000 years has ever made that these claims

There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.
Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.7
Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.

 

[passer_by]

Here we are getting somewhere. But my reply would be what about these scriptures that, seem to me, to say she had other children?

As I said before, your charge, if we grant those authors as valid for the sake of argument seems to be

1. There is difficulty in interpreting Brothers as Cousins since these mentions seem to have immediate connection to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I answered that

If that is in the case, this immediate connection must be to highlight the spiritual motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary to all the Elect. So then the relationship between these Brothers and the Blessed Virgin Mary is that of spiritual nature. The reason for the immediate connection is to highlight that she is the spiritual mother of them.

So there is no contradiction with Perpetual Virginity and Scripture.

Are you therefore saying it comes from a traditions which were passed down? Are you therefore saying scripture doesn’t have everything? or that an answer can’t always be drawn from scripture?

Yes!!

There is Tradition and the Church which hold equal weight in terms of truth with Scripture.

Do you have any reasons why you believe otherwise? Especially those two propositions I mentioned in my previous post?

 

[adrift]

Exactly the reason I used the context. Hoes hou can and more often does mean a change in status as used in the New Testament Greek.
The use of the Old Testament Greek (which is a translation of the Hebrew original) is an interesting idea but…not a particularly good one.
Break out every use of hoes hou (until…till in the KJV) in the New Testament
it DOES indicate the previous activity (or lack of activity in this particular case) stops or changes. :

Mat 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

Mat 26:36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. (hoes hou was translated “while” here)

Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

Luk 13:21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Act 23:12 And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.

Act 25:21 But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Until does not mean a change in status. It only means a time up to a paticular time. Each of your examples does not say there was a change it only addresses the time up to the point. That you see a change is a matter of hindsight. Just because you see a change does not change the meaning of the word. It means only a period of time upto a certain point only.

2193 heos {heh’-oce} of uncertain affinity;; conj 1) till, until

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

Most modern Catholic translations have “he” at the point you indicate. Both the RSV and the NAB have “he.” But anyway, this is a red herring because the point is who is at total enmity with the devil (both the Woman [Mary] and Her Seed [Jesus]) and not who does the crushing.

You could say the same thing about the kings. Applying your reasoning, you would have to conclude that because David did bad things then whoever sits on his throne is a bad man. Seeing as the One Who is on that throne now is Perfect Good, I think your reasoning is invalid.

The poles were analogous to the veil on the Holy of Holies. Both served to separate men from God and both become unnecessary once the Lord had come.

The flight from Herod.

No one touched Mary which is why She is ever-virgin.

That never happened in the sense you are alluding to.

The Assumption.

Yes, but unlike the earthly sanctuary, She encompasses He who dwelt in Her and so She is not constrained by the earthly laws. She will never be defiled, fall, or need purification, so that answers the rest of your questions.

Your mistake is in taking the spiritual to be less real or less important than the physical. In this you do greatly err.

More questions, if you don’t mind.

1. Why is the point of Jesus crushing Satan’s head a red herring? Why would the crucifixion and resurrection (the crushing of Satan’s head) be a red herring? Wasn’t the enmity between Satan’s seed and the woman’s seed (Jesus). Why remove Christ from the discussion?
2. Some have said that Mary as Queen Mother reigns with Christ on His Throne. Does that mean that when “every knee shall bow,” R.C.s are also bowing and worshipping Mary who shares the throne with Him? If so, should a mortal human being ascend to God’s throne and share His glory?
3. Why is Mary considered to be the Ark of the Covenant when Jesus is the actual, perfect example of the Ark of the Covenant? The articles of the Tabernacle represent a prefiguring or examples of Jesus Christ, including everything from the Tabernacle being in the midst of the people, to the candlestand, to the altar, to the sacrifice. Why is the honor and glory that belongs to the Second Person of the Godhead ascribed to a human being?
4. Why is there no other explanation for Ezekiel’s visions in chpts. 40 to the end of the book other than Mary is the gate? Actually, my other questions were not answered. These chapters are rich in detailed instructions for the temple. If Mary is the sanctuary, then what does the rest of the rich imagery of Ezekiel’s vision represent? How is Mary not constrained by earthly laws? Was she constrained by earthly laws while she lived on earth? Or only now that she is in heaven? Is she now divine? Was she divine while on earth?

