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

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

Thank you for the thorough research here. I learned of the use of the phrase “until” a long time ago but do not have the source, this was most helpful. I made the point somewhere recently that a teenage mother as Mary, who with Joseph was poor- the two turtle doves for His Presentation in the Temple at 40 days old, would not have had the psychic energy or resources to raise the Son of God and other children. That argument is from common sense apart from her role as Virgin Mother and the tradiiton of perpetual virgin. Would those other chidren be half-full of Original Sin on their father’s side or would her sinlessness be enough to covver them?

 

[Tomb54]

Jesus’ death fulfilled the Jewish Law code. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not in a position to care for the newly founded Christian way of life. John 7:5 and THEN there is this scripture from my sister’s Bible. NWT (1 Corinthians 9:4-5) *We have authority to lead about a sister as a wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ce′phas, do we not?

Bedtime

This does not make logical sense. Jesus death fulfilled the Jewish law for Christians but if he had brothers and sister they would still have been under Jewish Law. In fact the Bible even said Jesus was born under the law and it never says Jesus’ Brother or sister (if there ever where any) were Christians so they would still be under Jewish law and therefore still would have been sinning if they did not take care of their mother. Also Early Jewish converts to Christainity still followed their Jewish commandments as seen in some of the early conflict within the church. This is Jewish law even today as far as I can find.

Another Protestant translation of the same verse
Have we not power to eat and to drink?
5Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
6Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? KJV

 

[Cat_Herder]

Jesus’ death fulfilled the Jewish Law code. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not in a position to care for the newly founded Christian way of life. John 7:5 and THEN there is this scripture from my sister’s Bible. NWT (1 Corinthians 9:4-5) *We have authority to lead about a sister as a wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ce′phas, do we not?

Bedtime

The NWT is the Jehovah’s Witness Bible. As you have probably noticed, it is completely different than all other translations because it is not a faithful copy of the ancient manuscripts.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the divinity of Christ, so naturally they are going to deny everything else that is special about Him in order to downplay His divinity. But there is one part they forgot to edit:

[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 1:7-8[/BIBLEDRB]

He who is coming is God Almighty; but He who was pierced is He whom is coming. Jehovah, i.e. God the Father, was never pierced by anyone. But His Son was, and so the Scripture plainly shows that Jesus Christ is God.

 

[Tomb54]

The NWT is the Jehovah’s Witness Bible. As you have probably noticed, it is completely different than all other translations because it is not a faithful copy of the ancient manuscripts.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the divinity of Christ, so naturally they are going to deny everything else that is special about Him in order to downplay His divinity. But there is one part they forgot to edit:

[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 1:7-8[/BIBLEDRB]

He who is coming is God Almighty; but He who was pierced is He whom is coming. Jehovah, i.e. God the Father, was never pierced by anyone. But His Son was, and so the Scripture plainly shows that Jesus Christ is God.

Thanks for letting me know for sure. I was thinking it was something like that which also means they do not look at the history of the Jews or the early Christians to see what they actually believed. I am looking for what the Jews actually taught and believed in relationship to this as I see it as having relevence in the churches teaching on Mary as being ever virgin.

 

[KARIN_HARRIS]

The NWT is the Jehovah’s Witness Bible. As you have probably noticed, it is completely different than all other translations because it is not a faithful copy of the ancient manuscripts

.

John 8:1-11
Matt. 17:21; 18:11; Acts 8:37.
1 Timothy 3:16
Mark 13:32.
1 John 5:7 …are just some of the changes and corrections made to the
Codex Sinaiticus (Your Link above)…,now compare the changes with the NWT–

The Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the divinity of Christ, so naturally they are going to deny everything else that is special about Him in order to downplay His divinity. But there is one part they forgot to edit:

Yes, she and I have gone round and round–but, then she showed me this:
web.archive.org/web/20031204162016/mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm

…pretty compelling. Also, when you look at Rev chapter 1 you have to look at the whole context:
Revelation 1:1-8