In most cases for Christians, spiritual matters are more important than physical matters, but as long as we are in these earthly, physical bodies, we are able to know the difference between the two. God gave us body, soul, and spirit. It is necessary to distinguish which is which; for if not, we will become mired in misunderstandings. The same holds true of His Word. Distinguishing between what pertains to spiritual things and what pertains to physical things is necessary to understand it. Mixing the two makes for confusion.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

More questions, if you don’t mind.

1. Why is the point of Jesus crushing Satan’s head a red herring? Why would the crucifixion and resurrection (the crushing of Satan’s head) be a red herring? Wasn’t the enmity between Satan’s seed and the woman’s seed (Jesus). Why remove Christ from the discussion?
   While it is true that it would be the woman’s seed against the serpent seed, note that Genesis did say that the woman will directly trample the serpent. Of course not on her own power, bu by the power of her seed.
2. Some have said that Mary as Queen Mother reigns with Christ on His Throne. Does that mean that when “every knee shall bow,” R.C.s are also bowing and worshipping Mary who shares the throne with Him? If so, should a mortal human being ascend to God’s throne and share His glory?
   The book of Revelation records elders who sit on the throne and share it with God, does that mean every knees shall bow before them? No, of course not, Catholics venerate and love Mary and the saints, but despite what we call Mary, she is just a saint. She sits with Jesus and is called Queen of Heaven because Jesus was a descendant of David, and since David mother was called queen, Mary who is Christ mother is also to be called queen. P.S no Catholic worship Mary.
3. Why is Mary considered to be the Ark of the Covenant when Jesus is the actual, perfect example of the Ark of the Covenant? The articles of the Tabernacle represent a prefiguring or examples of Jesus Christ, including everything from the Tabernacle being in the midst of the people, to the candlestand, to the altar, to the sacrifice. Why is the honor and glory that belongs to the Second Person of the Godhead ascribed to a human being?
   If Jesus is the ark of the covenant then what is the covenant? What is glorified? The ark or the covenant? Or is it not true that the ark is simply a vessel for the covenant, and is venerated since it contain the covenant? Likewise if we ascribe the most sacred thing to Jesus, the covenant would be of Him. If He is the covenant, then who could be the literal ark of covenant? Only Mary
4. Why is there no other explanation for Ezekiel’s visions in chpts. 40 to the end of the book other than Mary is the gate? Actually, my other questions were not answered. These chapters are rich in detailed instructions for the temple. If Mary is the sanctuary, then what does the rest of the rich imagery of Ezekiel’s vision represent? How is Mary not constrained by earthly laws? Was she constrained by earthly laws while she lived on earth? Or only now that she is in heaven? Is she now divine? Was she divine while on earth?
   Because there is not a single moment Jesus passed through Jerusalem gate, and thus Mary is the only possible option. Mary is constrained by earthly laws as much as Jesus, she was too a mortal. However she is BY THE GRACE OF GOD, not by her own power, conceived immaculately and assumed into heaven. Unlike Jesus, who was divine, Mary could not do anything on her own.

In most cases for Christians, spiritual matters are more important than physical matters, but as long as we are in these earthly, physical bodies, we are able to know the difference between the two. God gave us body, soul, and spirit. It is necessary to distinguish which is which; for if not, we will become mired in misunderstandings. The same holds true of His Word. Distinguishing between what pertains to spiritual things and what pertains to physical things is necessary to understand it. Mixing the two makes for confusion.

 

[Cat_Herder]

More questions, if you don’t mind.

1. Why is the point of Jesus crushing Satan’s head a red herring? Why would the crucifixion and resurrection (the crushing of Satan’s head) be a red herring? Wasn’t the enmity between Satan’s seed and the woman’s seed (Jesus). Why remove Christ from the discussion?

Because regardless of the he/she dispute, no one disputes that Jesus did the crushing. No one is removing Christ from the discussion.

The point is that both Jesus and Mary are placed at total enmity with the devil. That is in an undisputed part of the verse.

1. Some have said that Mary as Queen Mother reigns with Christ on His Throne. Does that mean that when “every knee shall bow,” R.C.s are also bowing and worshipping Mary who shares the throne with Him? If so, should a mortal human being ascend to God’s throne and share His glory?

Joshua bowed before an angel and Jesus and Paul assert that glorified humans rank above the angels. (In fact, Paul was quite clear that even your great-grandmother would judge angels, see 1 Cor 6:3). Mary would obviously be at the top of the hierarchy of saints, and therefore above all other saints and the angels and inferior only to the Trinity. If angels are worthy of veneration then so is She. See discussion here.

Again, since the Bible endorses the honoring of angels and saints, and no one disputes that the worship of adoration is due to the Trinity alone (so no one is doing what John did wrong in Revelation 19:10), you are attempting to create a controversy where there isn’t one.

1. Why is Mary considered to be the Ark of the Covenant when Jesus is the actual, perfect example of the Ark of the Covenant? The articles of the Tabernacle represent a prefiguring or examples of Jesus Christ, including everything from the Tabernacle being in the midst of the people, to the candlestand, to the altar, to the sacrifice. Why is the honor and glory that belongs to the Second Person of the Godhead ascribed to a human being

Jesus did not bear Himself into the world. He could have descended from Heaven the way He ascended after the Resurrection. Instead, He took his human nature from Mary and chose to dwell in Her. That was His call to make. Maybe you should go ask Him why He did that.

1. Why is there no other explanation for Ezekiel’s visions in chpts. 40 to the end of the book other than Mary is the gate?

That’s something to ask your Bible experts. I don’t think they’ll be able to answer it, though.

Actually, my other questions were not answered. These chapters are rich in detailed instructions for the temple. If Mary is the sanctuary, then what does the rest of the rich imagery of Ezekiel’s vision represent? How is Mary not constrained by earthly laws? Was she constrained by earthly laws while she lived on earth? Or only now that she is in heaven? Is she now divine? Was she divine while on earth?

You are inquiring on the nature of glorification, that is, what happens to us after we enter heaven. See the link above.

In most cases for Christians, spiritual matters are more important than physical matters, but as long as we are in these earthly, physical bodies, we are able to know the difference between the two. God gave us body, soul, and spirit. It is necessary to distinguish which is which; for if not, we will become mired in misunderstandings. The same holds true of His Word. Distinguishing between what pertains to spiritual things and what pertains to physical things is necessary to understand it. Mixing the two makes for confusion.

Protestantism specializes in rejecting spiritual realities like the saints and the sacraments, which is why you are asking these questions.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 2:7-16[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[pablope]

My agenda = to understand the Catholic doctrine

I’m not trying to convert anyone I’m trying to understand why people say this and why.

As I said I have never heard of this debate until a couple days ago on this forum.

You say if I believe the bible, logically I should believe Mary was ever virgin? That is not a logical answer because I’m asking you questions based on what I have read from that bible that seem, at the least to me, to oppose Mary being a perpetual virgin

 

[Prieldedi]

My agenda = to understand the Catholic doctrine

I’m not trying to convert anyone I’m trying to understand why people say this and why.

As I said I have never heard of this debate until a couple days ago on this forum.

You say if I believe the bible, logically I should believe Mary was ever virgin? That is not a logical answer because I’m asking you questions based on what I have read from that bible that seem, at the least to me, to oppose Mary being a perpetual virgin

I did not at any point say she couldn’t have been a virgin till she died. There are probably plenty of people that have died virgins. I’m saying what is your evidence for this from the bible and with that I have presented verses which I have before interpreted that she had children of her own.

What focus on sex? My focus is on doctrine and truth! That is how I ended up finding this site, I want to find out the truth and God helping me to walk in it. You proclaim something to be true and I am asking why and trying to understand why. (A bit of repetition going on now)

I really want to reply to your last sentence but I’m just not going to.

Yes being a bond servant means they are committed to God, but how does that say she was a virgin for life? Must I be a virgin to be committed to God?

Here we are getting somewhere. But my reply would be what about these scriptures that, seem to me, to say she had other children? Are you therefore saying it comes from a traditions which were passed down? Are you therefore saying scripture doesn’t have everything? or that an answer can’t always be drawn from scripture?

I understand what your saying but then why are they metioned in e.g. Mark 6:3 onwards.