New International Version (NIV)
Revelation 1
Prologue
1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.
4 John,
To the seven churches in the province of Asia:
Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits[a] before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,”**
and “every eye will see him, (Don’t forget John 14:16)
even those who pierced him”; --(Who the Guard?)
and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”[c]
So shall it be! Amen.
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” **

 

[Cat_Herder]

Yes, she and I have gone round and round–but, then she showed me this:
web.archive.org/web/20031204162016/mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm

…pretty compelling. Also, when you look at Rev chapter 1 you have to look at the whole context:

Some person on the Internet is a compelling witness to something that happened 2,000 years ago? She will believe the account of some person on the Internet over a 1,400 year old papyrus? Why does the NWT look nothing like the oldest Greek manuscripts?

Let me put it this way: your sister will agree that there were no Jehovah’s Witnesses between 1931 and whenever she thinks the church supposedly “apostatized” and became Catholic, probably around 300-400 AD. Why would Jehovah walk out on the whole world and let everyone go to hell for almost two thousand years, especially when it is written:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

Jehovah/God would be acting against His express will if He allowed everyone to go to hell just because they were “unlucky” enough to be born during some “dark age.” So there is no apostasy of the Church, period.

Now let’s look at the NIV…

7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,”**
and “every eye will see him, (Don’t forget John 14:16**)
even those who pierced him”; --(Who the Guard?)
and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”[c]
So shall it be! Amen.
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

John 14:16 is the promise of the Holy Spirit. Who pierced the Holy Spirit? Who pierced Jehovah (God the Father)? Neither of them was pierced. And John 14:16 cannot refer to anyone but God:

[BIBLEDRB]John 14:16[/BIBLEDRB]

No man is with us forever.

 

[Nelka]

She was a virgin.

She had no other children.

Five first Saturdays of reparation were requested to atone for the five ways in which people offend the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

1. Attacks upon Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
2. Attacks against her Perpetual Virginity.
3. Attacks upon her Divine Maternity and the refusal to accept her as the Mother of all mankind.
4. For those who try to publicly implant in children’s hearts indifference, contempt and even hatred of this Immaculate Mother.
5. For those who insult her directly in her sacred images.

How can you believe that she would not be a virgin?

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

in Josph’s house–still firstborn son in household would have rights that Jesus had…not Jesus.

St. Joseph had other children from a previous marriage, thus Jesus was not the firstborn of St. Joseph in an adoptive sense or in any snese. Sacred Scripture and Tradition is very specific, Jesus was the firstborn and only born of Blessed Virgin Mary. Ready to accept the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Blessed Virgin Mary yet?

 

[Tomb54]

I will say the Catholic Church fought this battle before with JW’s beliefs. They were called Arians and this fight is where the Holy Spirit led the Church to the teaching of the Trinity because the bible said it would lead His church to ALL truths and the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

The bible is part of the Catholic Tradition but so is the belief in Mary ever virgin. Both views over the ages still uphold the ever virgin part. Whether you want to say Joseph had other children before his marriage or not Mary was always considered ever virgin by the Traditions of the early Church. I agree with most here that Joseph did not have other children because of the 1st born issue or the Jesus giving Mary to John. I still think my thinking on jewish law also works because the Jewish law was not fufilled until after Jesus death and fulfilled does not mean eliminated either. I just need the reference within the Jewish law to prove it.

 

[JonNC]

Trevor, thank you for the research. Of course, I have a few problems with it. First, re: “firstborn.” Your research obfuscates the issue by mixing the general and the specific. In the general case of large populations, such as Egypt during the killing plague or Israel during the census, the focus was on the “first one” regardless of there being any later-born siblings. In those large populations treated as a whole, we do not know, nor do we need to know if any individuals had additional children. However, in specific instances, such as with Esau, the meaning of the word “firstborn” is quite specific in saying that there was another sibling. You apparently have chosen the ‘general’ case as your preferred understanding of “firstborn.”