Sorry if I have confused anything, I have a lot of work to do school wise and I can’t take much else in my head at the moment but I wanted to reply still.

Catholic doctrine is the doctrine taught by the Apostles which they learned from Jesus. Nothing has been changed or added, at most it has been clarified by their successors, as they received from the Apostles the authority Jesus gave them. The Church has made clear for all Catholics those doctrines that seemed not so clear to some. It’s an ongoing process. After the split of the 16th Century many decided to walk away from the Church and formed new churches. Today their descendants openly reject the Catholic Church authority and at the same time reject the benefit of belonging to it and also reject the complete true message of the Gospel.

The fullness of Jesus’ message is not contained in the Bible (John 20:30-31, 21:25). Where is what’s not in the Bible? No need to worry, the Tradition of the Church has kept all of Jesus teachings at hand for us. Remember Jesus said “Heaven and earth will pass away, BUT MY WORDS will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). If you accept that the Bible doesn’t contain all the doctrine Jesus told the Apostles, then you must accept that He meant it when He said “MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY”. You may ask, where is the rest of Jesus’ words? Who knows them? For sure not your pastor, but the Catholic Church knows them.

With this in mind, we Catholics rely solely on the authority of the Church to believe in what it teaches. We don’t need to interpret passages of the Bible for ourselves, the Church is there to guide us, and She is guided by the Holy Spirit. As a Catholic I could go my entire life without reading a single passage of the Bible and still know the fullness of Jesus doctrine. In fact millions have. Just think of the millions of Catholics that never learned to read in the last 2000 years, yet they knew His complete doctrine. How could that be? By listening to the ones He sent: “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16). See, we accept both, the message AND the messenger. We accept the message for who the messenger is. That’s why Jesus warned us: “Beware of false prophets: they come to you in sheep’s clothing but inside they are wild wolves” (Matthew 7:15), as well as Peter: “Just as there have been false prophets in the midst of the people of Israel, so will there be false teachers among you” (2 Peter 2:1), and John: “My beloved, do not trust every inspiration. Test the spirits to see whether they come from God, because many false prophets are now in the world” (1 John 4:1). If any messenger or any spirit could convey the message to us, what are those warnings for? So for us when a priest or bishop is preaching it’s like we are hearing the Apostles themselves preach. Others are the wolves, the false prophets who are moved by spirits that don’t come from God.

So when the Church tells us that Mary is ever virgin we need no biblical proof to believe it’s true: “Happy are those who have not seen and believe”. The messenger is the proof. But those who come from the churches that left the true Church are told that biblical proof is needed. Fortunately the Holy Spirit, in His wisdom and knowing what was going to happen in the future, inspired the writers of the New Testament to include the passages needed for every aspect of the whole christian doctrine for those individuals that are told to ask, “where is that in the Bible?” Although the entire doctrine is not specifically explained in detail in the Bible, Jesus told the Apostles: “Go therefore” … “and TEACH them to fulfill ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED you” (Matthew 28:20). That’s what they did and that’s what their successors still do. They teach us to fulfill ALL that He commanded them.

Here at CAF you will see many of the passages that explain the Apostles/Church teachings, and if you continue reading these threads you’ll get to know them all. Once you see the whole picture is for you to decide if you will listen or reject the ones He sent.

Continues…

 

[Prieldedi]

My agenda = to understand the Catholic doctrine

Continues…

Now to some of the proofs. There are so many that it baffles the mind to see so many non Catholic Christians reject them, not because they are not there to be seen, but because it’s the Catholic Church the one that points them out.
Isaiah 7:14. “Behold, a virgin shall conceive.” No Christian has problem with this. I’ll ask you to remove yourself from your comfortable 21st Century position and place yourself in Palestine 2000 years ago. Jews were waiting for the Messiah, there is no NT, only the OT. If you were a jew in 30 AD, why would you believe Jesus was the Messiah if He was around with his mother and several brothers and sisters? Why would you believe He is the “son” in Isaiah 7:14 and Mary is the virgin if you see her with at least 7 children? How could you believe the virgin birth if He had 6 additional siblings, 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters? Remember, the Messiah has to fulfill ALL the prophesies, if he can’t fulfill one he’s not the Messiah.
Ezekiel 44:1-3. “This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and NO MAN SHALL ENTER in by it… the prince … shall enter … and shall go out by the way of the same.” You are now in 33 AD, Jesus was crucified and you wonder where is this gate that is shut. Is there such gate? Yes, the gate IS Mary. There is no physical GATE that God/Jesus/The Prince entered and came out of it which is shut still today. Not in Palestine, not anywhere. “No man shall enter in by it” means lifetime virginity, means no children other that the Son of God, Jesus. If Jesus is an only son then the prophesy of Isaiah becomes true, She is The Virgin and you can be sure He is the Messiah. OK, you can come back to the present now.
Luke 1:31&34. “Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS” … “How shall this be, seeing I know not man?” Remember, the angel comes to “a young VIRGIN who was BETROTHED” to Joseph (V. 27) … and she doubts she will have a son? She’s perplexed she WILL HAVE a son in the FUTURE. Why? Why would she be amazed if, as you believe, being just about to be married in the traditional sense, she is told that she will have a son? Her reaction to the angel clearly indicates that she was a woman that had decided to remain VIRGIN for life and dedicate her life to GOD. Isn’t this an additional POWERFUL reason as to why GOD chose Her to be the mother of His Son? What’s so UNBELIEVABLE of her decision to remain virgin for GOD? If your answer is “it’s not in the Bible”, then go back an re-read John 20:30-31, 21:25.

You may ask about the “betrothed” part. To be betrothed to a virgin would be the equivalent to be her “guardian” or “sponsor”. In those days a woman that decided to remain a virgin for GOD needed a man to provide for her, for her food, shelter, clothes. The family of the virgin looked for a man, Joseph, and then they were married. The man was to care for her more like a father would care for his daughter. Mary didn’t choose the man she was to marry, as practically all the young Jewish women of her time did. We can say her’s was not “love at first sight”, we are not talking about “Romeo and Juliet” here. GOD intervened so She could remain a virgin for Him (“Behold the HANDMAID of the Lord” Luke 1:38), and the angel talked to St. Joseph to accept her, and with that GOD provided the earthly father His Son needed.
The return from Egypt after spending there several years is a family of three. Jesus gets lost at the temple at age 12, it’s a family of three. The wedding at Cana is a family of two, Joseph is assumed dead. If there were more children, where were they? If there were more, Mary would have stayed at home caring for the little ones, the trip to Jerusalem at 12 would have been made by Joseph and Jesus only. Even if you argue that all made the trip, why Joseph and Mary didn’t ask the brothers where Jesus was? Kids stay together, no? Then at Cana there is no mention of the rest of the family. Mary and Jesus are the ones mentioned by name. We are told the disciples are there. Why did John leave out the rest of the family?
James “the brother of the Lord” is an Apostle (Galatians 1:18-19), whose father IS NOT Joseph, but a man named Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15). Joses is James brother (Matthew 27:56), so his father is also Alphaeus. These two are mentioned as brothers of Judas and Simon (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3). Judas by himself is called James brother too (Acts 1:13), and finally Judas himself says he is James brother (Jude 1:1). If James’ father is Alphaeus, then Alphaeus is the father of the other three. No sister is ever mentioned, why? It’s odd because the names of other women are mentioned in the NT, but not one sister.
The lack of the words “cousin, nephew, uncle, brother in law” in the language Jesus and the Apostles spoke. In that language no one used the word “adelphos” for they didn’t speak in Greek. They said “brother” when refering to any of these relationships. Pay no attention to “McClintock and Strong” quoted in previous posts. “Brother” in Aramaic means more than uterine brother.
John 19:27. Jesus gives His mother to John. Why if there where other sons to take care of her? Besides, He didn’t just asked John to care for Her, He said “There is your mother” (John 19:27) and He had said to His Mother “Woman, this is your son” (19:26). Why “MOTHER”, why “SON”?

There is more. If you still are not convinced of all this, consider one more passage from the Bible…
Luke 1:37, “With God nothing is impossible.”