Re: the usage of “til” or “until,” again I see obfuscation. So, using your research conclusions, please tell what these sentences mean: 1. The student told his parents, “I will not be home till exams are over.” Will the student be forever taking exams? Will he never go home? 2. The doctor told the new father to have no union with his wife till six weeks had passed. Did the new father understand that to mean ‘never again?’

Judging from the conclusions of your research, Matthew 1:25 should have been written: “And he (Joseph) never knew her (Mary) even after she brought forth her one and only child.”

Matthew certainly was skilled enough in language usage to write v. 25 exactly as he intended with no difficult, hidden meanings imbedded within it. We can either accept Matthew’s ordinary, commonsense usage or we can ‘interpret’ it into something entirely different.

One additional point to ponder: How could Matthew possibly have known whether or not Joseph had union with Mary after the birth of Jesus? Two ways: either Mary told him or he saw the results in the later-born siblings of Jesus.

To me personally, it matters little whether Jesus had siblings. Nothing changes the fact that He is the Only Begotten Son of God born of a virgin. It’s all about Him!

Now let the stone throwing begin!

Not throwing stones, here, but Luther responds (well, with him it is a bit of stone-throwing) this way:

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

And the Lutheran Confessions concurr:

On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. **Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin. **

And take note that this statement is made regarding the nature of Christ. The Lutheran writers saw perpetual virginity of st. Mary as very Christ-centered.

Now, Lutherans are free to not believe in sempre virgo, but in light of scripture and Church history, including the Lutheran Confessions, I don’t see how one can do so.

Jon

 

[Tomb54]

Yes, she and I have gone round and round–but, then she showed me this:
web.archive.org/web/20031204162016/mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm

I looked at some of these links on this website and then went exploring and found what I tought to be true. In the link “Is the NWT biased and unsholarly” The link supported the JW view but looking further into what C Houtman actually said sheds light on the truth as he states the NWT is a very poor translation —
“In my view, the New World Translation is an inadequate translation. The Watchtower Society misuses my articles by quoting sentences without their context.”

So I will stick to the true church’s interpetations on what scripture actually says (you know the Church that is almost 2000 years old) and the Traditions it also uses to lead us. So Mary is ever virgin.

 

[KARIN_HARRIS]

Some person on the Internet is a compelling witness to something that happened 2,000 years ago? She will believe the account of some person on the Internet over a 1,400 year old papyrus

? Why does the NWT look nothing like the oldest Greek manuscripts?

Let me put it this way: your sister will agree that there were no Jehovah’s Witnesses between 1931 and whenever she thinks the church supposedly “apostatized” and became Catholic, probably around 300-400 AD. Why would Jehovah walk out on the whole world and let everyone go to hell for almost two thousand years, especially when it is written:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

Jehovah/God would be acting against His express will if He allowed everyone to go to hell just because they were “unlucky” enough to be born during some “dark age.” So there is no apostasy of the Church, period.

Now let’s look at the NIV…

John 14:16 is the promise of the Holy Spirit. Who pierced the Holy Spirit? Who pierced Jehovah (God the Father)? Neither of them was pierced. And John 14:16 cannot refer to anyone but God:

[BIBLEDRB]John 14:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Whoops, I meant John 14:19 now go back to :“every eye will see him”

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in “hell” Gen.3:19; Ps.13:3; Eccl. 9:5 web.archive.org/web/20010927135312/http://bibles.homepad.com/

Regarding your question about the “Dark Ages”…Jesus told of weeds that would grow while the Apostles were ‘sleeping’ (in death by the way) why would God allow weeds to grow at all? Also, who were the weeds that followed right after the Apostle John died? AND who was Paul talking about at Acts 20:29?

Like I said I have gone round the block with her on many of these things–did you know that their Study Bible tells the exact manuscript that were used for almost every scripture and Why they selected that manuscript? They hide nothing from anyone. Check out this jehovah.to/xlation/fp.html…I mean really, I have no reason to dislike them.
But then again I don’t dislike anyone. I think everyone has at least some truth.