 

[inkaneer]

BrianH:
If you think your quote is evidence then you better read it again. Nowwhere does it identify anyone as a sibling of Jesus. This Judas may have been “called a brother of Jesus” but that is far from saying he was an actual sibling. The Bible quotes people as saying Jesus was the carpenter’s [Joseph] son. What people say and what reality is often are not the same. Paul writes in Holy scripture that He saw the Apostle James who he calls the brother of the Lord but of the two apostles named James neither is a sibling brother. Jesus himself calls the apostles His brothers. Does that make them siblings? Once again you are imposing 21st century meanings onto first century terms and resulting in error. The early chutrch writers areunanimous in saying Mary had no other children. They should know better than either you or I.

 

[BrianH]

If you think your quote is evidence then you better read it again. Nowwhere does it identify anyone as a sibling of Jesus. This Judas may have been “called a brother of Jesus” but that is far from saying he was an actual sibling. The Bible quotes people as saying Jesus was the carpenter’s [Joseph] son. What people say and what reality is often are not the same. Paul writes in Holy scripture that He saw the Apostle James who he calls the brother of the Lord but of the two apostles named James neither is a sibling brother. Jesus himself calls the apostles His brothers. Does that make them siblings? Once again you are imposing 21st century meanings onto first century terms and resulting in error. The early chutrch writers areunanimous in saying Mary had no other children. They should know better than either you or I.

What does according to the flesh called a brother mean?
What does according to the flesh mean in scripture and Ante-Nicene literature?

 

[Luvtosew]

Well in Catholic writings,

they could of been her step kids, as Saint Joseph was married before and had 6 kids I believe, and well it said that Joseph was 90 years old when he married Mary and she was what 15 or so, and that is why the last we hear of Joseph is at the wedding and he probably had died before Jesus began his public life, at the age of 30.

so she and Joseph knew she was carrying Jesus, and that she remained a virgin.

Or it could be that Jesus just called them brothers.

it does not make it clear in the Bible and many things are not made clear, so that is why the Christians are divided into different churches. We all want answers, me too, but I think the only thing we need to do is have faith and believe Jesus is the Son of God and lead a Christian life, and I just don’t think it matters much of what Christian religion you belong to, but we all want to belong somewhere. I myself am going thru a battle in my mind whether I should remain a Catholic, or my goodness if I’m even worthy of being a Catholic.

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Originally Posted by po18guy
Mary declared herself to the the “bond slave” of the Lord (Luke 1:38). What do you think that means?

The term "handmaid or, as in Acts 2:18, “manservant” or “maidservant” is a term not in general use today. A handmaid was a person who served one person exclusively rather than a regular maid whose services were available to several. In first century parlance a handmaiden was more than a hired servant. Usually they were slaves or were bonded to a another person. The term therefore denotes ownership or belonging. So when Mary claims that she is the “handmaid of the Lord” She is saying, in effect, “I belong to the Lord and to the Lord alone”. Joseph, if he was an righteous man as the scriptures tell us he was, would have known explicitly that Mary belong to God and not to him. Here the scriptures, through the words of Mary herself, are telling you that Mary remained a virgin

As for Acts 2:18, we read:

“yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.” [Acts 2:18 RSV]

These ‘menservants’ and ‘maidservants’ are people who are committed to God.

Because being a handmaid to someone meant belonging to that someone. Remember this is first century [BC ]Israel here not 21st century America. There is no woman’s lib. Women were chattel, property. If you belonged to someone you were the property of that someone. Now imagine you are Joseph and Mary tells you that she is the handmaid of God [God’s property]. You, Joseph, in addition to being a righteous man receive a dream in which an angel tells you not to divorce Mary because she is with child by God. Now do you dare to touch her? Remember the story of the men who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant. They died. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant for just as the Ark of the Old Covenant held the Manna, Word of God [The tablets] and the rod of Aaron [thepriesthood] so too the Ark of the New Covenant would hold Jesus who was the Word of God, the new bread come down from heaven and our eternal high priest. Now what’s your answer? Do you dare to touch what belongs to God??? I await your response./QUOTE

---

In Numbers Chapter 30, God gives instructions concerning those who make vows to Him. It specifically addresses vows made by young women. In some instances, the father or the husband have the authority to nullify the vow. When the vow is nullified, the young woman is released from her vow.

This chapter has not yet been discussed in relation to the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity. It may have bearing on it. The angel’s instructions to Joseph were to not be afraid to take Mary as his wife. Perhaps Numbers 30 is part of the backstory of the angel’s instructions.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Absolutely. Also, the angel also commanded Joseph to take Mary into his home. “Do not be afraid to take Mary” (Matthew 1:20) is not a suggestion.

Nor is a declaration of a supposed perpetual virginity.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

How do you know that Von Soden or his other Reformation scholars are correct?

If Christian doctrine needed to be reformed that means the previous doctrine was deficient, and anyone born before the “reform” happened did not have the truth.

"But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately." Acts 18:26

Cat Herder using your logic which of the following do you hold to be true?

Priscilla and Aquila needed to “reform” Apollo’s doctrine because it was deficient, or
prior to the events of Acts 18 no one had the truth?

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

Several problems occur in your argument.
a) Why would Jesus’ brothers do not accept Him as prophet and Messiah? If you was Mary would you have not instructed your children (if any) to obey Jesus and sees Him as Messiah?
b) If Jesus only needed John to take care of Mary temporarily, why didn’t He say: “Take Mary home and care for her”? Why did He specifically assigned the task of sonhood to John and motherhood to Mary and told them to see each other as Mother and Son? Your theory is greatly flawed in this

a. Mark wrote those words of Jesus. Do you doubt him? (Is this not 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. But Jesus said unto them, “A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. …And he marvelled because of their unbelief.” Mark 6: 3-6)

 Why did Jesus' family not believe that He was the Messiah?  We are not told.

b. In light of Mark 6: 3-6, Jesus’ family (brothers, cousins, kinsmen, whoever they were) had rejected Him. Had they rejected Mary as well because she chose to go with Him? I don’t know. But since she was with Him in Jerusalem and they were not, to whom would Jesus assign her immediate care? Why not a cousin, an uncle, a close kinsman? Well, they had rejected Him.

You ask why Jesus didn’t state it some other way: I decline to put words into His mouth.

Call this theory flawed if you wish, but no one else has addressed the issue of Jesus being rejected by His own family and the ramifications of that rejection.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Originally Posted by po18guy
Mary declared herself to the the “bond slave” of the Lord (Luke 1:38). What do you think that means?

In Numbers Chapter 30, God gives instructions concerning those who make vows to Him. It specifically addresses vows made by young women. In some instances, the father or the husband have the authority to nullify the vow. When the vow is nullified, the young woman is released from her vow.

This chapter has not yet been discussed in relation to the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity. It may have bearing on it. The angel’s instructions to Joseph were to not be afraid to take Mary as his wife. Perhaps Numbers 30 is part of the backstory of the angel’s instructions.

So let’s dsiscuss it. Numbers 30:6-8 says:

“6 And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, 7 and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. 8 But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.” [Num 30:6-8] [RSV]

Now show me where scripture says Joseph expressed his disapproval of Mary’s vow. Because with out that expressed disapproval then Mary’s vows stand.

 

[inkaneer]

Hail Holy Queen Scott Hahn:

pp.66-67

p. 152

p.135

See also the audio file of:

Eric Svendsen vs Gerry Matatics - Perpetual Virginity.mp3

LINK

So why does Jesus call the Apostles his brothers Adelphoi]? Were they all from the same womb? Watch it, for some of the Apostles were older than Jesus. What does that do for Jesus being Mary’s first born? Watch it, to deny the apostles were in fact Jesus’ siblings you in fact say Jesus was either wrong or worse, a liar. Either way you are saying scripture is in error. Now which is it?

 

[inkaneer]

What does according to the flesh called a brother mean?
What does according to the flesh mean in scripture and Ante-Nicene literature?

Look at your quote. And by the way you did not give proper credit of the source of the quote. That is proper protocol. So please do so. Here is the short answer. You left off the important part. I will underline it for you.

“There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother.”

You see the part, “…was called his brother.” is not the same as “was his brother.” I pointed out in my first response Paul called the apostle James, “the brother of the Lord” but we know that is not the case at least as far a being a sibling brother. So two things are clear here. First what someone is called is not the same as what is reality. Second the term brother adelphos/adelphoi] was used quite liberally and did not always mean a sibling relationship. If it did then the Bible is not inerrant as you claim it is.