 

[KARIN_HARRIS]

 

[Tomb54]

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

**RE JEWISH LAW. Recall JESUS. condemnation of the Temple Gang who twisted the LAW of korban, taking care of parents according to the Law to ** give it to their grubby pockets in violation of the Fourth Commandment.

 

[po18guy]

Not throwing stones, here, but Luther responds (well, with him it is a bit of stone-throwing) this way:

And the Lutheran Confessions concurr:

And take note that this statement is made regarding the nature of Christ. The Lutheran writers saw perpetual virginity of st. Mary as very Christ-centered.

Now, Lutherans are free to not believe in sempre virgo, but in light of scripture and Church history, including the Lutheran Confessions, I don’t see how one can do so.

Jon

“Behold the bond slave of the Lord” (Luke 1:38) Mary placed no time limit placed on her vow. In today’s culture and society where words are meaningless, this has lost its power.

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

Does it bother you that no one on earth held this belief UNTIL recently?

If it does not matter, why do you default to the anti-Catholic, Anti-Orthodox, anti-Anglican, anti-Calvin, anti-Luther position? Something to think about.

I guess it’s because I am not emotionally invested in the particular tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary, nor do I need to defend it against all assaults. I am free to take an unbiased look at the Scriptures and form an objective opinion without having my mind pre-conditioned to have to superimpose that pre-conceived notion upon Scripture. A reading of Matthew 1:25 with no pre-conceived notions plainly tells me that after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary were like a normal, married couple. No theologians needed to muddy the waters. No traditions to uphold. Just a plain understanding of what Matthew said. For the other arguments in support of perpetual virginity – the Scriptural support is weak or non-existent. Luther and the others have spoken for themselves – maybe. Remember, the Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures to prove what they were being taught.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Of course, 1st century AD writers totally used English phraseology and 21st century understanding of words like ‘until’ (the ENGLISH translation of the original words of Scripture). . .

Scriptural passages from not only the Old Testament (“And Michal, wife of David, had no children until the day of her death”) meant that Michal had children after she died. Of course.

And Scriptural passages from the New Testament ("And Christ must reign UNTIL all His enemies are under His feet) mean that after all the enemies surrender, Christ STOPS ruling.

Perfectly clear. If the understanding of ‘until’ means, as the ‘modernist’ says, that the use of ‘until’ means that after that ‘until’ the preceding action CHANGES, then that meaning must be EXACTLY the same every time the word ‘until’ is used. Right?

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

The entire post was pure conjecture and failed to refute my post, so the argument still stands, but let’s entertain this fiction.

1. The Holy Family went into Egypt as three and left as three (no other children). Even when Christ was twelve when the Holy Family attended the feast of Passover in Jerusalem, they were still only three as no other child was mentioned. So when did they have other children? After the account of finding Christ in the Temple? Joseph was of old age, how could he?

When the Holy Family came out of Egypt, how old was Jesus? Does the fact that no other children were mentioned when Jesus was 12 years old mean that there were no others? It’s quite a leap to make that assumption. When did they have other children? The gospel writers were focused on Jesus and did not consider it important enough to tell us one way or the other. Joseph was of old age? Where did you learn that fact?

 

[po18guy]

I am free to take an unbiased look at the Scriptures and form an objective opinion…

…which is the result of private interpretation - which scripture prohibits. At some point, one either makes up their own beliefs, or trusts that God has kept the truth safely deposited somewhere. It is not all in the bible. It cannot be. The bible tells you so.

You have been shown that Catholic doctrine does not conflict with scripture, yet you still decide against. Default: Bias?

You explicitly trust the Catholic Church for the truth and reliability of every single word in your bible (which Bishops argued and a Pope decreed), yet you oppose the judgment of that same authority when it comes to filling in the huge gaps that are present in scripture. Default: Bias?